City Council - Regular Meeting

This is the Cortez City Council regular meeting. Today is Tuesday, January 13, 2026, and the time is 7:30 p.m. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask you to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Can we have the roll call? Keith Offer here. Dehaven here. Spruel here. Do Randall here. Lewis here. Medina

here. All right. We have a quorum tonight. Do we have approval of the agenda? Madame Mayor, I move that council approve the agenda as presented for January 13, 2026. Second. A motion made by Lewis and second. Randall, yes. Keoffer, yes. Dehaven, yes. Lewis, yes. Yes. Spruel, yes. Medina,

yes. All right. Um, I have um a letter I'd like to read before I get into the the next agenda item. Um, it's going to be hard for me to say, but um, my fellow council members and the residents of the city of Cortez, uh, it is with a heavy heart and following deep reflection that I stand before you today to announce my resignation from city council effective April 28th, 2026. Serving this city in the role as a council member and later as mayor has been one of the greatest honors of my life. Together, we have navigated challenges and celebrated milestones that have made our community a better place to live, work, and thrive. I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished during my tenure, and I want to express my sincerest gratitude to my colleagues on this council and the dedicated city staff for their hard work and tireless partnership. During the past few months, my personal and professional responsibilities outside of city hall have increased significantly. To lead the city effectively requires a level of time, energy, and presence that I can no longer provide at the standard this community deserves. After long deliberation, I've come to realize that I must step back in order to pri prioritize everinccreasing demands upon my time that are conflicting with important commitments to my family and my career. I've dedicated over 10 years of service to this city, and I'm confident I am leaving it better than I found it. I want to thank the residents and council for your trust in me. Your passion for our city is what drives its success and I have no doubt that our community will continue to thrive under the leadership of the next elected council. Though I'm stepping down from this role, I will always remain a steadfast supporter of our city and its future. And thank you for the opportunity to serve.

Thank you all. It was a hard decision, but um I felt it right that the uh um citizens pick my replacement instead of leaving at a later time. Um so my four-year term, I'm ending two years early and so my seat will be on the ballot. Thank you guys. Okay, the consent agenda. Uh, number two on our agenda is the consent agenda. The listing under consent agenda is a group of items to be acted on with a single motion and vote. This agenda is designed to expedite the handling of limited routine matters by city council. Either the public or council member may request that an item may be removed from the consent agenda at the time prior to council's vote. The mayor will or I will ask if a citizen or council member wishes to have any specific item removed from the consent agenda for discussion after reading. A approval of the minutes for the city council meeting on December 9th and special city council work session on December 17th, 2025. B approval of the expenditure list for January 13, 2026. C. Approval of a hotel and restaurant liquor license renewal for Rudowski Unlimited LLC, DBA Rudowski Unlimited, located at 2310 East Empire Street, Cortez. D. Approval of a fermented malt beverage and wine off- premises liquor license renewal for Safeway store number 1892 located at 1580 East Main Street, Cortez. E. Approval of a hotel and restaurant liquor license renewal for Lakeside Lanes, Inc. DBA Lakeside Lanes located at 410 Lakeside Drive, Cortez. F. Approval of a hotel and restaurant liquor license renewal for Elboroough Poncho LLC DBA Gustavo's Authentic Mexican Restaurant and Bar located at 125 East Main Street um unit A Court Cortez and G approval of a unit of a hotel restaurant liquor license renewal

for Hunan Kitchen aka DBA Hunan Chinese Restaurant located at 2561 East Main Street Cortez and H approval of a special event permit to to allow for pet's sake to host an event in the turquo turquoise Raven Art Gallery located at 104 East Main Street Cortez on March 21st, 2026 from 10:00 a.m. to 1000 p.m. Do we have an approval of the consent agenda? Madame Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented. Second. Motion made by Dobury and seconded by Randall Spurl. Yes. Randall, yes. Lewis, yes. Dehaven, yes. Keoffer, yes. Door, yes.

Medina,

yes. Okay. Uh, we're on number three now on our agenda. Public participation. Individuals may not comment on an item that's later on in the agenda. During the public participation time, there's no limit to the number of speakers. Although this public comment will be held to an overall time limit of 30 minutes, and each speaker has a time limit of three minutes per person. All right. I have uh our first comment card. Do we have any more? Okay. All right. I'd like to invite James McInley up to the podium. Thank you. Oh, we can't hear you quite well.

Red lights on. Oh, it needs to be green. That's green. How's that? Perfect.

Thank you. I am deeply concerned for our community. Over the last week, I've given more than 50 people that have long lived in this community, all middle class, left, far right, the opportunity to tell me that my concern was unfounded and that I didn't need to come and express it to you. They shared my concern. They told me to come. We're dying for meaningful work, living wage jobs in this community. Vibrant e economic development. And our main industries are drying up. Tourism, fossil fuels, agriculture going the way of our water. The resource I can see that we can develop is ourselves. A month ago, by chance, I discovered that hundreds of communities around are doing just that by focusing on upgrading, upscaling, bridging out of poverty their impoverished citizens. Without question, it's bringing their communities great joy. And they continue to invest in the programs which suggest to me that it's working for them. the methodologies, the road mapaps, the tools they're using, equivalent to what I used to get from the CVY organization when I was an exec in high-tech. Um, I didn't know they were there. They're there. Um, they will be donated to the library tomorrow. Um, I think there's a good chance they'll be there. We're in the poverty management business here in Cortez. It's very nice, but the way the economy is going, we can be pretty sure those funding sources are going away, too. If we convert from the poverty management to the human development business, as these other communities have, it certainly would increase our odds of attracting new funding and maybe new businesses. It's the best option I can see. at the Facebook group Cortez People Caring. There are live links to these uh

materials. I've asked the council for a followup. Please tell me if I should not be concerned or if I should, how I can help. James McInley, Master Jesus Base Camp, 111 South Elm Street. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, do we have anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak who didn't turn in a comment card? Okay, thank you. We'll move on on our agenda. Number four is presentations. We have none tonight. So, we're going to move on to number five, public hearings. 5A is resolution number one, series 2026. Council will consider a site plan review for Lew LLC on 1880 Industrial Road. Presented by Nancy Dawd Doll, our contract city planner. Good evening. It's great to be back here. that. So, as stated, the request here tonight is for a site plan for a 4,000 square foot office shop building at 1880 Industrial uh Drive submitted by 1880 Industrial LLC, also doing business as a and known as Love Pew. This project has been a long time coming in front of you and due to that um in part it is being reviewed under the old land use code. So I want to make note of that. Um I have it in front of me so if there's questions I can go back and and look that up but I it's important to make note of that. Um, I think we also can

make note that the applicant's representative is appearing virtually, although the applicants are here also, so I'm not sure who's speaking on their behalf, but um their the representative is virtually online. Their one of the major issues with this project has been drainage. So the contract city engineer is also online if you have questions for him. I also need to make note and oops so you can see right here that the property at 1880 Industrial Drive is located in the industrial park there. I put the star on there. Um, you can also see that the building is already on the property. This there was an oversight by staff in that grading permits and building permits were issued for this building prior to submittal of a site plan review to the planning commission as required by code. It was caught prior to final CO for the building. So they there is they're operating under a temporary CO as we moved the project through the public process. Just want to make note that staff did work hard to change processes and put um other processes in place to make sure that that kind of oversight didn't happen hasn't happened again or won't happen again. Um, so with the site plan, we've got that there in front of you. It's

4,000. It's an office shop building. It's zoned industrial, a 4.1.6 acre property located in the industrial park. It is bounded on the northwest and south by industrially zoned properties and to the east is carpenter reserve with a site plan. The main issues to consider are really standard development standards as you can see um generally does it meet parking does it meet setbacks etc. the use is an allowed use under the industrial park zoning. If we look at those standards, the property greatly exceeds most of them. The minimum lot area setbacks, lot coverage, floor area does not apply, maximum height, parking. Um I did make note and highlight that landscaping and remember this is the old code the old codes requirement is 10% of the commercial area to be developed. They are proposing 400 square ft in that the applicant interpretation was a 4,000 foot building. So they were disturbing with the building 4,000 square feet. So 10% of that is 400 square feet. I'll get to that in a little bit. Um the I want to make note that also that under the old code the planning commission all the standards are written for the planning commission. So I'm quoting from

the code in here so that you that's why it's referring to the planning commission not the city council. The code had some conflicting provisions that talked about planning commission reviewing them and also the city council reviewing them. Um in this case we we were considering that the city council would review this also um because there is provisions in that. So um the planning commission did review this project on April 1st, 2025 last year. Um they did vote three to zero to recommend approval. Since that time, the applicants have been working with staff and the city's contract engineer to adequately address some middle issues. In addition to two waiverss that they're asking for, one of the major issues was drainage, which with the adjacent parcel. Um, let me go back to the site plan. So, the adjacent neighbor here had some concerns with drainage, which was running down this property line. Um, they worked, the applicants have worked hard since April to ensure that the submitt meets all city requirements. been going back and forth with the contract engineer to make sure that that has happened and um that he is the contract engineer is online if you have questions on that at this point he has he feels that it does address all the drainage issues. So, as far as development standards, I think we went over they meet all of them except for two. Um, landscaping the 10%

of the commercial area to develop would be 10% of the 4 acres and that's how it was interpreted with the old land use code. They're proposing 400 square feet. Um, which let's get to it. is this area towards the entrance. It's proposed to be landscape with decorative rocks um and some gravel. The I I'm not sure the decorative rocks appear to be on site already. Um and there it it is somewhat vegetated with sage and natural vegetation in that area. The other issue would be access. Under the old land use code, the driveway materials are were are required to essentially be paved, but I gave you the language there that um that was necessary to be met. They're proposing a gravel access drive. The code did clearly state that unacceptable materials are those that it goes on and on and specifically mentions gravel or gravel as unacceptable materials. Um there are no exceptions in the ex the older code for industrial developments or for those without general public customer access. The applicants in this case have requested that you wave this requirement due to the steep grade, the storm water concerns, and the lack of access by the general public. And essentially them and their employees are the only ones that would be using that access.

Um went over the landscaping a couple times. We've always in the past considered it to be 10% of the property. Um their request is that it's 10% only of the building. Um so again they're asking for that to be waved. I provided for you the agency comments. Really the only significant one is from the city engineer which is BHI. Andrew is online if you have any questions on that. And I think with that we'll go with the staff recommendation which is for approval. There are a three conditions that we want to make that we would recommend. The first one being to make please make it clear or is the first one is the one standard have to meet everything in the code. In this case it's the older land use code. The second condition, we want to make it clear and you need to decide if you want to grant the waiverss as requested, include that second condition so that it's clear that they're not required to do any more landscaping than the 400 square ft proposed and they're not required to pave the driveway. If you don't believe that's appropriate, you can eliminate condition number two. Condition number one will cover those requirements. Um third condition is prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy applicants engineer shall certify that all improvements were constructed in conformance with the improved plans. Again, that's a little unusual, but because they are already operating under a temporary certificate of

occupancy, sorry, travel at Christmas got me. Um, we need to word it with the final certificate of occupancy. Are there any questions? Nancy, I've got I've got a question about the uh gravel road. Um, as you address that that's in our code that it's unacceptable. I would think that would be even more unacceptable. Uh, that being that it's a steep slope. It that that gravel might, you know, just slough off if you have heavy rain or or something. Was that addressed at the uh PNZ meeting or

It was not addressed in that manner. Um I'll let the applicants speak to that or perhaps you might question Andrew from BHI the the city engineer. Right. I I think uh either one would be fine.

Andrew, are you there? Yep, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Uh this is uh Bill Lewis, council member. I So my question is that that that gravel usage on on a steep hill, I'm just concerned that that gravel would just eventually slough off and you know, then you basically have a road that's unattainable.

Yeah. Uh I do believe that the slopes on the road themselves don't exceed any maximum slope uh requirements that the city has at this time. Uh the the bigger concern for slopes on the site were uh some of the areas left undisturbed. The the gravel um was not an area of concern for us. Okay. Thank you.

I have a question for you. Um, on the same topic with the gravel, um, I I appreciate that under the landscaping waiver that they're requesting that we have made those landscaping waivers or something similar in the past. Have we made waivers for this gravel type of a situation recently or can can you pull that up without researching further?

Yes. Um, with the independent log, the city council granted the waiver to I mean there was some old pavement on there, but um other other than that they you granted the waiver to not require the paving due to their I believe due to the heavy equipment and what it might do to the site. The other most recent review in the industrial park was Body by Design and they have a paved and they're paving their entire parking lot. So, thank you. So, it's 50/50.

One more question for you to do with the driveway. From my understanding, the only people that are going to be using this is the employees. Is that correct? It's not a public access. for you should probably direct that to the applicant also, but that's

all right. Would we like to invite the the applicant up or your representative to speak?

Hi, I can't see what's going on in the room, but this is Laurel Quintto. I'm the representative for the applicant. I'll just briefly talk first unless there's someone else standing up in the room, I think. Go ahead.

Okay. So, thank you Nancy for that overview. We the applicant agrees with the staff's recommendations and would just ask that council adopt the resolution that the staff is proposing regarding the paving varants. That's something that Kevin Kistler will also be available to answer some questions. He'll talk about the grading and why gravel is being proposed here um specifically for helping with the drainage issues. Um and then another council member asked about other waiverss for gravel. We compiled all of the properties in the industrial park that have been paved or have gravel roads and it really is about 5050. I can pull up all of those properties if that would be helpful for the council members. Um, and then for the second variance that's being requested, the landscaping, the applicants believe that they meet the 10% requirement for what's defined as develop developable area. So looking at the site plan they're really the whole property is not developed or developable but taking taking the staff's interpretation we think that this variance is appropriate here looking at other city council meetings. There's a quote from Mayor Medina saying that landscaping requirements have never been enforced on the industrial zoned properties. That was in April of 2025. So, we think that it would be um pretty unfair use of discretion to impose a stricter requirement here. So, um other than that, I'm going to let um Miss Thompson speak about the project generally and then Kevin is available to talk about the drainage and the paving

specifically. Thank you guys. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jenna Thompson. Um, me along with my parents own 1880 Industrial Road. Um, you mind speaking a little more in the mic? Thank you. Yeah, sorry. I'm a little nervous.

I just wanted to give a little history. Um, we bought the property in 2022. Um, we applied for a grading permit in December of 2022. It was approved by the city. Um, we didn't begin grading until spring of 2023. Um but the city was there for grading inspections. Um that grading started on March 1st of 2023. Um May, June and July. Um we had Trouter Geotech um Thomas Engineering and um who else? Huddleston Land Surveying all doing the work to get pre prepared to submit a building permit. um engineered plans, the cover sheet, site plan, everything was submitted to the city on July 11th. Um a building permit was then issued on July 17th of 2023. Um we've we purchased a sewer tap in April of 23. We granted an easement to Empire Electric in May of 2023. all done in the order prior to having a building permit per your guys's code. Um, like I said, on July 17th of 2023, the building permit was issued. We paid the building permit fee um and a use tax for a total of $10,784.40. Um, nothing was ever said to us about having to do anything else. So, we proceeded with our building. Um, we began preparing the site at the end of July 2023. Um, we had absolutely no issues or concerns until our neighbors had issues with the city. It was then that the city told us that we didn't go through the proper process, um, which we were not informed about. However, a building permit was issued. So, we

proceeded and built our building. Um, in May, April, May of 2024 is when we were notified that there were problems and that we hadn't gone through the city's process, which we didn't know about. Um, and also just to make note, we are two lots away from the city industrial park, this service center. The city came out and performed seven building inspections. Nothing was ever said to us about not following process or doing anything. Everything was built to code. Um there were no issues at all until there was an issue. Um we were issued a temporary certificate of occupancy with special conditions. Um pending site plan review like Nancy discussed. Um let's see. Um, we got city or we got PNZ approval like Nancy stated um, April 1st of 2025 and then we received a notice from the city that our plans were not ready to go to council. So, we've been delayed since April of 2025 with this. Um, we were told by Miss Marchbanks that our engineer couldn't reach out to BHI directly, which hindered our process. Um, we had at least six rounds going back and forth with BHI and our engineer. Um, sometimes waiting two and a half weeks to hear a response from the city or the engineer. Um, that additional work has cost us thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, engineering fees, earthwork, construction loan stuff that we haven't been able to close out because we haven't got our final certificate of occupancy. Um, and like Nancy stated, we've worked diligently and in good faith to resolve any and all issues at a significant

financial and emotional burden to us. Um, and I think I'll have Kevin explain the engineering part.

Thank you. You guys have any questions for me before he goes? Thank you, council. So, to address your question specifically about the slope and about the gravel, one thing that um to remember is that again this development is under the jurisdiction of the previous land use code and not the current land use code. In the previous land use code, the section being referenced is from 5.02 02 and that section can contextually be interpreted as applying to parking. Now, in the case of the Thompson's development, they have installed a concrete pad for parking. So, in that way, they are compliant with the land use code of 2023. That same land use code in section 4.02 allows for the use of gravel as a paving surface on city streets and alleyways provided a minimum width of 15 feet is granted. Now, the use of gravel paved surfaces is generally acceptable within the Colorado Department of Transportation as well as the Federal Highway Administration. So, it's really not an aberration to use gravel, especially for as little access as will come in and out of this property. To express your concern about slopes specifically, again, as Bohan and Houston mentioned, the slopes on the gravel roadway are not typically the slopes that would evoke the concern of engineering practices. essentially it's not steep enough that the issues you're mentioning would typically be a problem. Now, alternatively, what could be a problem is if they were to pave it, because it is so steep, the pavement being impermeable to water, it could cause severe drainage issues. As the gravel road will allow the water to permeate into the surface, it will help mitigate some of those issues by it being gravel. Whereas, if it were paved, that water could run down the hill at a high velocity, which could cause potential issues downstream. So, as it is now, we don't have tremendous concern

in the world of engineering as far as that roadway being gravel. The one concern that was brought up was about having a small paved apron at the top of the road. And that would essentially be to protect any trucks from coming in and out of the property from damaging the existing city street just by giving it a little bit of a buffer so the wheels don't have to impact the side of the road. Now, I apologize if I bore you with all the technical details, but um I did want to make sure to express your concern directly. Uh before I launch into any other general engineering or specific engineering, were there any other questions from any members of council? Perfect. So, as was mentioned, there were concerns about drainage. Typically in the world of engineering, drainage best practice tries to look at how the water flowed on the land before there was any development. And then what we try to do is we try to make those patterns match the post-development condition. In other words, after we've built a property, we want the water to flow off that property very similarly to how it did before anything was built there. The most recent site development plan that we've submitted uh represents an agreement between city staff, their consultant engineers, myself as well as a general agreement between property owners that the drainage as it is designed will in fact work. It will direct any and all drainage away from the southern property line, therefore mediating any contribution to those drainage issues which may have been coming from the subject property. and it will restore the drainage patterns as closely as possible and practical to what the natural condition was. So that's essentially seven pages of site plans in a nutshell. Again, if there's any specific questions, we can certainly address that.

Have the neighbors been satisfied on the drainage now? Uh my understanding was there was some issues earlier about drainage onto their property. Is that fixed? So, we can't speak to the issues that are created by drainage coming from the property to the south, but we can speak to the issues created by any drainage that may be coming from the property to the north. And any of those issues are fully mitigated by this new plan. Okay. Now, tell me what you just said. In other words, we can direct our water to go the right way, but we can't make anyone else direct water anyway. That was better. Thank you. You got it.

Okay, I think we're ready to open this up for public comment then if I seeing no other questions. Thank you both. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. Thank you, council. All right, so we're going to open this up for um public comment. So, we'll start

about this application. Uh Sheldon Randall uh 1754 Sage Brush Circle. I own STR custom codings in the industrial park. I'm here tonight because the proposed Lew site plan asked for exceptions that are unfair, inconsistent, and are a direct disregard of the land use code. My business was the last site development approved in the industrial park before this proposal and I can tell you firsthand that my business was required to fully comply with the code including payment and landscaping standards. We did not receive variances and we were required to meet the standards as written. The land use code is very clear about the pavement requirements yet this site plan does not meet the standards. Even more concerning, staff acknowledges those deficiency but still recommends approval through those variances. That raises a serious question. If the code can be ignored, what is the purpose of having a code? Allowing this exception creates an uneven playing field and shows favoritism. Businesses that follow the rules, invest in significant resources, and complete development correctly are now being treated differently than a project that did not. That is unfair to the neighboring businesses who have held the higher standards and will now bear the consequences of this variance. If the driveway is now being described as too steep to meet the pavement requirements, that only approves the larger issue. Had the site development followed the correct review process before infrastructure was installed. The limitation would have been identified and addressed during the planning, not after the fact. The site plan process exists specifically to prevent situations like this. Allowing a variance now because the work is already done sets a dangerous president pre president precedence and rewards

non-compliance. Failure to follow the proper process should not become a justification of ex for exceptions. It should have consequences otherwise future applicants are encouraged to build first and ask for forgiveness later. I respectfully ask the council to require this development to meet the same standards that every other business in the industrial park has been required to meet. Consistent enforcement of the land use code protects safety, ensures fairness, and maintains trust in the city's development process. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. Tiffany Randall, 1754 Sage Brush Circle. I'm also owner of STR Custom Codings. I want to begin by being very clear. We are not opposed to this business and we're not opposed to growth. But what we are asking for is really simple. That the city enforce the land use code as it is written fairly and consistently. When businesses invest in Cortez, they rely on the predictability of the development process. They assume that if they follow the rules, meet the standards, and complete the process in the correct order, they will be treated the same as everyone else. When variances are granted after the fact, the predictability disappears. There is also a serious issue of accountability here. This site plan was submitted by a city employee, someone who knows or should know the land use code and the required development process. That makes a request for after the-act variances especially troubling. City staff should be held to the same standards as the businesses and residents they serve, if not higher. Anything less undermines the public trust. This decision doesn't just affect one property. It affects the every current and future business owner. It sends the message that compliance is optional and that standards depend on timing rather than rules. That kind of uncertainty discourages responsible investment and weakens confidence in the city's development process. The land use code was adopted for a reason. It balances economic development with safety, consistency, and long-term community value. When those standards are waved, especially because a project did not follow the correct process, the burden shifts to the neighboring businesses that did comply and play by the rules or they're put off for the future owner of the property to settle it. We want Cortez to grow. We want businesses to succeed, but growth only works when rules are enforced evenly. We

respectfully ask the council to uphold the land use code as it is written and require this development to meet the p the same paving and landscaping standards that others have been held to. Thank you.

Uh anyone else from the audience or public like to comment? All right, we'll close the um public comment portion of this hearing. um for discussion. Um I have a question about uh what the current land use uh land uh landscaping requirement would be if this was started with the new code. Okay, that might stump me. I'll have to look it up. But the landscape provisions in the new code are very different. Um they actually have materials and buffers and requirements. Um I did not compare I did not try and figure out what would be required on this property.

Okay. I was just thinking like percentage wise and you I can look it up while we let me go back. And Nancy, I think you said before, I just want to clarify that um it it's not typical to base the amount of landscaping on the size of the building, but to base it, it's usually on the size of the property. Correct.

Since I've been reviewing the site plans, we re based it on the size of the property. Um waivers were granted for independent log. They were not granted or requested for body by design. And though that's the last two I reviewed in the industrial park. Yeah. I I have a question regarding or I really am seeking clarification here. So would it be a simple thing to

new land use code is probably more restrictive than the one that was in place at 2009. Is that correct? as far as the driveway and the landscape requirements. Is that I would say it's correct about the landscaping requirements, but let me check. Um I haven't I haven't looked at that for a project yet.

Um we haven't had a site plan submitted under that new land use code that I'm aware of. The access requirements actually in the new land use code do not require the paving if there's no public access to a property. So I believe that under the current the new land use code they would not have been required to pay. So to clarify it from what to the best of your knowledge right now the driveway situation is probably equal as far as restrictiveness in the current code as to what it was in 2009 but this is we're requesting a waiver on the 2009 standards of

and regarding the landscaping our current restrictions are more restrictive if you mean you're required to put in more landscaping? I would say yes.

Okay. Thank you. I mean, the public comments brought up a good point about consistency and we've been um unfortunately very poor with that in the past. Um but I do, you know, I I was quoted by the the representative that I've I have said in the past that we've been terrible about enforcing um the 10% landscaping on the industrial park. Um, and I think the sentiment too was that was always excessive. Uh, I looked up what that would be for this property if we based it on the size and that's 18,000 square feet if I did the math right, which is a lot. I guess for me that uh is more up for debate than the um driveway material. Um, I had a question about the apron, the the road apron. Is the is that in place? I I saw in the site plans listed as new, but is that currently in place already or would it be in place, I guess, would be the question.

I apologize. as we were looking at the landscape standards. Um could you repeat the question? The the apron the um asphalt apron meeting the road is that currently in place is in the in the site plan it was listed as new is I I guess I'm asking is that in place or would it be in place? I don't know. Can you stop sharing your screen so it's not currently in place. We have not done any work or done anything to the property since everything started with we would put it in place but we have not done anything but it it so it is part of it is part of the site plan you're ask

yes madam mayor have question for you. Is it appropriate to ask one of our uh um individuals that made public comment a question? Great question. Yeah, sure. I have a question for the gentleman that spoke that uh I'm sorry I forgot your name. Jeff

Sheldon. Oh, thank um you you mentioned that you weren't uh granted a variance and my question is what did did you even ask for a variance and if so what was that and do you remember why you were denied? No, we didn't ask for a variance. We just followed the rules and Okay, we just went with Okay, but it wasn't that you requested something and I never requested a variance.

Okay, that that was my question. Thank you very much. Madame Mayor, I'm I'm unclear on one thing and the original concern with the neighbors that were negatively affected with the drainage. Has that I'm I'm hearing has that that has been completely cleared up. Is is there anyone here that can speak to that or I I I read in the I read in the um submitted paperwork that it that it I'm sorry. Sorry, let me get to the right document here. Based on the memorandum that comes from BHI to the interim director of our community and economic development, in the last page, it states that the final site stabilization and storm water management approach addresses previously identified deficiencies, mitigates reported runoff concerns to adjacent properties, and demonstrates compliance with the city's engineering review expectations. Is that true? I mean, that's the thing I'm looking for is has that been resolved?

I This is Laurel Quinto remotely. I can speak to the dispute between these neighboring properties. The owners of the neighboring property, they own the Doodad Storage. There has been a settlement and they don't dispute approval of the site plan review. Thank you. And then to address your question, Councilwoman Randall, as the engineer of record of the project, it will be my responsibility to verify that how these installations as they're designed do in fact get the the current design does fully mitigate those drainage issues.

We will make sure that those get implemented in a way that fully resolves those issues.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. I would make one comment and that I believe this whole situation is unfortunate that there is that there has been some missteps and the city I think has totally accepted our responsibility in whatever has occurred and I'm trying to find a way forward while recognizing the public comment and appreciating the fact that the rule of law is rule of law but we're sort of at this place right Now, do we cut the baby in half or and try and distribute? I mean, I to use an old metaphor, but I'm trying to find a good way out of this. And I'd appreciate any comment from anyone else on council as far as what their ideas might be, but I certainly do recognize the unfortunate position that a lot of people are in at this point on the landscaping. If someone had a 30 acre lot and they were building a a building for construction or whatever it may be that's 40 feet by 80 ft, we would require them to landscape that entire lot as if they were doing it on a um 30 acre land piece. And I think there should be exceptions because I think that's just not reasonable. it just isn't common sense and uh I think that's one of the reasons we have variances. Um yeah, there's that. I agree with uh council member Spruel on that. You know, there's always situations we can we can make rules and

regulations, but there's always situations that come up that are unexpected that we we never thought of and and that's why we have uh variances. So, um I I in my view I think we've uh we've talked about this uh long enough and if uh no other council members have any uh discussion. Madame Mayor, I move that city council approve resol resolution number one series 2026, a resolution approving the site development plan for the building construction on property located at 1880 Industrial Road, Cortez, Colorado in the industrial one zone with the conditions as stated in the resolution. Second Motion made by Lewis and seconded by Sproul.

Just to clarify before we move on that that does include the the application with the the um the waiver of the access road surface requirements and acceptance of the applicant's proposal for basically you're you're recommending the staff recommendation to is that correct? Yes. with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with would with with would with with the um landscaping and and the uh gravel road. Thank you Randall. Yes. Do yes dehaven. Yes. Lewis yes. Spruel. Yes. Keoffer. Yes.

Medina. Yes.

Okay. We're going to move on to number six on our agenda. Unfinished business. We have none tonight. Uh number seven is new business. 7 A is ordinance number 1353 series 2026. We will consider a first reading um setting the ballot questions to amend the city charter for April 7th, 2026 municipal election. Presented by Patrick Coleman, our city attorney. Thank you, Madame Mayor. And I believe our IT folks are going to put my PowerPoint. There we are. And I'm not sure what the CC is on there.

The CC.

Yeah. It's not something I can do. So anyway, I I will start uh and ask it to remove the via cloud uh don't know if I can remove it but any yeah anyway so just a quick summary as as we mentioned this is a first reading so we will have a public hearing on second reading in two weeks. weeks, but I did want to kind of go through what we've prepared briefly so that uh the public and and council understands where we are. Um the the ordinance a after a lot of discussion at a couple of uh uh work sessions uh we broke the uh amendments into four separate ballot questions. The first ballot question contains a lot of more or less nonsubstantive uh changes, spelling errors, typographical errors, uh creating general genderneutral references uh and some other nonsubstantive changes. Uh and those changes are represented in exhibit A which is uh part of this ordinance and they include the basically the entire charter because almost every section had some of these changes that needed to be made. So you'll want to read the the entire charter and it it's in a track changes

format. So it shows the the new changes in blue and the deletions as a strikeout also in blue. Um the the ballot questions have summaries of the changes and then each ballot question refers to a uh exhibit in the ordinance. Ballot question one contains a summary of numerous miscellaneous substitive amendments and that's exhibit A. That's the very long exhibit. Ballot question two contains a summary of proposed changes to article 2 section three and article 3 section two of the charter. These amendments clarify the qualifications, duties, and compensation for city council. And I'll show you that that actual text here next. Um, if I can keep my There we go. Um, and it I broke it into two parts because it it deals with two separate articles, but uh, essentially you could see what the proposed changes are. Um and uh primarily we wanted to clarify that uh a a sitting city council member cannot hold uh a paid position with the city until one year has passed since they left office. And uh part two is probably the one that uh

will generate perhaps some discussion and that's the compensation. If if you'll recall the the last time the compensation was changed for city council was in 2006. Uh as we discussed, we have changed this and the proposed change provides that the council by ordinance will determine the compensation from time to time rather than having it set in stone in the charter. And I think there was a lot of discussion about because it's so difficult to change the charter. Uh it probably should be by ordinance and that's the way uh it it is shown under ballot question number two. Number three uh contains a summary of proposed changes to article 3, section four of the charter. And these amendments clarify the location of city council meetings, the ability for electronic participation, and help ensure that the charter and ordinance number 1346, which was passed last year, are consistent. Uh the details of these proposed amendments are contained in exhibit C of the ordinance. But essentially, if you'll recall, when uh ordinance number 1346 was passed, there was some discussion on whether or not the charter prevented remote participation. And there was certainly a disagreement on council, although the ordinance did pass. And I believe it was a four to three vote. Uh this change

conforms the charter provision to what the ordinance already provides so that there's no conflict or implied conflict there. question uh and and you could see ballot question number three, the changes in the text uh essentially incorporate the language from ordinance 1346 into the charter. Uh ballot question number four. Come on. uh contains a summary of proposed changes to article 4 section one. And these amendments allow the city to exercise its home rule authority to enact alternative term limits that differ from what the Colorado Constitution provides. And a detail of those proposed amendments are in exhibit D. Uh I point out the constitution uh that provision was incorporated into the constitution and it it it essentially addresses situations where there are only fouryear terms and uh some jurisdictions in Colorado including the city of Cortez have two-year terms which complicates making the term limits based on a four-year term. uh our language and and we've we I I contacted some jurisdictions that had two-year terms and they said it's it's it's a difficult process. Steamboat said they tried it twice and they couldn't figure it out, so they just left it the way it was. But in any event, uh if you'll look at the language

on this slide down at the bottom, the additional language, it talks about eight consecutive years of service, so long as the eight years are separated by four years of separation from council. In the in the instance where a candidate for council is elected to a four-year term, that would cause that candidate to exceed eight years of consecutive service, the candidate will automatically be declared elected for a two-year term uh regardless of how how many votes they received. And so the that addresses a situation where say the candidate uh receives a two-year term and then runs again and gets a four-year term. So at the end they've they've served six years and they run again and by our rules they get at least the in the top three of vote getters which would entitle them to a four-year term. And of course, 6 + 4 makes 10, which exceeds the 8-year limit. And based on this, it would require that candidate to be automatically elected to a two-year term rather than a four-year term so that they wouldn't re exceed the eight years. Um, here in in the next slide is the constitution language and I've highlighted the stuff that's applicable to home rule municipalities. Uh and and in in here it says if it's two years or shorter in duration, no elected official shall s serve more

than three consecutive terms. So that's a different way to say it. Um but uh there's, you know, also the the possibility that somebody resigns before their term is up. So, somebody else uh is appointed to that term or runs for election and and is elected uh for the balance of the term, they they wouldn't have a full maybe even a full two-year term. Uh I think our language will address that. Um, but I wanted to give you the constitutional language so that you can compare. Um, again, that's ballot question number four. Uh, that kind of concludes the the language. I know it's a lot of information and certainly the exhibit A is very voluminous. So I would encourage you to read it and and fortunately it is in track changes so you don't have to read every word. You can go to the changes and see if there's anything that's problematic. I would certainly recommend if if anybody you can certainly discuss tonight any issues that you see. Uh but obviously the uh public hearing in two weeks is where we can really make tweaks based on the public's input or uh staff or council input. Um I will note that in ballot question number one uh it talked it one of the one of the kind of non

uh substantive issues that it states that it's addressing uh was that it was to codify term limits into the charter and obviously we have since added added that ballot question four which addresses that issue. So my recommendation would be that if you choose to introduce and approve this ordinance on first reading, you do so with the amendment to deleting the term to codify term limits into the city charter from ballot question number one. I have a question for you.

Okay.

So, my understanding that is that all of the blue that has been um crossed out or interjected is is kind of like this is getting close to the final draft. Uh we're working on the final draft right now. And so if there is a what we might think is an error in that, do we speak with you now about it or do we wait until next week? Sure, you can speak right now or you can send me an email uh between now and next week and uh you know if if if they're strictly typos or uh something like that, we can make those adjustments prior to presenting the ordinance on second reading.

Okay? uh you know if it's a major substantive change I would recommend that you just bring it up for discussion next or in two weeks and council can decide whether or not they agree with your substantive change or with the way it was presented.

I'm not sure that I have a substantive change. I just wanted to open it up for discussion for the council members because I I had a question as to um on regarding exhibit D and that's the one on article 4 where uh council was just talking about the things that were included in the uh in the state constitution versus what we've got written here and it has to do with the council members are limited to serving eight consecutive years and then it says after the passage of four years may serve eight consecutive years. Again, I just wanted to know what council felt about requiring a four-year interval in between in between serving those terms instead of going with a two-year interval because there because we also have that two-year thing in there. And I just wanted to bring that up and see what anyone else's thoughts were. Yeah, certainly it's it's it would be up to the council to decide what what was appropriate in that instance and uh e either way would be legally supportable. So I I would leave it back to the council to discuss and and again this is first reading but if if there seems to be a consensus based on your discussion we we can modify that language before second reading.

Um I I think I'd be okay either way either four or two. The thing I think to me that's important is that there's a term and then a break and then a new term. Yeah, I agree with that as well. I mean, the only reason I guess that a two-year term would make some more sense is there are some years that we really don't have enough candidates to run. So, I'd rather have someone who has somewhat recent experience on council to potentially run again if they should choose to do so. But ultimately, I don't think it really makes a difference between two or four. Yeah, I think the two years is fine. That's actually I assumed that it was a two-year break because of how our cycles work anyway. So

So council, just to be clear, we're hearing two years. Yeah, I think those are in green. Yeah. Um, did we forgo removing those departments that we don't have from the charter or is that

we what we did was we eliminated the two that don't exist currently and that would be uh the public health department and the department of sanitation. we left the other departments and then and significant changes to the reference to those departments in the charter. Uh and I think there was a lot of discussion that perhaps that was a bigger bite than we wanted to take uh for this goound that uh so essentially they they will remain unchanged. Um but the the two that we don't have and to our knowledge we have never had uh have been deleted as as part and that's part of the uh the uh uh exhibit A.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I just want to make sure. I thought I read that we had removed the reference to fire department. Had we not taken that one off? Yes. And then that was actually deleted in a prior Okay. Thank you. Uh amendment. I'm not sure why they still included it when they codified it. You know, they had it stried out and said deleted, but uh yes, it that was removed previously.

I think that these uh this ordinance and then the four exhibits reflect what we worked on kind of the last quarter of of last year. And um if anyone else doesn't have any comments, I'll make a I'll make a motion. Um I move that city council introduce ordinance number 1353 series 2026 on first reading and set the ordinance for second and final reading and public hearing on January 27th, 2026. second with the with with the with the change that councelor Randall suggested and the the deletion of the cotification of the term limits

in question number one and the deletion of yes what our attorney said with those two changes is my motion and and I would second that again I assume that was the case yeah thank you great okay motion made by doy and seconded by Lewis Randall Yes. Keoffer. Yes. Dobury. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Rule. Yes. Dehaven. Yes. Medina. Yes. Okay. We're going to move on to 7B on our agenda. Ordinance number 1354 series 2026. This is an ordinance approving uh 245 East Monizuma for historic designation presented by Helen West, our community and economic development specialist.

Thank you, madame mayor and councel. Um, this is just going to first reading. Uh, so I'm not going to elaborate, but do look it over. It's a cool property. Um, so just looking for 245 East Monizuma to be listed on the city register of historic places. Um, and the motion tonight would be to set the second reading in public hearing on January 27, 2026. you know, just like to point out that um it was a unanimous decision by the uh historic board and um I've been very impressed with that property with the uh with the changes that they've made since uh since they've uh purchased that area.

It is really beautiful. Um, and I know that they have more plans, but they want to keep the historic building. Um, I do believe both applicants um for this property and the next one on the agenda will be here for the next reading. Um, because the second reading is always more exciting. So, I will move that the city council approve on the first meeting ordinance number 1354 series 2026 and set the ordinance for second reading in a public hearing on January 26, 2026. Second motion made by Randall and seconded by Keoffer. Yes. Do Spruel. Yes. Lewis, yes. Dehaven, yes. Randall, yes.

Medina, yes. All right. 7 C on our agenda is ordinance number 1355 series 2026 where we um an ordinance approving buildings located at 410 East Empire Street for historic designation and include this property on the city register of his historic resources and set for second reading in a public hearing. Um presented again by Helen West, our community and economic development special.

Thank you again, Madame Mayor and Council. So, same thing. This is uh for 410 East Empire Street. Um, another very cool property with a deep history in the city of Cortez. Um, I won't get into the details tonight, but just the motion is asking for that second reading in public hearing on January 27th, 2026. Again, this wasn't unanimously um supported by our historic preservation board with some caveats that I can explain next time. nothing to do with their application, just to do with the process with the state of registering these kind of things with the state of Colorado. Um, but that was taken care of well before getting to council. So asking for that and we'll go into in more detail if you approve for second reading.

The only thing I would mention is that on the information page that I'm assuming the public can see as well at the bottom, the blue hot link say 410 East Monizuma. Oh, that I'm as you can that was probably my mistake. I apologize. I will correct that for next time. Thank you. Or second time. Yeah. Having said that, I'd like to make a motion that city council approve on first reading ordinance number 1355 series 2026 and set the ordinance for second reading in a public hearing on January 27th, 2026. Second. Motion made by Keoffer and seconded by De Haven Randall. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Spruel. Yes.

De Haven. Yes. Do Yes. Keoffer. Hi. Medina. Yes. All right. Uh 7D on our agenda is resolution number two series 2026. Council will consider approving an application for a grant between the city of Cortez and History Colorado to inventory eight commercial buildings and four schools for potential historic significance. presented by Helen West, our community and economic development.

Thank you, madame mayor and city council for the third and final time. I think this is going to be a record. We can do it three things in under 10 minutes. All right. So, this one is uh yet again a CLG grant. So, as you guys are all aware, Cortez is a certified local government giving us ACT grant money or access to apply for grant money that is specifically for CLGs through history Colorado. We have received 11 of those grants totaling almost $200,000. Um again, the grants paid for various surveys and also the CCC camp historic archaeological cultural resource survey that Woods Canyon did last year and then is also conducting further research on. Um so this grant uh is looking for no more than 25,000. The final budget has not been set, but that is the max grant award um to survey eight different historic properties. Um those properties are not clear on your memo. So I just wanted to list them here so you guys know. Um but the properties in question and these come from a historic preservation is complicated from a different survey that said these are the potent like they have a list of all the potential historic buildings in town that haven't been surveyed and maybe we should think about surveying them. So that's where we get these buildings. Um the eight commercial properties include the Masonic Temple on 302 East 1st Street, the Cortez Mill um Bluebird Falour on 309 North Market, the KRTZ radio station at 2402 East Hawkins, Empire Electric offices at 809 or 801 North Broadway, excuse me, the Johnson Building, which is the old hospital at 925 South Broadway. The dry cleaners at 500 South Market. the property at 105 North Siggo Street and then four of our schools including the Cortez Middle School, the Beach Street Preschool, Downey Elementary School, and Mesa Elementary School. By surveying these properties, um the property owner does not is not required to do anything. Um

they don't even have to talk to whoever the consultant is doing the survey. All of these surveys are conducted using public documentation or pictures from the public right of way. So there's no encroachment on public property um in any way. Um I I would if you guys can take out your pencils, council. Thank you. I would like to amend the motion if I can. I believe that's allowed just to make it clear. Um so that you don't have to see me five times when I ask to accept the award and then accept the contractor. Uh unless uh of course our city manager deems that we need to bring that back to you. So I would like to amend that to I move that resolution number two series 2026 supporting a grant application of no more than $25,000 to History Colorado to inventory eight commercial buildings and four schools in Cortez be approved and further authorize the city manager and mayor to sign all documents necessary to proceed with the grant if awarded if that is amenable to council or Drew.

Yeah, we need to select one or the other mayor or or I Oh, okay. case. It really should be the mayor. I think it so as well. Knowing history Colorado, it is the mayor that needs to sign all those. Thank you. Could you go just a little? Absolutely. I can also bring it up to you with my stuff. So, I move have that in writing by chance, Helen, that we can present to perhaps the mayor and then council from there. Yep. Yep.

If you can approach Can you receive that? Oh, cuz it's it's number two. Okay. I move that resolution number two series 2026 supporting a grant application of no more than $25,000 to History Colorado to inventory eight commercial buildings and four schools in Cortez be approved and further authorize the mayor to sign all documents necessary to proceed with the grant if awarded.

Second motion made by De Haven and seconded by Lewis Sproul. Yes. Keoffer. Yes. Dehaven. Yes. Door, yes. Randall, yes. Lewis, yes. Medina, yes. Thank you, mayor. Uh, thank you. All right, we're going to move on to 7E on our agenda. Award the 2025 recreation center tower restoration project. Um, presented by Kraton Wright, our director of parks and recreation.

Good evening, um, madame mayor, members of the council. I'm going to start off this topic with a a brief story and then we'll get into the actual award. So, um, in the middle part of May, our lifeguard and maintenance staff came to us and say said, uh, we have concrete falling off the slide tower. And as you can imagine, that was pretty disturbing. Uh, so we immediately ran over and looked at it and sure enough, chunk of concrete fell off of the slide tower. And this is one of several. And so that's what we're here to talk about today. And that is repairing the slide tower based on concrete falling off of the slide tower. Um the story really goes into I'm going to go on a quick tangent because I'm so proud of how we solved it. We immediately closed down the slide tower, closed down the leisure pool, which the slide tower hangs over and uh reached out to an engineer. We started two paths immediately. One is how can we get the leisure pool back open and secondly then how do you repair the slide tower? So what I'm proud of is that our staff came up with a really creative solution to get the leisure pool back open and that is to wrap the slide tower with um nylon construction fencing. Uh it's basically used in big cities with high-rise buildings when they're renovating a high-rise and they put they wrap these buildings with this material that prevents things like concrete or hammers or whatever falling off the building and hurting someone below. So, we found a vendor um our staff actually installed general services and our rec center staff installed this netting completely around the slide tower as a matter of getting it safe and so that we can open the leisure pool for the community to use. So, really proud of that creative

nice solution that got the leisure pool back open. Alternatively, if we didn't find that solution, it would still be closed today. So, now on to the award. The second issue was figuring out how to repair concrete from falling off of the slide tower. Um, we reached out immediately to our on call engineering service, Schmuser Gordon Meyer Incorporated, and they began conducting structural evaluations of the slide tower within the rec center. Um they did uh several initial assessments and uh felt that a repair was viable and warranted. Um as we move through the process of doing assessments and evaluations, they recommended that we subcontract with with Janney Ster Associated WJ. they are a concrete specialist uh to um complete the assessment and then also develop a design that can be put together for a bid for contractors to bid on. Uh the core samples and follow-up testing uh completed by SGM and WJE revealed that um some of the previous repairs that we had done were not deep enough and didn't really solve the problem and that uh we had chlorine induced corrosion into the concrete down to the structural rebar. That's what that that's a piece of rebar that's corroded. It's bloomed. um bloomed, meaning it grew and that's what put pressure on the concrete and ultimately pushed it off of the slide tower. Um and they determined that a repair was viable and costefficient um as compared to a complete

replacement. And I know it's probably um swimming around your mind, well, what would a complete replacement cost? It's in the neighborhood of a million to a million five. uh if you think about it is a huge 30- foot tall tower inside of a building that needs to be completely taken down to ground and then built back up which is the reason for the expense. So that brings us to where we are today which is awarding the construction contract to repair the slide tower. Um the uh documents, the scope and the tech technical documents to make the repair are more than 90 pages um thick uh which identifies all kinds of things um that engineering firms do and has specialty contractors do to ensure that the concrete can live successfully in a wet, highly chlorinated and high use environment. Ultimately, the goal of this project is to repair the damaged areas, preserve the slide tower for at least 10 years. That was the standard that we put on the design team when we were moving forward with it. Um, and they kind of conversely, if we did everything that they recommended, felt like it likely has an extended lifespan of in the neighborhood of 15 years after the repairs had been made. So, this solution both repairs the slide tower as well as rejuvenates the concrete. Um, much like asphalt, if you put a a a fog seal over asphalt, it extends the life. That's effectively what we're doing here with this project. The three scope items included in the bid are removing and repairing the spald and delaminated concrete down to the structure rebar and replace the rebar where the corrosion has existed or has occurred. installing sacrificial anodess to attract the

corrosive electrons in the chlorinated water. There boy thereby improving the longevity of the existing concrete and sealing the structure in a traffic coating to prevent water penetration while also providing some texture and grip because it's in a wet environment. Uh so now a little caveat um despite having all this detailed testing and evaluation being done uh that equipment in the assessment can only look into the concrete so well. Um there's a bit of variability that should be expected when trying to make this kind of a repair. And we're not going to know exactly how much damage there is until the demolition occurs. until they're out there with jackhammers and start breaking stuff apart. So with that, SGM has recommended that we maintain a contingency that can be allocated as needed and at the unit cost included in the current bid. This approach allows us to increase the unit quantity on the fly based on actual conditions after the demolition has occurred and pay for the contractor service in a predetermined manner up to the contingency amount which SGM is recommended at $30,000. That sets the upper limit on this project award. Um I mentioned a couple sentences in there about the value and the benefit of doing it this way as opposed to a change order. If we get to the point in which we exceed or we meet that $30,000 need, we would have to kind of step back, re-evaluate, and then ultimately bring a ch change order back to council to move forward with a repair that's greater than the $30,000 contingency. Uh so next section is getting into the bids. Uh I'll go through the bids quickly, an evaluation of each of them, and then ultimately the recommendation. Um the scoping mat uh excuse me the

scoring matrix was included in the council member me council memo and uh there was one minor error on that that was I think emailed and then put out your places this evening. There was one of the scores were off by one point. So that was corrected and shared with you. does not make a substantive difference in how we recommend this the scoring. Uh advertisement went out in October of 20 2025. We received three bids in December. Uh those three bids were uh TKF Contracting Inc. at $172,211. Structural Preservation Systems LLC at 211,181 and Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. DBA, Western Specialty Contractors at 242. Um, submittals that we received, despite being the lowest cost, TKF contractors, bid packet quality was low. Uh, receiving um there's an error in this council member. It's actually 19 points rather than 20. Of the 65 available points overall, TKF offered little information on the project approach, their experience, past performance, and lack support of other necessary categories we used for the bidding process. TKF TKF uh received the lowest overall score um which weighs both cost and um bid quality. Moving on to the second bidder, structural preservation systems received the highest overall score taking into account both their cost and their valuation criteria. uh they provided significantly more thorough answers on bid categories. Um they also share detailed past

experience with projects similar to what we're going to be dealing with. They demonstrated quality control, technical experience, planning and coordination that was superior to TKF. Uh this contractor provided also the most efficient timeline in which the other two contractors were recommending 90 and 90 day 97 days to repair uh structural preservation system said they could do it in 50 days. And considering that this is in the niatorum and while that work is being done the niatorum would have to be closed. That's important. Cutting a whole month off of their timeline would is is significant. Um, and lastly, structural preservation systems were active throughout the bid process, including coming to the site and reviewing the conditions in person, as well as providing questions to SGM through our bid process. The final bid, number three, was by Western Specialty Contractors, and they provided a similar bid packet as did structural preservation systems. However, they were $31,000 more as well as proposed the longest time to make the repair at 97 days. So, with that, uh, structural preservation systems has been deemed as the most responsive and most responsible to the bid criteria included in the bid request. Although they are not the lowest bid, its interest pro uh proposal package and cost proposal cumulatively scored the highest points in the valuation criteria. Uh structural preservation systems delivered on numerous um similar projects in complex aquatic environments. Uh furthermore, we reached out to SGM

and WJE and they felt that uh structural preservation systems were competent and could successfully um complete this project as has been bid. Uh so staff recommends awarding the bid to structural preservation systems with a $30,000 contingency that staff can allocate. Uh let's see here. Uh so financial impact and how this is shaking out uh monetarily. The rec center enterprise we budgeted $250,000 to make this repair. Um we have $60,000 allocated for the assessment and design that most of that has been spent leaving $190,000 available for construction. Their bid is 21181. And as I mentioned earlier, SGM is recommending a $30,000 contingency. um to address any variability that might come up in the repair. With the contingency, the total project award is 241,181. Uh it's $51,000 over budget and it'll be absorbed within the rec center enterprise fund. Staff's recommendation is that council award the 2025 rec center slide tower restoration project to structural preservation systems LLC for $211,181 and allocate $30,000 in contingency that may be allocated by the parks and recreation director and authorize the city manager to negotiate, sign, and execute a contract. And that is all for my staff report and I'm open to any questions that you may have.

Thanks. Kraton. Um, I appreciate the thorough presentation and how your staff handled that whole situation. Um, I was curious, are there plans to try to implement this project while the um, outdoor pools open so that some of that those people can go to the to the other pool and we can still collect revenue there?

Yeah, great question. Uh so we have two projects that we expect to be coming together relatively closely together. This one as well as a natitorium rec center nitorium renovation project including resurfacing redoing the play structure and all those kinds of things. Uh we're we want to try as best we can to overlap those two if we can and so we're not really super sure on the timing yet. It is our goal to do it while the outdoor pool is open. Although I'm not willing to promise that right here and today. If if it can if I can get both these done in one compressed timeline, then that's what I'm going to try and do. If it ends up that I have this project at what did I say it was 57 days and then the naniator renovation project at another 10 weeks and that's going to be 15 weeks in total. Uh yeah, that's going to cause some problems. So yes, it's the goal, but no, I don't feel we can promise that right now.

Not a question, but a comment. I I mentioned uh quite a while ago, you know, when we make decisions like this, it's our decision is no better than the information that's provided. and I applaud you on your narrative here and I love the explanation uh between the three biders and and why you made that decision. So, um it makes it makes our job much easier when we have the information provided. One other note um I'd make is it's very common when you're dealing with concrete and renovations to always have a contingency in there because as as you mentioned uh there's an unknown in there. So um do we have any if we have no other comments I'd like to make a real quick comment um on the 30,000 contingency. I can just about just this is a personal thing. I can just about guarantee you they're going to find something that's going to cost $30,000. And if they do that, then it's going to bring them right close to Western Specialty Contractors. So, their bids are almost identical. The only thing that's happened is Western already put in that 30,000 contingency, whereas the structural preservation possibly did not just to get the bid. However, I still think the structural preservation is a person to go to, but that's just my observation. Yeah, Council Member Sproul, just as a a bit of a um safety mechanism, we do have SGM and WJ on board as we're going through this process. And their whole part as we shift into construction is to validate any requests that we might get for a cost that's over what's already included in the budget. Uh so we we do anticipate having to evaluate any additional needs by um frankly it's WJ is a specialty here. They're the ones that are going to

have to confirm it and um either agree or disagree that it's a warranted cost. So while I hear you I'm trying to put a um a bit of security back there and knowing that there's a third party who has specialized experience in just doing this kind of work. That's excellent. And and maybe before you read it, I just want to provide an acknowledgement. Jenny Bandai, our um assistant director as a project manager, she developed this staff report, so I can't take credit for it. Um and credit is due to Jenny and also um Casey and his team have worked pretty extensively on making sure that we get this put together right. So certainly several people that are owed credit.

I move that council award the 2025 recreation center Restoration Project Structural Preservation Systems LLC for $211,181. Approve an additional $30,000 contingency that may be allocated by parks and recreation director and authorize the city manager to negotiate, sign, and execute a contract. Second. All right. A motion made by De Haven and seconded by Spruel Keoffer. Yes. Do Yes. Lewis, yes. Spruel, yes. Dehaven, yes. Randall, yes. Medina, yes. Thank you, councel.

Thank you. Great. Okay, we're moving on to 7F on our agenda. A possible selection of successful bidder for the 2026 Cortez Rawwater valve replacement project presented by Casey Simpson, our interimm director of public works.

Good evening, mayor and council. Um the first thing tonight is the raw water valve placement project. Um we're seeking a qualified water infrastructure contractor to install a new water valve um in the old hydro plant at the water treatment plant facility. Um, the associated work includes installation of a new flow control valve, process piping specific to the intake headworks, installation of structural support members, and demolition of existing concrete structures. Likewise, there is an existing micro hydro plant within the intake building that needs to be removed. It has not been work working or in operation for several years now. Removal of the micro hydro plant assets will be done by the city staff and will include removal of electrical substructures and associated wiring as well. Um the primary goal is to remove the existing infrastructure that's there and install a new raw water um val control valve that will allow us to meter all the raw water that comes into the plant more accurately um as required by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. We put out a bid um request or an advertisement for bid. We had 550 people look at the project. Two responded uh TKF contract contracting incar. Um both bids were evaluated by um the water treatment plant team and the city's purchasing agent. and the staff recommended um well there's the the score sheet that is attached. TKF came in um significantly cheaper and TKF has done a lot of work at the

water plant and the city staff believes that they do um good work and that they're best positioned to fulfill the requirements of this project um for the best overall value to the city. And um so if agreed upon, the city council or the staff recommends choosing um TKF contracting out of Lewis, Colorado for this project pending. Any questions? Uh what was the original budget for uh for this project included in the in the budget? I think it was 470 or Yeah, $470,000.

Thank you. Can you please explain how this adds the needed redundancy into our system? How does this contribute to that?

Um, it's part of an overall larger redundancy project that we're looking at. This this is required by the state to monitor. We're we're being asked to monitor actually for all of our hydraological assets the inflow and outflows of all those. Um so we do need to have this raw water control valve. Um we are also going to be looking at the replacement of the entire raw water control the raw water line in essence all the way um for the mile back from where it or from where it splits off. So, it's it's part of a larger project. In that project, we would be looking at potentially bringing in a second line or some sort of redundancy should that main line fail. And this is part of that overall project. Um, it would allow us to control the in more efficiently and effectively control the inflow of water should there be some sort of reason to do so. uh if there was a a failure of our um reservoir or something.

So, it's not the complete solution. It's part of it.

I move that city council award the contract for the 2026 Cortez rawwater valve replacement. contract at its bid price of $350,47747 and authorize the city manager to negotiate and sign a contract on behalf of the city for this purpose. Second motion made by Dober and seconded by De Haven. Randall, yes. Keoffer, yes. Lewis, yes. Haven, yes. Do yes. Spruel, yes. Medina, yes.

All right, we're moving on to 7G on our agenda. possible selection of successful bidder for the professional archa architectural design and engineering service for office administration building renovation at the old empire electric building presented by Casey Simpson our general services director.

All right. Um as you all are aware we're under contract to take ownership of the Empire Electric building located at 801 North Broadway. Um, as this project's evolved, um, and background information on the buildings become available, uh, and um, different possibilities have presented themselves. Uh, we have come to the conclusion that it makes sense to do an initial assessment of the building for the best possible value for the city for staffing needs. Uh, and there's two primary um paths to be taken there, whether it becomes a uh an office building or the long-term home of the Cortez Police Department. In seeing that um that need for initial assessment, we put out an RF or RFQ for uh qualified architecture and engineering firms to provide that initial assessment. Um we had a a really great um spread of bids come in for that work. Um and as you can see a wide range of price associated with that work. Um all of the bid packets were really great and thick. Um we the city has done um past work with Reynolds and Ash. We felt that their bid was comprehensive. um covered all the key points and came in well below um all of the other bids in price and um although there were some other great bids very well written um the price component um and the past work with the city weighed out with with our decision there and the staff recommends that Reynolds and Ash and Associates out of Durango be selected

um for the uh professional architectural design and engineering initial assessment of the old Empire Electric building. Mr. Simpson, can you tell me are we going to actually get two separate views on the option A and option B and or are are they going to sort of decide which they think is the best one for us to go and and push that one forward? um they're going to give us an engineer's opinion of probable costs on each view. Okay?

And then that that decision evolves into what it might cost to do choice A or B. And then they're also going to be interviewing department heads to get a better understanding of what staff growth and existing office space requirements exist so that we can make a really good decision because um if it was a police station, there are specific needs that would have to be changed in that building that would um be much more costly than if it was going to be an admin building. So, we just want to make sure we're making the right choice from the from the get-go. Well, and I think we had a third option of like if we did office space right now, but to eventually transition it to police.

Yeah. Um if we do office space right now, there's very little renovation required. So, we could postpone a potential police usage later. Furthermore, um there could be if we if the long-term vision is police station, there could be um C dot related traffic components that would take a while. So that could enter into the discussion as well. I move that the city council award the contract for professional architectural design and engineering services for office administration building renovation project to Reynolds Ash and Associates PLLC at its bid price of $48,270 and that the city manager be authorized to sign a contract on behalf of the city for this purpose. Second

motion made by Randall and seconded by Lewis. Dehaven. Yes. Keoffer. Yes. Do yes. Spruel. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Randall. Yes. Medina. Yes. All right. We're going to move on to eight on our agenda. Draft resolutions and ordinances. We have none. Uh so number nine on our agenda is city attorney report with the upcoming uh executive session. I will remain silent. No report. Okay. Uh and then city manager report. None tonight. Mayor,

thank you. Okay. Uh and then 11 on our agenda is city council committee reports. Uh 11A is the mayor's report on the workshop. We had no workshop tonight, so we'll move on to other board reports. We can start with council member Kafer.

Yes, Madame Mayor. I was unable to attend the Parfab board meeting because it was the um city or the countywide volunteer fair on the same evening, but I do have a very quick report. There were concerns raised by the dog park um people about muddiness that has um been there um since the early part of November. Um some more concerns by the Battle Rock School um students regarding um Park Devita playground. Um the master park parks uh master plan update RFP is to be released in the next few weeks. The youth member recruitment um Kraton and I will be um talking with someone from Southwest Open School. We have several students at this point who are interested in becoming youth members of PARFAB. The annual plan is reviewed was reviewed and discussed. Uh there's some notable items with certain members felt should be prioritized um higher than others and there's a significant conversation um around the rec center sales tax.

Great. Thank you. Okay. I was unable to attend the meeting of the uh historic preservation board, but council member Spru went in my place as I was out of town. Um and then the arts committee uh did not have a a meeting this month. So go ahead, Dennis. I did attend the Cortez I did attend the Cortez Historic Preservation Board and and and I was honored to do so. Uh that board really impressed me. It has a work plan for the entire year of 2026. The committee is well organized. They have a lot of vision for Cortez and they want to educate and entertain any and all persons about the history of Cortez and our area. And I I was extremely impressed with that committee.

Golf advisory uh committee is scheduled to meet this Thursday at 8:30 at the uh golf course. The library board meeting was cancelled. There were everyone was sick and there was no quorum. Great. Okay. U we're going to move on to 12 on our agenda. Our second public participation section. Individuals may not comment on an item on the agenda. Um but there's no limit to the number of speakers and no overall time limit. Each person has three minutes. Do we have anyone who'd like to speak? All right. Moving on. We'll go to 13 on our agenda. Executive session or other items of business. 11A's executive session.

I move that council go into executive session for a conference with the city attorney and outside legal counsel for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions regarding the recreation center sales tax pu pursuant to CRS section 24-6-424B. If I could, before we do that, I'd like to go back to 13 other items of business real quick. You can do that.

Oh, yes. Uh, I would I would like to suggest and I I think the city council is probably going to be on board with this, but I got a phone call from a a hanger member down at the Cortez airport and they really would like to have an advisory board for the airport and I think that's a fantastic idea. So, I would just uh ask if the rest of the city council agrees and something we could have the city manager look into. All right. Yeah, because I think um our airport director has been looking into that as well. So we could have conversation about that at some point. And then with that being said, I'd like to uh second the uh move to executive session.

Thank you, Dennis. All right. Motion made by Dobrey, seconded by Sproul. Lewis, yes. Haven, yes. Randall, yes. Keoffer, yes. Do Sproul, yes. Medina, yes. All right.

There you go. All right, it is uh still January 13, 2026 and the time is 10:08 p.m. The executive session has concluded and council has reconvened into open session. Those persons participating in the executive session were myself, Mayor Rachel Medina, Mayor Prom Dennis Sproul, council members Matthew Keofer, Lydia De Haven, Bill Lewis, April Randall, and Robert Doyri. Also participating was city manager Drew Sanders, city attorney Patrick Coleman, outside legal counsel Daltton Kelly, and Don Bookhart, city finance director Randy Bailey, and parks and recreation director Kraton Wright. No adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurred during the executive session. If any member of council or member of the public believes that the subject matter of the executive session was not statutoily authorized, or that the discussions that occurred in executive session strayed from the announced subject matter, please speak up now. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting.

Madame Mayor, I move to adjourn. Second. Motion made by Lewis and seconded by Dover. Keoffer. Hi. Randall. Yes. Spruel. Yes. Do yes. Dehaven. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Adena. Yes. Okay. Good night. Thank you all.