City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Um, tonight is recording in progress. Good evening. Tonight is a regular meeting of the city council of Lewisville, Colorado, April 7th, 2026. Would you take a roll call, please? Mayor Proam Hamington here. Council member Fehey here. Council member Cooper here. Mayor Lei here. Mayor Dickinson. Mayor I think it's Council Council Member Dickinson. Sorry. Got a battlefield promotion. We missed it. Council member Hefner. Council member Kern present.

All right. Um, if you'd join me 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.

Right. Our first order of business tonight is an executive session. Um, the city manager is requesting an executive session with the purpose of discussing real property acquisitions and dispositions pursuant to section 52C of the home world charter and CRS section 246 4024A specifically as to appraisals and other value estimates and strategy. Prior to entertaining a motion, the C city clerk will read a statement required by the city code. It is the policy of the city to conduct public business and meetings open to the public. While in executive session, it is inappropriate to take straw votes, keep minutes, or to make any final decisions. It is the duty of each member to ensure that executive sessions are conducted in strict compliance with this ordinance, state and federal law, and any applicable provisions of the state and federal constitutions. If at any time the scope, nature or parameter of this executive session goes beyond the publicly stated topic, it is the responsibility of the council to terminate and cease any further deliberation within the executive session and return to the public meeting. Only those topics described in city ordinance may be discussed in an executive session. Those topics are summarized as follows. One, where federal or state law requires that the information being discussed remain confidential. Two, certain personnel matters involving only employees directly appointed by the council and other personnel matters upon request of the city manager or mayor. Three, consideration of water rights and real property acquisitions and dispositions, but only as to appraisals, value estimates, and strategy. Four, legal consultation with an attorney representing the city with respect to pending litigation regarding the authority for the executive session. Section 5-2 C of the home rule charter authorizes an

executive session for the purpose of discussing real property acquisitions and dispositions, but only as to appraisals and other estimates of value and strategy. An executive session for this purpose is also authorized by the open meetings law section 246424A of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The request involves potential disposition of real property. With that, mayor, you may entertain a motion to go into executive session for consideration of real property acquisitions and dispositions.

Thank you. I move to go into executive session for the purpose of real estate property acquisition and dispositions. And the executive session include city manager Diana Langley, deputy city manager Emma Fox, community development director Rob Zakaro, public works director Kirk Coher, finance director Ryder Bailey, and city attorney Kathleen Kelly. Second. Any discussion? Can we get a roll call, please? Mayor Lei, yes. Mayor Prom Hamilton, yes. Council member Cooperman, yes. Council member Fehee, yes. Council member Kern, yes. Council member Hefner. Council member Dickinson.

Okay, we have five votes to go into executive session, which is enough. And we'll now adjourn into executive session. We will resume our regular meeting no earlier than 6:00 p.m. Thank you.

They flipping up the armrests now. I noticed you had

All right, we're back um from the executive session. Thank you to all you who have waited with that um screen uh or statement on your screen saying we were in executive session. We are back however and the first thing I'll do is ask for a report from the city attorney.

Thank you mayor mayor and council as noted on the meeting agenda the executive session was for the purpose of discussing real property acquisitions and dispositions and the city council had such a discussion in followup to this topic recommend that the city council have some discussion and see if there's a motion any council member would like to make. Um we can start that out. This is um I'll frame the discussion actually make a motion and then we can discuss it in the light of that. Um the uh what we um we're discussing tonight uh in executive session concerns um uh our um uh whether we're going to or whether what the strategy was regarding uh 101 South Taylor property, which as um those who uh have been following um know is a property that we currently have entered into a buyell agreement um which has certain um um time uh milestones and it's an important um time to decide whether we want to continue to that to to um uh go down the path that we set uh a few weeks ago um when we decided to do um some public engagement relating to that property. And um so at this time I'm going to move that we authorize the city

manager to terminate that contract which is um an entirely legal um step that we can make without um well I'll leave it at that. Um do I have a second? Second. Okay. Um discussion. Yes. Council member Dickinson.

Um, yeah, I'm struggling a little bit. There's not going to be any public engagement. It's not on our agenda. People don't know that we're backing out of this. We're deciding as a group of six to stop progressing towards something that we said we were maybe interested in and the public hasn't been engaged. They didn't know was on their agenda. We're making a decision that will be final and will be done. And so I thought we were starting into a process of public engagement, but we just had a necessarily secret meeting in a room with just us and now we're going to come out and make a decision without any public input of any kind and say we've made a decision in private and nobody even knows to come here and if you did come here there's no public comment. So we're just going to make a decision based on information that we have that we're not sharing. So, I'm 100% against changing course. It might be the right decision to not buy this property. Actually, I might even be on that side, but that's a process that I think our community needs to decide whether that's the right decision or not. And they need to have the information as to whether that's right decision and what the alternatives are and is it a $50 million alternative? Is it a $10 million alternative? Is it a fiveyear plan? Is it a one-year plan? What are we going to do? What would we use it for? Would we put city hall there? Would we not? Will we leave city hall here? What are the options? There's so many permutations, options, interesting things, and we're having no public discourse at all. And the decision if we go with your motion is to end all conversation and terminate our contract and we're done. And so there'll be no opportunity next week or the following week for any more discussion from anyone. Like my wife doesn't even know we're having this conversation and she's married to me. I didn't know we were going to have this conversation after executive session. So like I am wholly unprepared to put a stop on a

process that I thought was going to be public. And the people that have been upset that we're doing it, I told them, don't worry, there'll be a public process. Like if you don't like it, you'll have an opportunity to say something about it. But also people who are excited about it will have an opportunity. And so I think this kills all opportunity for public comment and public engagement. and that is absolutely not what I agreed to and we decided to bring this to the public before we made a full decision. Other comments? Yes, Mayor Prom.

Thank you. I um thank you for bringing up council member um the importance of process. So I would like to invite our attorney's voice into the room and have her enlighten us all on you know in an executive session decisions are not made but strategy can be discussed. So I'd like to be clear that decisions were not made and this is not the first time we've had executive sessions about property acquisitions or dispositions where we discuss strategy. Um, so I just want to be very clear that we followed the executive session process when we were down there today.

Yes, that is correct. Um, the charter does authorize the city council to meet in executive session on the topic of real property acquisitions and dispositions. Um, one of the permissive uh, discussion points is to instruct negotiators. You can discuss strategy while in executive session. However, no decisions are made in executive session. Um, the council may not even take straw votes to see what the likely outcome of any motion that may be made when an open meeting um could result. So, it is on the agenda um for executive session tonight for also discussion, direction, and action. and you know due to the contractual requirements there is action that's required if the council's um pleasure is to discontinue this process it must occur before the next city council meeting. Um so that's why potential action was noted on the agenda.

Thank you. And then another question about process. So, um, in when an opportunity for property acquisition or disposition comes to council, um, could in those meetings part of the strategy be that, you know, at this point in time, um, whether or not that the strategy of that property fits in with the goals of the council. Um, and so we don't make a decision. But does that make sense where I'm going with it? There's been plenty of discussions about property acquisitions and dispositions in the past.

That's correct. The council has had a number of executive sessions over the past say year about various properties and and strategy is always a permissive topic to discuss and um you know I of course can't comment on any discussions that were had during tonight's or any other executive sessions because those are confidential right um but yes strategy is a permissive topic

okay so I just want to be clear that council did follow process and we have an opportunity now where we have to make a decision uh based on our contractual obligations, which is why we're up here tonight voting. Um I will say my last uh few comments about um where I'm at at this point in time is, you know, based on the information I had in front of me tonight, um I could not see a path forward. Um, and so I felt like fiscally asking the public to engage in something where I just could not see it realizing was not I I felt like it was disingenuous to say there's an opportunity here when I don't feel like it's a real opportunity that we can execute on. Um, so that's why I um will be supporting the mayor's um uh motion. Thank you. tonight.

Others,

Council Member Cooper. Um, yeah. So, you know, I think this building at 101 uh South Taylor Avenue, um it presents a real opportunity for the city, um in in ways we probably don't really know yet. Um but it also presents some serious challenges potentially for the city. Um, and I think I'm still interested in getting input from the public um, about this possibility um, and using that that input to, you know, inform our own decision-m about whether or not, you know, we think there are ways to handle the challenges that purchasing that building might pose. Um so uh you know since yeah so you know we have another off-ramp uh in the future um after um after doing public input and so I am interested in still continuing with the process

others Um, I appreciate the uh uh May or Council Member um Dickinson's comments and and council member Coopermanman's as well as um and actually yeah um no pro prom's comments. I I skipped over you council member Kern.

Thank you. So um I I did second your motion. We um we received information this evening um in my opinion that did had that information been present uh at the original decision-making point, we might not be here tonight. There might not be this this might had not even have have come to fruition. And it is unfortunate. I would I would love to be able to explain in greater detail, but I'm unfortunately not able to um the reasons that this no longer fits what I believe um is the fiscal strategy for the city of Lewisville. And um I take that responsibility very seriously and I have grave concerns moving forward uh with entertaining the purchase of this property and still maintaining my obligation my fiscal obligation to the city. And so that is why I'm supporting the the mayor's motion that we um although not completely end all public engagement and conversation, but just no longer move forward with the purchase of um this property. Do

you have Yeah. Council member Fehee and then uh Council Member Dickinson.

Thank you. Yes. Um, I agree that we were given new information in this last week uh that we did consider in the executive session. I don't think that it negates the opportunity that we have with this property. The possibilities and the the the just the the resources that could be provided by this property are extreme for the city. And I think that we can fiscally come about to a plan to do this purchase. Um, and we have given instructions for negotiations if that's possible. Um, so I would be voting to continue on with the process.

Member Dickens.

Thanks. Um, I appreciate, you know, Mayor Prom pointing out, of course, we didn't do anything inappropriate tonight. The executive session was held as it should be and and everyone was really great in the meeting and there's nothing unourred in what we're doing. I mean, if you read our agenda, it says executive session, real property acquisition, disposition, number four, executive session, discussion, direction, action. Like, nobody knows what we were talking about, right? So to come out of that meeting and make a decision, if we were to do the alternative, if we came out of that meeting and said, "Hey, I want to make a motion that we just purchase the property, end all public engagement, and purchase the property." And we vote affirmative to that. That and that would be weird to me that that people didn't get an opportunity to engage in our decision to buy it. And so our decision not to buy it is a major decision that people aren't engaged in. And so I just think making a decision without the property address being on our agenda, without anyone knowing we might make this decision tonight. I'm not saying you guys are making the wrong decision. I'm not saying we should buy it. I'm saying this process and making a decision tonight without public engagement is is the problem I have. And so I'm not saying any council person did anything wrong or or or uh yeah that our process is flawed. I think we just normally come out and go okay well next thing is a public engagement right and so like if the next thing is like we should talk to the public about saying no to this. I'm like okay yeah let's talk to public about saying no. So I think we've all spoken and I just wanted to reiterate that. Yeah I I was not accusing us of having done anything inappropriate. Um, let me ask a quick question of the city attorney. Do uh, notwithstanding the comments of U. Council member

Dickinson, is it appropriate to take public comment?

This is not um, noticed for public comment and is not part of the city council procedure to do so at this time. That was the decision I I thought or the uh suggestion I I thought you'd you'd provide. Um property is strange. We get from time to time uh opportunities to purchase property which we don't anticipate. they just come up and it is city staff's obligation to when they learn about this to bring that to us if they think that that's uh worthwhile and they did and I think that I speak for all of the council members when I say that the decision that we initially made to enter into this agreement was um a sound one, an appropriate one. In fact, I'd go further that if we hadn't made that decision, I think it would have been um it would have been a situation that uh we would have been letting down the public by not at least providing a moment to consider the ramifications of of a purchase of that property. Um there ha there is information um that we received um and it's financial information primarily and I think council member Kern stated it correctly that it uh I think for me anyway that it renders the decision to continue through the end of a public process and

decision um to not within the financial um uh constraints that we've really kind of established for ourselves. And that's something you the council member Dickinson is right that we we don't get a chance to really talk about that and that's partly what these conversations in executive session are about. there there are conversations about strategy and you know we have decisions to make about whether we continue down a road or not and uh our decision tonight was to come and have a vote on this one way or another and that's where we are. Um my my concern about public engagement is it's sort of bounded choices. um if you permit me when I was a young father. Um it was a lot easier rather than to ask my kid what you wanted to eat in the morning to say you can either have waffles or you can have Cheerios. And here we have one choice and then we have a whole range of potential choices that we don't know and that's opportunity cost. What things are we giving up that we don't even know about right now? Other buildings potentially um uh other situations do we, you know, are we going to have budget problems uh or challenges in the next year or if there's a recession? Um, I mean there's a lot of things that that council members bring to that table of concerns and uh I am concerned about those and

even more fundamentally what I'm interested in is public engagement on a larger strategy which is a facilities plan. That is we decide what our needs are. We decide what our budgets are likely to be. we decide um what the staff needs and the staff needs are many. We have we are we are in need of additional space. There's no question about that and I don't that's something we can talk about at some point here. We will but um we don't know those things yet. That's a process. That's a process that we can go through. And if we go through that process, I think it will make far more sense to evaluate different options that we may have and different properties that come before us and reach proper and and good conclusions, including conclusions about entering into future agreements like this and having bonafideed good faith discussions with the community about whether particular um big acquisitions as this one might be are worthwhile and fit into our plans. We don't have that plan right now. And we have at least some of us I I think to one degree or another. I I don't want to suggest that council members who don't uh aren't stating the things that I'm stating don't care about the things. I think each of us cares about what everybody else has said. I appreciate all the comments tonight, but I think that's where the public engagement needs to go. And I think it's uh I think when council has to make a decision about the purchase of an asset this large, uh it is appropriate to pull the plug on

it when we feel like it's just not going to result in a really fair uh and wise use of public engagement um on something that I don't believe is worthwhile proposition at this point because I've learned new information and I think we would be in a much better place if we had a facilities plan in place and that's a thing that the staff could do for us um and get public engagement into that and then we could say a lot easier among council members this is that property we need to strike while the iron is hot instead of striking while the iron is hot and not knowing what all the needs are, what all the pro possibilities are for filling those needs. So that's my uh ultimate conclusion. Are there any other comments? Okay, why don't we take a roll call

and we can can we restate the motion? Yes, I I can I can restate it. um which is to authorize the city manager to terminate the buyell agreement that we have entered into with the seller of the property at um 101 uh South Taylor. Council member Kerna, yes. Council member Fehee, no. Council member Dickinson, no. Council member Coopermanman, no. Mayor Prom Hamington, yes. Mayor Lei, yes.

Council member Hefner. Okay. Since there is a three three tie, that means the motion fails and we will proceed as we described in the meeting several weeks ago. what was if someone can remind me of that meeting so that citizens can look that up if they have questions.

So we will continue with the community engagement uh process that includes um two open houses that are scheduled. One for this Saturday also polling. So um note cards will go out to the community. There's a general survey that residents can fill out and then there are um participants that will actually do polling on some specific questions related to the property. We will then bring those results back to council in May and it's anticipated at the May 19th council meeting that council would then make a decision as to based upon public sentiment if we are going to proceed with the purchase of the property.

Okay. Um one last clarification. Um, as I believe Council Member Verfey alluded, uh, in the event that this was the result, um, which was obviously a possibility, a split vote, uh, equal um, pros and cons or yay and nay. Um, we also had discussion and I'm being very no further discussion about any direction. That's right. It's the

fair enough. Um, thank you and let's move on. Um, okay. Can we have a motion concerning approval of the agenda tonight? Very, I just need to excuse myself. I can't vote on the consent agenda. I'll be right back. This is just um That's fine. All right.

Oh, you want to do you want to state what the reason is so that we have that on the record. It's a good process. Um, a potential conflict with one of the consent agenda items.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion concerning the regular agenda? Um I think it's the approval of I I move to approve the agenda which includes the second. Okay. All in favor?

I any opposed? All right. Um our first item is public comments on items not on the agenda and items on the consent agenda. If you would like to speak about uh anything so long as it's not an item that's on the agenda, um uh then you're welcome to just fill out a card right outside the uh chambers here. Bring it to the uh clerk at the end of the dis uh she'll call your name. Um if you're online, you can uh make it known um that you'd like to uh to speak. Um and um you'll be called again by the clerk. You have three or three minutes to speak. Um you don't have to use the full 3 minutes, but you can. Um you can speak six minutes if you would like to pull your time with somebody else who is in the meeting or online. Um all opinions are welcome. Please be respectful of all the speakers uh to ensure that everybody feels comfortable. Please refrain from any cheering, clapping, booing, or otherwise disruptive behavior. Um, if your views have been expressed by somebody else, you're very welcome to say that you agree with uh uh that person or whatever a person said, a specific thing that they said. Um, and that's fine. Um, if you have made written comments, um, know that the council members have reviewed them and we'll weight them in the same way that we would weight live testimony here. Um, so you can be sure that your your comments are part of the public record and part of our decision-making process. So, do we have any public

comments? Nobody's signed up for public comments. Okay, very good. Um, all right. Next is the consent agenda. Do we have a motion on the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Uh, any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Next is councilformational comments and committee reports. Pardon me. Should we wait for council member Kern to get back? Yes, that's true. Is she Can somebody The deputy city manager went out to find her? She's out there. Y

there she is for a minute to get settled here. Okay. Um All right. Council member Kern is back. Um, do council members have anyformational items or committee reports they would like to give? Um, I have one as part of uh uh Metro Mayor's Caucus, which is a group that I'm a part of. Um we had a discussion uh last week a bit about a bill that is in the state legislature right now is a Senate Bill 150 I think it's a bill concerning RTD um that was very recently introduced um it would reduce the size of the RTD board from 15 uh which is I think perceived by virtually everybody is unwieldy down to nine and uh four of those would be governmental or gubanatorial appointments. Um and five of them would be uh uh representative of districts that are nearly as large as congressional districts. And so we'll see how that goes forward. I encourage people if they on council and in the public if they're interested in that want to make comment um there are some committee hearings um anybody's interested you can certainly give me a call or send me an email I'm glad to share information and you can go to the state legislaturator's uh website on um online to pull a copy

of that bill if you like but that will be an interesting issue and it is perennially Definely an issue of trying to reform RTD and uh this year is no different. All right. Any other comments? No. All right. City managers report.

All right. Um, so we will have the open house at 101 South Taylor this Saturday, uh, for the public from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. And then just to note that we do have a new restaurant, a Cole Creek Golf Course and they're doing their soft opening during the month of April and then they will go into full operational um, hours and menus starting in May. We plan to host an open house because we've also completed some refurbishments of the golf course clubhouse and we want to show that off. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so first item of regular business is ordinance number 1920 series 2026, an ordinance removing lot 1, block 3, Jefferson Place subdivision from the Oldtown Overlay and adding to the boundaries of downtown Lewisville, its first reading and uh, setting of public hearing. We're going to on this item going to be hearing from staff about uh this particular property and we're not going to be taking public comment tonight. Uh that's the hearing that will set if we send this along for second uh hearing. Uh, council can ask questions, suggest amendments for second reading, or instruct staff to return with additional information, but we're not going to have the public comment that we will have if we have a second hearing. So,

good evening, mayor and city council. Uh, this is Emily Klein Gibson with the staff presentation. Uh, this is the first reading for ordinance 1920 series Oh yeah, you're good. Is that on? Okay.

Uh, first reading for ordinance 1920 series 2026, which is an ordinance to remove 811 Walnut Street from the Oldtown Overlay and include it in the boundaries of downtown Lewisville. For a little bit of background, the subject property is located on lot 1, block 3 of the Jefferson Place subdivision. It was constructed in the 1950s and his was historically uh in residential zones despite its historical commercial use. This changed in October of last year when a reszone for the property was uh approved from residential to commercial community. The reason request was only for the underlying zoning. It did not modify any overlays for the property. So, the property has been a part of the Oldtown Overlay since its establishment and it's currently not incorporated in the boundaries of downtown Lewisville. This means that it's currently not subject to the standards in the design handbook for downtown Lewisville. The proposal is to amend the definitions of downtown Lewisville and the westerly portion of downtown Lewisville to incorporate incorporate 811 Walnut Street within the boundaries of both. The proposed language uh part of this ordinance is in bold on the screen here for both definitions and it's just intended to simply include the property within uh the legal description of both of these uh boundaries. Also proposed is to remove the property from the old town overlay and the language for this can be found in the draft ordinance. There are also a few maps that are proposed to be updated uh with the change. So the two maps to the left can be found in the design handbook for downtown Lewisville and they just show uh 8 and 11 Walnut being incorporated within the boundaries both in the transition area which can be uh shown on the red shading in the far left image as well as the overall downtown boundary which is that middle image. And then uh to the very far right is a

map of our Oldtown overlay zone district which uh just shows the property being removed um as indicated by the bumpout on that um dash line. Staff find the proposal to be consistent with our adopted policies and allows the commercial building in the commercial downtown zone district to be held to the same design standards as all other commercial buildings in downtown. The Oldtown over overlay provides basic residential zone standards and the design handbook provides specific commercial design standards. Staff also find that incorporating the property into the westerly portion of downtown does not have any significant impact on the total maximum floor areas that are established. Planning commission recommended approval as presented at a public hearing in March and staff recommend approval of ordinance 1920 series 2026. This concludes the staff presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Sorry about that. I had some ringing up here trying to figure out whose phone is going off. Um questions from council members. Any questions? Yep. represent. How does it feel to have your agenda item not be the last one? This might be a first. Any substantive questions? Okay. Um All right. Um any further discussion by council members? just like to make a motion if I may then. Please.

Um I'll move that we pass ordinance 1920 series 2026 um for and set a date of March the 12th 2026 for the second reading. Second. Oh, sorry. I said March. Help me out. What's the new April May 1st April 21st, 2026. Thank you. At 6 at 6 p.m. Second. Okay. And if you don't mind just speaking the in favor of the motion real quick. Sure.

I just appreciate the work. I know this is actually kind of like really complicated and really simple. I mean, it's one of those moments like, oh my gosh, can we just get this right? Um, but it's not that simple. It you had to change a lot of things and do a lot of things and work with an applicant to make it really be logical and make sense. And so, I think it's a very easy vote and it's a very simple thing and a very obvious thing, but I do appreciate that it it took a lot of work and and I appreciate the complexity of it and thank you for working with our constituent to get it done. Any other comments? All right. Um, all in favor? I I I. Any opposed?

All right. Thank you. Our next item is ordinance number 1921, series 2026, an ordinance amending the Lewisville Municipal Code concerning temporary short-term rentals. First reading and to set the public hearing. Um, on this one, again, it's a first hearing, so there won't be any public comment tonight. There'll be a staff presentation, and council will have a chance to ask questions, make amendments, and so forth. Um, and if um, we decide as a council to move this forward, and there will be a public hearing at which there will be an opportunity for city um, residents and others to make comment. So with that, yes.

Uh thanks, mayor. Uh I'm going to recuse myself from this uh topic. I am the owner of a property management company, and while I'm not uniquely positioned to benefit from something like this. Um I do feel there is a conflict of interest in in the passing or not passing of this item. So I will recuse myself from the topic and you guys can let me know when you're done. Thank you so much. And we will likewise wait for Council Member Dickinson to leave the leave the room. Manager Sarate, do you want to take the floor? Hi, mayor and city council. Thanks for having us back. We're here today for the first reading for an amendment of our municipal code concerning temporary short-term rentals. As some background, um this conversation started when the Sundance Film Festival announced that they would be locating their 10-day event to Boulder, Colorado from 2027 to 2037. In 2025, the festival is estimated to have hosted about 85,000 attendees, sold 131,000 tickets. In addition, the festival is estimated to have uh generated $196 million in economic impact, $162 million of which is estimated to have come from people outside of the state. And it is estimated that they are going to create nearly 3,000 jobs with over 5,000 volunteers for the festival. And in addition to that, the film festival is estimating that the need for the festival across the 10-day period will need 30,000 rooms. Boulder proper is

estimated to have about 3,000. And so Sundance Film Festival, the city of Boulder has been working with the regional counterparts to work to address uh this need to prepare for the film festival in January 2027. What we are proposing as the short-term rental framework is to allow the rental of homes, town homes, condos, ADUs, and mobile homes. Um in addition to apartments which we will add on the dates surrounding the Sundance Film Festival will be when this policy will apply. We are proposing that the dates for the temporary short-term rental policy are set by city council by resolution every year. And so because the dates of the festival can change, this by setting it by resolution allows city council to respond to that if the dates shift one way or the other. The short-term rental policy framework would be for any rentals for a time period of 29 days or less. The the license holder must pay all applicable sales and lodging taxes. In addition, they must m must display their license number in all of their advertising. The applicable sales and lodging taxes similar to what you would see in a if you stayed in a hotel. Um, leases are be able to rent their property with permission from the owner. So, it's most commonly apartments, but could be other property types as well. In addition, as part of the application, we would require a signed safety affidavit, which includes minimum insurance coverages as well as a point of contact that can be onsite with the property within 60 minutes should there be a problem that needs to be immediately addressed. We are also proposing that there is a $200 application at the time you apply as

well as an annual renewal of $100. some background information that it is very hard to read. Um, but that as we work through how we would actually implement this new policy, currently we believe that the application will be reviewed and issued in partnership between community development and our finance team. In addition, um, we have been working through what that application could potentially look like. So created create the application through our existing customer self-service portal andor uh a different system that we that we identify. The city is committed to creating a communication plans for websites, for socials, for all of our partners to help push out so that people that want to participate in the program know how to participate, know what's expected of them, as well as how to engage with all the different things that they may need, as well as how to ask questions, how to make a complaint and and do everything on the compliance side. Enforcement and compliance issues are expected to be primarily addressed by the community development department's community resource officer through our existing complaint and review process. Um and then in addition we have added into the proposal that there is a enforcement for non-compliance. So, if you do not comply with the parameter set forth and when we ask you to fix it, you do not, the result could be in your license being suspended for a year. Um, we do often give people time to come into compliance should there a problem arise that exists within our current code. And so, we would allow that as well. Should they choose to not come into compliance after that, then a possible thing could be a suspended license. We included this again that we saw at

the uh direction discussion item a a few weeks ago on just some surrounding communities on how they implement their short-term rental policies. A lot of this was a lot of our proposal came from mainly the city of Boulder, but our surrounding communities as well to help to start to create some regional alignment within all the communities in Boulder County and right next door to us so people can understand how to engage with the process. I'm happy to answer questions. All right, council questions. Yes,

um, thanks very much. appreciate you putting all of this together for us. Uh so, some questions, some clarifying questions. So, this would be a short-term rental as identified as 29 days or less. Um and we're choosing dates uh like 10 or 9 days before and after the festival date. So, that would equal 29 days. So, somebody wanted to rent during the totality of that. If somebody wanted to rent their property, let's say for an additional week, they're people who are coming in to the festival, they work for the festival or what have you, longer, then they're still eligible to rent their property for greater than 30 days. It just no longer is part of our short-term rental program. It would then fall into a long-term rental.

Correct. Anything over 30 days is already allowed through our code and would would be just a normal longerterm rental.

Okay. And with the engagement piece, thank you for bringing that up and and you guys working on information that'll go to the public. Is part of that information um explaining to people how they would um if they're not going to be using like let's say like an outside agency, one of the online companies that would file all their taxes. It would explain how they can do that themselves, like how to collect and then remit the taxes to the city. Um, our intent is to have information stating you do have to get a sales tax license, you do have to have a lodging license, you do have to collect that tax and remit it to us. Um, there, you know, us, our existing staff levels within finance and beyond can answer questions as they arise, but their intent is to make sure to highlight that they are responsible for getting these things and they are responsible for remitting their payments. But we would provide them provide any residents the ability to ask staff questions on how to do that if they don't know how if they've never done anything like this before and they're not going to use a company that can do it for them.

Yes, they're always welcome to ask us questions. Okay, great. And the only other thing was um just from a health and safety kind of perspective. I didn't know um if Chief Milm wanted to comment or if it was sufficient if maybe Robbed did. the the a lot of the things that we're talking about in here asking people to sign off and say that their property is compliant. It's for for safety things. Correct. Correct. It is um life safety and our building official has taken a look at what is in the ordinance and has provided some feedback as well. Director's car, I don't know if you want to add anything, but it is there are life safety requirements. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand not only the initial application but the annual renewal application. So in the packet there's um a page that says application materials include and then it gives a really nice bulleted list of those materials. Are those same materials that are required at the initial application going to be um redone at the subsequent renewals? Um, that is the intent. Yes, they would have to resign their safety affidavit saying nothing has changed and they're still in compliance. They would have to verify or resubmit a point of contact. Um, they would have to verify, resubmit their insurance coverages to make sure that those they didn't cancel it after and then didn't re-up it. So, the intent is to make sure that they still have all those things that time of reapplication.

Perfect. That's great. That's my only question right now. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Gooberman. Um I'm wondering would it not be easier um to just fix the the dates by reference so that fix the dates of the 29-day period just by reference to whatever the festival dates are instead of having a resolution every year.

I would default to our city attorney on what is easier. Um we we tried to put the resolution in there to give some flexibility to the program that like it's temporary shortterm around Sundance. It could be temporary short term around Sundance and then CUR whatever that ends up looking like but then you all could set the dates as to be able to be able to respond to initially with Sundance is announcing that their dates are

right. Okay. that that's helpful. Um, and just one other question um following up I think on something I had commented around before. So right now as written there's just a fixed minimum amount of insurance that someone needs to provide. Um, and I'd asked about whether you know whether that was essentially equitable for people who are say only renting apartment versus people who are renting a larger home. Um I don't know if you had any thoughts or information on that.

So I will say we did reach I did reach out to our surrounding communities on that list and asked how they implemented. All except uh all that respond except for the city of Boulder have a just a base similar to this. Um and this base was also what was suggested through legal to have a minimum and then you you can obviously have more if you would like but Okay. Thank you. just a a

I'm going to double click on that question about insurance. So, it's not my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, it's not insurance just on the property, but there's like liability insurance for the person and their health, which is there regardless of the size of the property.

Um, correct. Right. Okay. So, Okay. Thank you. Um the only thing I would add is just um we on e economic vitality committee did review this measure before and and heard a lot about it um both from staff and public um at at the meeting um and recommended it move forward to council. And so I'll just go ahead and u move um to approve um sorry um move that ordinance number 1921 series 2026 pass on first reading and that the public hearing be set for Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m.

Second. Any discussion? Okay. Um, all in favor? I I I Any opposed?

Okay. Thanks. Yep. It's We can let Council Member Dickinson know. I think he's been texted. Um.

Oh. Um, I have been asked to take a fiveinut break. We would be a little bit early on our 800 PM break, but u I just got word that council member Dickinson is about 5 minutes out. So, if folks would be okay with that, let's do that. Take a break. Be back at 7:30 p.m.

Um, bye. Thank you. Thanks.

That that laugh. All right. Um, we're back on and the next item is ordinance number 1918 series 2026. An ordinance amending title 15 of the Louisville Lewisville Municipal Code concerning wildland urban interface or WOOI. It's a second reading and the public hearing is this evening. Um, and I'm going to open the public hearing, ask for any disclosures. Do we have any disclosures to make um before the staff presentation um this is um an item that we've had already discussion and direction. We had a first reading and um this is um I think going to be a good discussion around what we can do to help prevent um a certain amount of destruction uh if we have any wildland fires and breach our city's u boundaries. So, I will leave that thrust to director Zakiro.

Yes. Uh, thank you. Good evening, Mayor Lelay, members of city council. Rob Zuko, community development director. So, I'll be making the staff presentation on second reading for our wildland urban interface code adoption. Um, as as noted previously, this is um part of this is to um address the state code requirement. Um so there is some recent state legislation that requires us to adopt either a minimum or a more stringent wildland urban interface code. Um that state code of course has set a baseline for building standards, defensible space standards and also mapping. So what's being proposed this evening um does increase the mapping as well as some of our standards as we've presented in the past. These are the minimum standards within the structure of the state code. There's three different fire intensity scales based on vegetation, topography, weather, all of those things which lead to class one and class two regulations for both structure hardening and sight and area or defensible space. And so our our you know our proposal goes beyond this. So we are being more stringent in our proposal in some areas as you're aware. This is the base state map. So this is the minimum that we would have to adopt based on the state mapping which we've talked about. Um here's a list of everything you know the the past discussion directions. We've had two specific to the WOOI code before we came for uh public hearing and drafting the code. Uh city council has also of course taken some other steps for fire hardening um within the Marshall fire rebuild area as well as citywide. So here's just kind of a reminder of all of the different efforts that the city has undertaken over the last couple of years. Um so the strengthening amendments are primarily um being proposed to align with our citywide structure hardening our fire

hardening code for structures. Um the state code allows some more flexibility within the different class areas for building materials. Um, and since we require class A across the city, we're aligning for siding and eaves. We're requiring gutter covers, which the state code doesn't require. And then as it's drafted this evening, and I'll talk more about this, um, class A decking for surface railing and stairs. So, as drafted in the packet, um, those are the major upgrades. There's a lot more in the state code within the WOOI area that would be required if you're building in the WOOI that's beyond our structure, our fire hardening code for structures that citywide. But these are the upgrades um within the site and area design. We only had one proposed um more stringent standard which was to mow dormant grasses and weeds within those class 2 areas. Um the building code board of appeals did review the code. Previously they had two recommended changes to the code. One is to allow um composite decking with a class B rating. Um and also to allow deck construction meeting a particular ASM standard that's related to under decking and fire spreading up from under the deck. The concerns that the building code board of appeals mentioned were concerns over cost and availability of class A decking materials um and the potential for improved compliance if we allow more options. Um as you know last year the city council did take up a consideration of the um the citywide uh fire hardening code for structures to allow class B decking. At that time council decided not to move forward with it. Um the again the adoption draft doesn't include that proposed amendment. Um but we have provided some more analysis between first reading and second reading. We've

also talked to Chief Milan and the fire district about the potential of allowing class B decking again to have a little bit of consideration of cost, availability of material, hopefully better compliance rates with that class B decking. Um, in researching what other communities allow under their current WOOI codes, we did notice that the city of Boulder and Boulder County also allow a class C decking for their deck surfaces. Um, so the state code does require um certain fire Harding decking, but they do allow comp uh class B composite also in the state code. So many communities as they're adopting the WOOI code uh will likely be adopting the class B standard. There are some communities that allow class C decking. The city of Lovelin code as currently drafted um prohibits wood decking, but it allows any type of composite decking without rating. Um so again, we we have worked with the Lewisville Fire Protection District. If council is interested, um we are comfortable um having our WOOI code include the same exemption that is in the state code to allow class B um composite decking. And so if you wanted to include that in the code, that's drafted here and it was included in your staff report. So that's one of your options. Um, if this is supported, we also think it would make sense through a separate action from tonight to align the citywide code to allow class B decking as well because um, you know, we wouldn't want a less stringent code in the WOOI area because that is uh, you know, that has additional potential for fire spread. Um, so it again, class B decking does provide protection and fire resistance. it's just tested at a different level um as the class B rated material. Um so

based on previous council direction as well, we have extended the class one area to every all of the area of the city west of Mccasin Boulevard. So we do believe that this will cover the majority of our anticipated largescale development. Um, so Red Tails already covered West McCaslin, as you know, with our recent comp plan discussions, that's covering most of our anticipated new development. So, the uh fire hardening code for structures that we have citywide would address the rest of the city. Um, we have talked about permitting and enforcement on the residential side specifically as we get new residential development in the city. Um there will be additional requirements for landscaping uh landscape permitting, landscape inspection. So that is a somewhat significant change um and potential impact to staff capacity. We're planning to address that um through use of consultants until we really fully understand what that's going to look like. Um, we're also anticipating um trying to have some um as when things are built, having some self-certification would be our plan so we're not out having to do ongoing inspections for year after year after year. So, our plan is to have self-compliance checks worked into the procedures. Um, this is on the city council's work plan for adoption this year. Um, so getting to the potential alternatives for this evening. So, the first one is to adopt as drafted. So again, I think the the one thing that we haven't fully worked through is the decking material. So if you approve it as drafted, the first bullet that would um have a class A decking requirement. The second bullet is to allow class B composite decking. So you would incorporate the amendment that staff proposed in the staff report. Um if there's anything we're missing or other

amendments that you would like to see, that's the third bullet option. or and then the last of course is to not adopt which would result in non-compliance with the state law. Um so staff is recommending approval. Um we are recommending that the exception for class B decking be included to be consistent with the state code and other communities. Thank you, director. Um, first I guess we can um ask if there's any council questions quickly. Yeah,

thank you. Um, appreciate the presentation and all the work that's going into uh bringing this into Lewisville. I I have a question either for you or for Chief Milin. Um, and it is about explaining the difference between a class A and class B rated material for decking. So, we do understand there is this fire spread difference, but if you're able to help us understand what that difference is, like how longer it how much longer it takes to ignite or how how if it's like how much longer it takes to spread in in a class A versus the B. And then um I I think additionally it would be fire danger for the community and especially with confilcration and and what higher risk are we putting the community at by allowing the B versus the A.

Yeah. So as so the way these ratings take place they're they take place in a laboratory and they put them in a wind tunnel and there are a lot of technical standards and so the class A has a specific spread rate and it's not as easy to understand as um you know the it's going to spread this many feet in this many seconds or minutes. It's a little more complicated than that as they I mean that's what they're doing but they come up with these ratings where class A is 25 and below and then I think class B is 25 to 100 and then class C is I'll have to verify those numbers. So there's different numbers but just looking at the numbers you can't say that you know a 10-ft piece of decking is going to burn this much faster than another um type of decking. Um, so I think that class A is the most fireresistant. I would say it's very common for wildland urban fa wildland urban interface codes to allow things other than class E de class A decking. Um, again because I think um there's substantial um fire resistance with class B. It is not as resistant as class A. that it will spread faster, but there is substantial fire resistance with class B. I'm I'm not sure how to quantify it. Um I I don't understand the technicalities of the testing procedure. Um I don't know if Chief Milan has any more he would like to add to that, but that's how I would describe it.

I if if if the rest of the council's okay, um I'd actually like to invite the chief up to give us his thoughts and opinions on how you see this impacting the community. Should we change this? Because I think if we if we were entertained doing this with the WOOI than we would with our whole citywide hardening and I think there are is concern from residents who worked very hard to put us into a much safer position that we would then take a step back and and I think having a better understanding as to why and if that would create a threat is warranted.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. Um I had a very similar discussion with my board last night and we could go into the details of uh how these tests are done. A small pill is uh of flammable material is put on all these different materials and as Rob said you know the rating of less than 25. The one thing that really um uh kind of swayed my opinion when we were discussing especially with the building official and with other um fire marshals and other fire chiefs is the entire assembly of the deck. So what we're dealing with here is the decking material. Underneath that decking material is Douglas fur wood. It's it's, you know, we used to call it RPO, regular plain old um wood and those sorts of things. So, it's not truly a class A assembly. To have a class A assembly on a deck, you would need to have a non-combustible structure underneath it, which would be metal. And again, um that would be the certainly the gold standard. But I don't see because so much of the um you know the fire spread would be from embers that would fall between planks and actually contact that wood. I don't see that it's a uh substantially more um uh uh risky or a giant step back. Um, as an example in California, CalFire allows um class E class B in those uh chaparel areas with those steep uphills covered with those um very volatile fuels. So I I feel comfortable that um I mean obviously a class A with a metal substrate would be the gold standard that far exceeds what the current structure hardening is. So, I don't see it as a as a as a large step back.

Would you mind elaborating a little bit? What was the discussion that that you had with your board? Exactly that. That um if they were to get community questions that we weren't um backing off on our desire to have a very fires safe community. Oh, good. And so the the the decision of the board and you came into agreement with them is that you really do feel that this still puts us at a very appropriate level of fire hardening and safety. I do. The board didn't take an action. They didn't make that statement. They asked for my opinion. Okay. And that was my opinion. Thank you. I appreciate that. Sure. Any other questions for now?

Council member Coopermanman and then Council Member Dickens. Um, I'll ask one follow-up question on that theme. Um, just wondering, have we received more feedback since last March, um, with regards to class A versus class B decking? Um, I would say we do hear periodic feedback from residents and contractors about the cost. Um, I don't have any specifics for you, but we have certainly continued to hear feedback about concern on those items.

Okay, that's fine. Um, one, um, in your presentation, you mentioned, you know, if we decide to go the route of class B decking that we'd then want to make that, um, or probably want to make that uh, consistent with the fire hardening code for the rest of the city. Um, I have another question about that kind of consistency. Um, so I think as I read the the site requirements in the WOOI code, um, I I think they're a little bit less restrictive than the uh site requirements we passed for the Marshall Fire burn area in particular. Right. This code would allow you to put in ignition resistant or low flammability plants. uh in the zero to five foot area, whereas I think what we passed previously does not allow you to put those in. And so I'm just wondering, you know, would we would we think about making the same sort of

I I thought we took that out of our code draft. If we did not, that was an oversight to be considered. I'm sorry. Out of which code draft? um the city's WOOI code draft to take out the allowance for plantings within the 5- foot area. Okay. I think it's still in there. Okay. Well, that Yeah, thank you for catching that because I think in discussions with the fire district, um the our intent was to not allow those plantings. So yes, I if if it is in there and you all agree, um our recommendation would be to take out the planting allowance within the state code

or sorry with within our city code,

right? Okay. Um and one other just little question that's maybe slightly related. So we're going to add for for class two this mowing requirement. Um, and one thing I I actually don't see that in the draft uh of the code, but um could you just say a word about um why we want to add that or why we might add that at the moment? Um yeah. Well, that and that that came through as a staff recommendation because it it is a higher fire intensity area. And so in the you know if people are letting their grasses grow high and um and that is in a higher danger area, there's more potential for fire spread if they're letting those grasses and weeds grow higher than 6 in. So it was an additional you know as we're mowing our open spaces it's providing a similar protection um within th you know within those areas right okay that's fine thank you very much

um similar question to council member kern um you know my my understanding with with decking and railings and stairs is that's not really uh a great way for fire to spread like I lived In Wisconsin, we had bonfires on the ice. Fire goes up, not down, right? So, it doesn't even melt ice um on on a lake, but so mostly fire goes up and right. So, the biggest threat is fire underneath a deck that burns the structure of the deck. And really the decking and the ra I mean a railing catching on fire is quite difficult. Um what's the difference between B and C? Because my understanding is A's like cost 10, B cost eight and C which was fire resistant cost three like as

you know um and you can buy class C at Home Depot. You can it's readily available. It's fireresistant. And so for decking, not the structure, but for decking, what's the difference between B and C from a safety perspective, from your perspective? Well, I'm I'm not prepared to tell you the exact flame rating and all of that. I I did observe some tests um just you know some of those CalFire tests and the difference between B and C was substantial in my opinion. Okay. And then to clarify and so city of Boulder allows class C in the WOOI, right?

Yes, that's correct. And then out of the WOOI. Um I'm I am not aware that they have regulations outside the WOI citywide similar to what we do, but I haven't looked into that specifically. Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions for now? All right. Why don't we take our first round of public comment? Again, you have three minutes. Um you don't have to take the whole three minutes and um if you are pulling your time you can get total of six minutes. Again you don't have to take the full six. Um do we have any looks like we have at least one commenter online. Up first is Tanya Samaro.

Hello. Um Tanya Samaru here. Um, I just want to say thank you to council staff and the fire district for coming together to discuss this. Um, fire hardening and fire risk reductions. Absolutely not an intuitive topic and in a lot of situations moving forward, you'll probably be referencing that model heavily that the district just paid for. Um, but I'm just to say as someone who's constantly petitioned for um more fire hardening in Lewisville, I'm happy to have, you know, nuanced discussion and um as long as my fire district is there discussing it. Um, you know, we don't have to do the highest level of everything. Um, we have to do what makes economic sense and people can actually achieve and um, we have to be flexible if we really want to reduce fire risk. um you know going for the policy without um being crazy rigid in some areas. Uh we need to look for those opportunities. So um so thank you very much for having this discussion and I'd love to see it.

Thank you. Can I yield? Nobody else. Okay. No other questions. Um, this being a ordinance at issue, we have a second round of comment. Um, do we have uh council questions or discussion? Yes, Council Member Kern.

Thank you. Um, so, Director Sakaro, I was looking at the ordinance and it it does look like the um the 5- foot zone, the non-combustible is does not have allow for plantings in it. It just says no planting shall be Oh, sorry. Except for ignition. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, it didn't get updated. Uh, and the other thing I was looking for was the fencing. Did we discuss at the last meeting because the the citywide is fencing within 5t of the structure instead of 8 ft needed to be um that we were going to change that.

So, the WOOI code, yeah, the WOOI code would be um 8 feet to meet the state minimum. Right. And ours is more strict. It's within five feet. It has to be eight eight feet is more stringent. Oh jeez. Thank you. Because it has more protective material. Yeah. It's a smaller number. It's early. I don't even have that excuse right now. Okay. So, we are going to make it more strict and

All right. So, that All right. I didn't realize that this dated in the Thank you. Sorry. Other questions, comments? All right. You going to take a second round? Any further public comment? No. All right. Um, right. If there's any further council discussion, we can have that. If you'd uh somebody would like to make a motion, that's fine, too.

Yes. Council member Dickinson. Yeah, I'll say my opinion, which I don't think is popular. Um, but I I would recommend that like basically looking at a map in the red and orange areas, uh, we require class A, um, materials generally like the most strict um, uh, fire hardening. And then in the yellow, you know, class one and, uh, uh, restrictions with like class C decking. And then in the areas that aren't in the WOOI that we only you know suggest uh great alternatives and things for people to do. Uh and kind of similar with any um defensible space like within the red and the orange uh you know really high restrictions class one or sorry class two restrictions on what you can have in the first uh 5 to 10 ft and then in the yellow uh lesser restrictions like you can have plants that aren't flammable and then outside of the yellow that there aren't actual restrictions but recommendations for how to harden your house. So I I just feel like we have maps now and we should use the maps to dictate what kind of um what kind of allowances and restrictions are in each area. Um so red, orange, yellow and nothing get different rules based on based on the map. And if we make the rule that way if the map changes those rules auto automatically change. So if if an area becomes in the red or becomes in the yellow when it wasn't before, it automatically is has new restrictions on any new uh building and what have you. Again, I I don't think it's hugely important as as um most of our buildings have been built and the ones that are being built in the future are likely multifamily, high density, have an entirely different code. So I don't know that we're going to affect more than a dozen homes in the next 5 years. Um, but remodels certainly, uh, re new decks certainly, like someone who's downtown and wants a new deck, um, is

going to have to do a class A instead of a class C or even just a regular deck in in an urban area. Um, so I just feel like the rules should be applied based on the map and they should be the strictest in the red and orange, a little less in the yellow and not required in the non- yellow. But I I know that I am an outlier. Council member Kern,

I'd actually like to make a motion. I'd like to move that we approve um and take uh the chief and staff's recommendation to approve ordinance 1918 series 2026 with an amendment to section 15.80.070. A2 to allow the exception for class B composite decking. Second. Just to clarify the the additional um revision to Yeah. So I think you may you may want to add an section 15 to remove the allowance to basically delete that subsection which allows

Yes. Then let's make the amendment to section 158AB. You said 158.

So, let's also make them delete 1580 80 B1 B. Thank you. Uh, and eliminate it so that there are no plantings allowed in the defensible the five foot defensible space. Second. Do we have that right?

Yes, you have that right. And then council member Coopermanman brought up one other potential amendment which was left out about mowing the grasses and weeds to 6 in. Um, apologies again. I thought that was in there, but if I would recommend um you could add if you want to include that, which we've been saying we would include, you could um amend section 15808 ADC1 um to include a new subsection below that that would state dormant grasses and weeds shall be mowed to a height not to exceed 6 in.

I would accept that. Let's make that adjustment to 1588C1 and have the subsection that requires mowing the dormant grasses and weeds to 6 in. Second. I'm fine with that. All right. Any other discussion? Okay. Um, let's uh close the public hearing and let's take a roll call vote. Mayor Lei, yes. Mayor Prom Hamington, yes. Council member Coopermanman, yes. Council member Dickinson, no. Council member Fehee, yes. Council member Kern, yes. Council member Hefner.

Um before we so mo motion passes and um I wanted to just make a comment of I I think wherever we end up ended up on the votes on this. Really appreciate all of the heavy duty lifting that this required of staff and the fire district. Um, we got uh the chief in here on kind of the the last uh um curve. Um and appreciate your uh running with us on that. Um and also um city manager and and city attorney and everybody else who had something to do with this. And thank you council members for your input and very much the public um because there were some really great suggestions provided in written comments and so forth. So thank you. I think we on the road to having a great we could and we'll keep an eye on it and if we need to make changes to it we certainly will. But thank you everybody. Okay. Um city attorney's report. I have none this evening. Thank you.

Okay. Uh upcoming agenda items and identification of future agenda items. Council member Kern. Thank you. Um I'd like to see if we can or if we can ask staff to bring forward changes to the home hardening code to reflect the woo code changes we made allowing class B decking. Any interest in that on council's part? I actually thought that happened was part of this is that we were going to go citywide class B. That didn't happen. No, we have to change the hardening code. Yeah.

Thumbs up. All right. Put that on the um Thank you.

Future agenda. Um I mentioned a little bit ago the idea of doing a facilities uh plan. Um, I'd like to put that on the agenda at least to have some discussion, have perhaps staff do a little bit of thinking about what we might want to do there, what it would take in terms of staff time and timelines and stuff like that. Um, any interest? Thumbs up, thumbs down. Okay. Can put that on the agenda too for a future moment. Anything Anything else? All right. Good. I think that leaves one last motion.

I move that we adjourn. Second. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? microphone. We need to make sure it goes on the microphone for all the other purposes. Okay, great. Um,