City Council - Regular Meeting

Ready?

Recording in progress.

OK, welcome to the May 19th, 2026 meeting of the Louisville City Council. May I have a roll call, please? Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Hamilton. Councilmember Cooperman here. Councilmember Dickinson here. Councilmember Fahy here. Councilmember Kern present. Councilmember Hefner.

Okay. If you could join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

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. All right. Our first item is an executive session. And I'm going to ask the deputy city attorney to announce more detail and the request, which is being made by the

As noted on the meeting agenda, I am requesting an executive session for the purpose of consultation with the city attorney with respect to pending litigation pursuant to Section 52D of the city's Home Rule Charter and CRS Section 2464024B. Prior to entertaining any motion, the city clerk will read a statement required by the city code.

It is the policy of the city to conduct public business in 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 ordinances may be discussed in an executive session. Those topics are summarized as follows. Number one, where federal or state law requires that the information being discussed remain confidential. Number two, certain personnel matters involving only employees directly appointed by the City 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. Number four, legal consultation with an attorney representing the city with respect to pending litigation.

Regarding the authority for the executive session, Section 52D of the Charter authorizes an executive session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. An executive session for this purpose is also authorized by the Open Meetings Law, Section 246402 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The request involves potential litigation involving a city contract. With that, Mayor, you may entertain a motion to go into executive session.

I move to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation and that the executive session also includes City Manager Diana Langley, Deputy City Manager Samma Fox, Community Development Director Rob Saccaro, Public Works Director Kurt Koehr, Deputy Director of Public Utilities Corey Peterson, and Deputy City Attorney Melinda Cully. Can we get a roll call, please? Second. Any discussion?

Go ahead.

Mayor Lay.

Yes.

Councilmember Cooperin.

Yes.

Councilmember Dickinson. Yes. Councilmember Fahey.

Yes.

Councilmember Kern.

Yes.

Okay, we will adjourn to executive session which will be held at the wastewater treatment plant. We will resume our regular meeting no earlier than 6 p.m. Thank you.

Bye. you Thank you. you Thank you. Music

a little bit of time on my hands here.

We're back to the City Council meeting of May 19th and we have just finished an executive session and our Deputy City Attorney is going to give us a report.

Mayor and Council, as noted on the meeting agenda, the executive session was for the purpose of discussing a pending litigation and the City Council had such discussion. No further action is required of Council tonight.

Thank you very much. Our next item is approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

So moved.

Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Do we have any public comment tonight? Yes. Okay. I'll just... Kate, if you're interested in making public comment, you just fill out a card and give it to the clerk at the end of the dais.

There you go.

I want to make sure he hears it because he's the only one. Great. When you are called, which you will be in just a second, just state your name. Come up to the podium, state your name, and whether you are a Louisville resident, you've got up to three minutes to say what you'd like to say. And let us start. So, good evening.

Good evening. I'm John Eckhart. I live in Superior, actually, and I am the treasurer for a youth sports charity organization called the Lafayette Bobcats. We operate, as you might expect, out of Lafayette. Been with that organization for three years, but it's existed for... at least colloquially, like 60 plus years. There's literally generations of Bobcats that we run into when we're playing games or just out in the community. We obviously serve like a very large spread of socioeconomic people. And we donate a lot of our fees back to the youth so that they don't have to pay to play. That's an outlet, obviously, for them personally, a way for them to grow and develop as young people, an opportunity for their families to work, actually, while they're in a healthy activity. And we think we do a lot of good just broadly in Boulder County and in this community. We had a conversation with staff and they were very helpful and they were very awesome about possibly putting a sign up at the Louisville Sports Complex or at Miners Field or something like that. And what we learned from them was simply that you have to be a co-sponsor to do that. And we only allow, or Louisville only allows one co-sponsor per event. event type or sports type and that you had to be based in Louisville and maybe there were some other criteria, but when we asked more about exactly what that criteria is or what the process is, we couldn't get that information. And I think we just wanted to mention to y'all that there doesn't seem to be a documented process for establishing these relationships. And I sent you an email on that so you can take a look. And we have a lot of documentation just based on the research we've been doing. But previously, there was an organization called Monarch Youth Football, which was based here, but it's actually, it wasn't well formed. It doesn't exist for the Secretary of State. No idea what that entity really was. And they somehow transferred their co-sponsorship to another football program out of Boulder, which also doesn't have a base here, called the Bears. So the Bears have their signs up, but the Bobcats can't have their signs up. And Anyway, you know, there's a lot of us that live here. There's two of our board members that are Louisville residents. There's six of our coaches that are Louisville residents. There's 32 of our players that are Louisville residents. And they participate in and volunteer for the same, some of the other co-sponsored teams and events. And they go to those fields and they wish to be represented here. And so it was a little bit of a hubbub when they told us we couldn't just put our sign up. So the simple request is... Could we be considered for co-sponsorship? And could we please put up our very nice sign just like any other sponsor? Thanks. That is all. Thank you very much.

Any other public comment? All right. Our next item is approval of the consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye. Any opposed?

All right, next is council informational comments and committee reports. Yes, Council Member Kern.

Thank you. So I had the opportunity, I think most of you know, to travel to Seattle with the Denver Regional Council of Governments for a peer exchange with the Puget Sound Council of Governments. They have had tremendous success in the Seattle metro region with housing and housing programs that seems they're about two to three years ahead of us in a lot of the expansion and a lot of their really amazing public transit programs. All of the legislators as well as staff members in the region were incredibly hospitable to everybody who was there from Dr. Cogg. There were many municipalities representing the Denver region. Louisville was represented and sort of some interesting takeaways on inclusionary housing policies that they have found more effective. And that's something that we're going to be discussing and working on. So I'll look forward to adding a lot of the more of the details to the rest of council so you guys will be informed. So it was just, and it was a really, really great opportunity also to just put a best foot forward for Louisville and regionally, right? Just making sure that everybody understands we're in this together. with housing policies and plans and ideas on transit with our train coming. I'm very optimistic and positive on that one. So I just wanted to share that and let you know how successful it was. And there are definitely more detailed takeaways that I'll be able to share with the rest of you.

Thanks. That's the informational comments. I had a meeting in the Northwest Mayors and Commissioners Coalition last Thursday. We went over a number of legislative matters. I think rather than summarize those here, I think there's going to be some good materials that come out of CML, Colorado Municipal League, and we'll pass those on. It's pretty bleak funding picture at state and it's also at the federal level, there's money being held up for a variety of projects in the state, many of which touch our general area. And so we'll get back to you with more information on that. Anybody else? All right, we'll move on. Do we have a city manager's report?

Yes, thank you. We just issued messaging just about an hour ago related to water conservation and encouraging voluntary compliance to water two days per week. And so we're requesting that of our customers. Also, Monday is Memorial Day, so many city facilities will be closed. And then just a reminder that the popular Touch a Truck event is scheduled for Saturday, May 30th at the Recreation and Senior Center. Thank you.

Our first item of business is the first Citywide and Revitalization Commission 2026 budget amendments. Resolution number 48, series 2026, a resolution amending 2026 budget by amending appropriations and general fund, conservation trust lottery fund, historical preservation fund, recreation fund, open space fund, parks fund, capital projects fund, water utility fund, water utility, wastewater utility fund, storm water utility fund, technology management fund and fleet management fund for carry forward or appropriations and additional appropriations within such funds and adjusting budgeted revenue in the general fund, historic preservation fund, open space fund, capital projects fund and golf course fund. And with that I will, send it off to our director of finance.

Always a mouthful and I can feel the excitement. Good evening honorable mayor and esteemed council members. Ryder Bailey, your finance director. With me this evening are Mahyar Matsurabadi, financial analyst and deputy finance director James Franks. We are all here this evening to present the city's and LRC's first budget amendment for their respective 2026 budgets. This budget amendment is largely administrative. The primary purpose is to carry forward capital projects planned and previously budgeted appropriations from 2025 into 2026. The total amounts of these projects are not adjusted during this process, simply being carried forward into the subsequent year to allow for this important work to continue. The City's Finance Committee has reviewed this presentation at their April 16th meeting and supported the approval. Minor modifications since then will be called out on a slide later in this presentation. Before that, let's get going. Staff is seeking your support of the first budget amendment to the Cities and Revitalization Commission's 2026 budget. These amendments, again, are largely administrative in nature and primarily driven by the timing of planned and previously budgeted capital and utility projects, including the carry forward of the related grant revenues. Finance staff batches budget amendments from previously approved council items since the budget was last adopted in the fall. Today's amendment will be broken out into the following categories. Each bullet coincides with an appendix A through F in this order. The capital project carry forward driven by timing, previously approved council adjustments to operational budgets and capital projects since the budget's original adoption, some staff recommended adjustments, adjustments to sources and revenues, adjustments to interfund transfers, and adjustments to the LRC's budget. Resolutions 48 and 49 attached to today's packet are the official amending document and present the amendment by fund. The fund level is the city's legal level of budgetary control. The resolutions present budget changes, summarize it by fund, and the appendices to the resolution present detailed line item. This is the greatest level of detail. In total, the city portion of the amendment increases current year expenditure budget by $51.5 million, offset by revenues of $28.2 million, for a net impact of $23.3 million. Again, this is primarily due to the timing of capital projects, funds not expended in the prior year available to fund projects at various stages of completion. The LRC amendment will increase their appropriations by $2.9 million, offset by $161,350 for net impact to the LRC fund of $2.8 million. This item was presented to the LRC at their April 8th meeting and was supported for your approval. The next few slides correspond to the appendices attached within the docketed materials. Beginning with A, this administrative portion and largest portion of the budget entry carry forward appropriation from last year into the current year for capital projects that council approved in 2025 but for various reasons extended into 2026. This section of the budget amendment makes up the bulk of this evening's budget amendment. Detail by account line or project can be found within appendix A. I'm going to stay within Appendix A just for a moment and highlight a few of the examples of the continuing projects into 2026 that make up the significant portion of the century. These are various DCAR projects, front and center project, Highway 42 corridor, facilities generators. A lot of these, you can see, are externally funded. The Affordable Housing Set-Aside Carry Forward, South Street Underpass, the Utility Replacement Project, Sid Copeland Water Treatment Plant has a couple projects in there, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant as well. As mentioned earlier, finance monitors council meetings for approved budgetary adjustments and batches these previously approved council adjustments throughout the year. This section of the budget amendment contains those adjustments. Further detail, including the council's specific approval dates, can be found in Appendix B. A few examples pulled from there are the rail car purchase approved on February 3rd, the increased chamber contract on April 7th, the pickleball conversion amendment on January 6th, and the sales tax software amendment on March 24th. Staff is proposing some appropriation adjustments to 2026 expenditures. We're proposing to reduce the museum grant expenditure line item to align with the actual grant award. Appropriations to replace a police vehicle and adjusting a golf resale merchandise line item to align with trends. This detail can be found in Appendix C. Adjustments to revenues and sources are found in Appendix D. In the General Fund, this is largely composed of proceeds from the 101 West Cherry sale, and the Historic Preservation Fund proceeds from the 1016 Main Street sale. The other fund revenues are largely grant revenues, which fund capital projects like the Generators, Highway 42 project, DCARB, and capital contributions from LRC to fund the Front Center project. Again, this detail is all on Appendix D. The net impact of this section, as you can see, is zero. However, appropriations are still necessary to shift funding between the funds. In this instance, the capital fund is the recipient of funding from the recreation and water funds for decarb and generator projects. Essentially, these expenses live in the capital fund and are being funded by these other funds via a transfer. These are both carry-fords from the prior year. The final portion of today's Budget amendment is for the Louisville Revitalization Commission. These were presented to the LRC on April 8th and they relate to carry forward appropriations from the 2025 adopted budget and revenue adjustments to align with final assessed values we received from the County Assessor's Office. These are found in Appendix F. Staff has calculated the impacts of this amendment and confirmed that all funds with reserve requirements will remain in full compliance with city reserve policies. At a high level, today's entry is summarized at the aggregated food group type. This is a way I like to see it, because there's a lot of numbers. There's even a lot of funds, so you can summarize it all in one slide. I'll speak quick with this one. But you can see the general fund, it just kind of presents it in a different manner. You can see the general fund adjustments actually are greater than the expenditure fund. The special revenue funds, again, this is largely the sale of the property on Main Street with some carry forwards. You can see the capital fund has a lot of carry forward grants, but a lot of projects coming forward as well. Within the utility and golf funds, you can see they've essentially collected those projects, funds with fees, and it hits the fund balance. And this is the timing of the expenditure of those capital projects. All right. Again, the Finance Committee reviewed and approved a draft of today's proposed amendment after April 16th meeting. I would like to now highlight some minor changes that we have made since that meeting. We made an adjustment to account 101-121-62181, South Taylor Avenue. We decreased that by $25,000 to $75,000 to align with that council direction on March 3rd. We are increasing within the capital fund for federal grants by $525,000 to account for grant revenue received in the capital fund. We're also increasing within the capital fund a vehicle account by $75,000 to replace a totaled patrol vehicle offset by insurance proceeds of $25,000. These will be found in Appendices C and D. Finance Committee has reviewed and supported the approval of this amendment. I've reviewed the minor changes made since then. The LRC reviewed the adjustments to their budget at the April 8th meeting. This evening, it is staff's recommendation for City Council to approve the proposed amendment to the City's 2026 adopted and Louisville Revitalization Commission's 2026 adopted budgets. I appreciate your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Director. Any questions from Council? Yes.

Council Member Cooperman. Just one small question about the second to last slide. Is there a reason our insurance didn't cover more of the replacement cost for that vehicle?

Yes, it was insured to that amount. It was a relatively new vehicle where it took a lot of depreciation those early years. We are working with legal to recover as much as possible on the vehicle, and we also will be evaluating our insurance coverage to ensure it's adequate for our vehicles as well.

Thank you.

We've already heard from the director about the recommendation of the finance committee, but I thought I'd turn to the chair of the finance committee if there's anything further to add.

Nothing further to add. The finance committee reviewed this and recommended approval. Okay, good.

So why don't we take public comment if there is any. Do we have any public comment on this? No, all right. Any further council discussion? Okay, appreciate the explanation and the appendices that you've provided to explain the changes. So can I get a motion?

Move to approve resolutions number 48 and 49 series 2026. Second.

Any discussion about either of those resolutions? Hearing none, let's take a roll call. Excuse me, not a roll call. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Next one is Ordinance Number 1925, Series 2026, an ordinance amending the fire-hardening code for the structures in Chapter 15.70 of the Louisville Municipal Code to allow Class B composite decking. This is a first reading in a setting of the public hearing. Tonight, we're going to hear the staff's presentation on the ordinance. We're not going to be opening presentations. public hearing. We're taking any public comment on this item because it's a first hearing or first reading, excuse me. Council can ask questions and suggest amendments and also ask for further information from Director Zaccaro who is going to make the presentation.

Good evening, Mayor Lay, members of City Council. Again, Rob Zuccaro, Community Development Director. I'll be presenting this first reading for this code amendment. So, as you recall, we recently adopted our wildland urban interface code for the city. We had some discussion about deck material standards. The state WUI code requires Class A rated materials but has an exception if they're Class B composite materials. And so we ended up adopting that within our citywide wildland urban interface code and we discussed at that time that we would come back for our citywide fire hardening code for structures to align since the WUI The WUI code covers kind of the most prone areas. It made a lot of sense to align the citywide code where we still want to have fire hardening standards, but most of those areas are less prone to wildland fire. So we're proposing this amendment to align with the city's wildland urban interface code. So this is the language. It would provide an exception. It's the same language that we have in our WUI code. So in the staff analysis, we note that there's, you know, the way we rate different materials, this Class A, Class B, Class B standard, they all provide improved fire resilience over your standard wood construction, especially like a standard, treated wood deck construction. Some cities even allow Class C within their WUI areas. So with this adoption, we would continue to have higher standards citywide as compared to the state code. It also provides more material options and some cost savings for those who are building decks. We anticipate that will lead to more permit compliance so that we have less people going out and building decks because of the cost or the material availability issues without a permit, which then we're not ensuring the safety of the deck or the fire hardening of the deck. I would note that the Louisville Fire Protection District is in support of this amendment as well to change from Class A to Class B decking material requirements. Staff's recommending approval on first reading and setting the public hearing date for final adoption. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Council questions?

Council Member Cooperman. Just one question. The language says composite. I'm wondering, are there non-composite Class B decking materials, or is it kind of just...

Yes, there are. There's a wide range of decking material. There's different woods that are rated, different hardwoods that can be rated under the rating system that we have in our code and be Class A or Class B. So those are out there, but they're rare.

Okay. And so we've chosen to specify that it has to be composite, though?

Yeah. You know, some of the reason for that, especially in our dry climate, is the, you know, even those hardwoods will dry out and crack and may not maintain, you know, that real fire rating over time.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other council questions? Yes. Councilor Weaver.

Um, yeah, just, you know, clarifying. Is it your understanding that I know right now we have Class A citywide talking about Class B, but is your understanding that outside of a WUI area, is there any other city in the state of Colorado that has fire resistant materials as required code?

Yeah, while not being familiar with every code across the state, I am not aware of any municipal or county codes that require fire-hardened decks outside of a wildland urban interface area. There could be, but I'm not aware of any.

Okay, I'm just wondering... In your presentation, you said, you know, some cities even allow Class C, but that's within the WUI. I think you said that whole saying, like, they allow Class C within the WUI, but no one mandates it outside the WUI.

Right, yeah. In the staff report, we provided a couple examples, including Boulder County, that allows Class C decking within their wildland or interface area.

Yeah. Okay, and then... I think we've had conversations about Class A and Class B building materials and availability and price and all that. My understanding is that B is cheaper than A and B is more available than A, but I also have heard that neither are readily available like at Home Depot or Ace Hardware, that the majority of Class A and Class B materials are still harder to get than Class C, which Class C are easy to buy locally.

Yeah, so I went back and looked at the research we did last year when we were discussing this previously. So the research we did last year for a theoretical 300 square foot deck just for the material prices, we priced out the deck materials for class A at about $7,500, class B was $6,500, and class C was about $3,900. We looked into material availability for A and B, and most of those were special order throughout our region. We didn't research Class C, but, you know, so I can't answer that directly if there's Class C readily available. I'm not sure.

Okay. Yeah, because that's, I mean, we're at questions, so I think I'll, I think that answers my questions. Appreciate it.

is that information on Class C information you'd like to get by the second reading?

Sure. If you don't mind, I think it's... Yeah, we can look at the same...

You know home supply stores and lumber yards that we did with the original research and see what the Class C availability is and we'll put those cost and availability tables back in the report that we had from the 2025 discussion

Yeah, I appreciate that. I just, I think from, I remember the conversation A and B is like when we kept A, right? It was like, oh, the difference in A and B is not that much. Like you're not really going to save that much and it's not that much more available. So we kept A, right? And then obviously with the WU, we decided to go to B, but we haven't had the conversation really like full-throatedly the difference between A and C or at this point B and C and what that would mean for our residents when they're actually doing constructions. I think that would be good information.

Any other questions, requests for information, requests for amendments? All right. Council Member Curtin.

Thank you. I think if we're going to have a discussion about potentially even looking at something other than a Class B, which I'm personally opposed to, but I think that the fire chief should be here and be prepared to speak on it and let us understand what potential additional risks with decks being so close to trees and other things since we haven't created additional See like safe perimeters around homes and see if it increases the risk for conflagration more or not. I appreciate that.

Thanks All right any other comments, all right, can we get a motion on the first reading?

Sure, I'll move that we Move along ordinance number 1925 series 2026 for a second reading on June 2nd 2026 at 6 p.m. Second I

discussion all in favor all right next item is ordinance number 1924 series 2026 an ordinance amending title 17 of Louisville municipal code concerning accessory dwelling units and compliance with House bill 24 1152 this is on for second reading it is again ordinance so we will have the two rounds of public comments when the time comes and we'll open the public hearing staff presentation Thank You Jeff hurt with community development and all noticing has been met for this case so there's a

There's a targeted update to our accessory dwelling unit ordinance to comply with state law. So I'll be fairly brief, but the specific issue is basically our size restrictions are in violation of state law in a very narrow set of circumstances. So our ordinance basically says that the accessory dwelling unit can only be 75% of the size of the primary unit. And so the issue arises in that the state law says in all cases we have to explicitly allow a 750 square foot ADU. So if your house, your primary house happens to be 1,000 square feet or less, that 75% rule basically says your ADU shall be less than 750 square feet. It's a very narrow, specific, targeted change, but we do need to address it to comply with state law. So our proposal is to essentially override the 75% rule. So it applies if the house happens to be 1,000 square feet or less. You at minimum get a 750 square foot ADU. There's no other changes proposed to the ADU regulations. The size, the development standards, all of it stay the same. This is just about this one targeted change. And so to show an example of how this plays out, this table on the screen basically shows an example of if your primary house is 900 square feet, the current code with that 75% rule would limit the size of the ADU to about 675 square feet. That's the violation of the state law right there. And so the ordinance corrects that and says, in this case, 750 square feet ADU would be allowed. It also applies the rule basically says that the ADU has to be smaller in size than the primary unit It can do that under state law So if the primary house happens to be 750 square feet the ADU essentially has to be 749 square feet under this ordinance So it's very targeted very specific, but we do new address it per state law So staff does recommend approval of the ordinance as written and it happen answering questions Council questions

Yes, Council Member Krupperman. I think just one question. This small change, it doesn't distinguish between attached and detached ADUs. Is that correct? No, same. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. We will take a first round of public comment. Do we have any public comment? All right. Back to council. Any questions? Any other comments? One more time to public comment. Any public comment? All right. So anybody would like to, I'm going to, well, ask for a motion here. Anyone want to make a motion? Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. Go ahead.

I move to approve ordinance number 1924, series 2026.

Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion? I'll get a roll call, please.

Councilmember Cooperman?

Yes.

Mayor Lay?

Yes.

Councilmember Fahey? Yes. Councilmember Dickinson? Yes. Councilmember Hefner? Yes. Councilmember Kern?

Yes.

Motion passes. We'll go on to ordinance number 1923, series 2026, an ordinance vacating an access easement located within lot one, block three, Redtail Ridge, filing number one, second reading. Do we first have any disclosures?

Yeah, I'm going to excuse myself from this item and the next item because of a conflict of interest. I will see you all next time.

Very good. And as is typical in these situations, we wait for the council member to leave the room entirely. Which will take just a second.

Thank you.

All right. Floors, staffs.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Emily Klein-Gibson with the staff presentation. This is the second reading for Ordinance 1923, Series 2026. This application is a request to vacate a portion of an access easement that's located on lot 1 block 3 in Redtail Ridge. This easement was originally established with the Redtail Ridge filing number 1 subdivision in 2024 and provides access for city maintenance staff from Rockcrest Drive to the lift station property which is located on track K. A new easement will be dedicated via a separate instrument and will provide continued access from Rockcrest Drive to track K. And the easement vacation and dedication provides a shorter, more direct route from Rock Crest Drive to Track K. The changes will remain as Lot 1, Block 3 is developed. This slide provides an image of the easements. So the red area represents a portion of the existing easement that will be vacated with this proposed ordinance. The blue area represents the new portion of easement that will be dedicated via the separate instrument. And the green represents the existing easements that will remain unchanged. with this staff recommends approval of ordinance 1923 series 2026 to vacate a portion of the existing access easement with the condition that the new easement be dedicated concurrent with the vacation to maintain that contained access and that concludes the staff presentation i'm happy to answer any questions thank you council any questions council cooper thank you um so let's see um

I guess I'm wondering, so the easement that we're vacating would be you would access from that roundabout. And so is there still planned to be a road like that or access like that? Just wouldn't be our sort of formal way of accessing the lift station?

So, yeah, the formal way of accessing the lift station would be changed in terms of if there would still be a road from there, that would be done with the PUD for that lot one block three, which is currently, I believe, under staff review.

Okay. And then, so just to the north of the new access point, it looks like there's an access point to the lot above the Just curious, do we know what that access point will serve as to the north?

I believe that would be the access point to the hospital campus. And those access points do align across from each other.

Okay. So I guess those are kind of lead up questions. What I'm curious about is, do we feel like there are any traffic safety issues with our access being not at the roundabout, but at this point there?

Not that I'm aware of. This new access easement that's going to be established was created with Public Works and worked closely with the applicant. Public Works worked closely with the applicant to create that easement, so I'm sure if there are any traffic issues, that would have been addressed.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions, counsel? I had one, just what appeared to be a discrepancy between the initial drawing in the staff report and then the proposal. I didn't see in the initial one, which looks like it came from the actual filing, there's a... There isn't, doesn't appear to be an easement. Whoops, excuse me. Looks like there's... only one access to the track K, but on the other one there appear to be two. Is there... Did I miss something or am I misreading it?

Are you referring to the north and the south both? So yeah, they're just two separate easements. The one main easement that connects to the south of the property. That was established with the Redtail Ridge Filing No. 1 subdivision. That's the primary access road for the vehicles. It connects to the parking lot. And then that secondary, shorter easement to the north, it's just a separate easement. It's not intended to be the primary. It's mainly for machinery to access the low station.

Okay. Okay. This is an ordinance, so we'll take a first round of public comment. Okay. Further council questions, thoughts, comments? All right, second round. Any? None on the second round either, all right. So any other discussion by council? If not, could somebody like to offer a motion?

I'll make a motion. I move that we approve ordinance number 1923, series 2026. Second. Any discussion?

Okay. I have a roll call vote, please.

Council Member Kern.

Yes.

Council Member Fahey. Yes. Council Member Dickinson.

Yes.

Council Member Cooperman.

Yes.

Mayor Lay.

Yes. Next one is ordinance number 1926, series 2026, an ordinance vacating an easement for a communications tower located within Redtail Ridge, filing number one. It's the first reading to set the public hearing. Again, we're going to get a presentation from staff, but there won't be any public comment. And the council can ask questions and... propose amendments and ask for any other material that would be useful during the second hearing, which is the public hearing.

Again, Rob Zuccaro, Community Development Director. Sticking on the theme of vacating easements in Red Tail Ridge, we have another easement, which is a communications tower access and maintenance easement that was established with the Red Tail Ridge subdivision plat. You can see it's located on the east side of the property, so I've highlighted it and um the history is that as we understand it is the boulder county sheriff's office entered into an agreement back in 2002 with storage tech to build a tower to put some communications radio equipment on the tower for emergency operations and communications a tower was finally constructed in 2009 when owned by conoco phillips there's not a lot of good records around all of this. There's no records on ownership, no current agreements with the existing property owners despite the easement that we established on the plat knowing that that tower was there. The Boulder County Sheriff's Office has determined that they do not want to maintain this equipment and are willing to let go of the easement. They mentioned in the letter that was submitted in the packet that they are intending to work with Advent health hospital to reestablish new communications equipment once the hospital is built on the building itself. So we've also checked in with our police department. They don't have any issues with this as well. As you know, all of our dispatch is run through the sheriff's office. So with that, staff's recommending approval on first reading and setting the public hearing date for second reading. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Council. Questions? Yes, Council Member Kern.

So, thank you. So, in the past, the intention is that it was used for emergency. Is this a site, though, that could be used to enhance cell service, which is something that seems to be in need of assistance in that area, especially as it expands?

Well, I think there's some complications with that since nobody really claims ownership to the tower. And the easement that was established was for the public safety tower. I would also say within our wireless ordinance, we really promote building-mounted and roof-mounted towers over equipment instead of standalone towers for aesthetic reasons. So I think with all that together, I don't think there's a good path to transition this into a cell tower, and we would hope that there'd maybe be better options once the development goes in to have some building and roof-mounted equipment.

Okay. Thank you.

I understand the easement piece. Who is going to clear the land? Is there anything to be cleared on that?

Yeah, somebody would have to remove the tower, so I think either the Red Tail Ridge developer or a future property owner on that parcel, when they develop the parcel, would have to remove it when they were ready to develop. Okay. There would be no city obligation that I'm aware of or Boulder County Sheriff's Office obligation to remove it that I'm aware of.

Do you have any idea what the timeframe would be?

I don't.

Okay. Great. Any other questions from Council? All right. Can we get a motion?

Go ahead.

Sure.

I move that we pass Ordinance 1926, Series 2026, upon first reading and set public hearing for... June 2?

Tuesday, June 2nd. Where are you getting that?

Tuesday, June 2nd. Oh, the green over here. Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. City Attorney's Report.

I don't have a report tonight.

Upcoming agenda items and identification of future agenda items. Do we have any? Council input on that. Yes.

So we heard some an interesting comment from the gentleman representing the Lafayette Bobcats and the kind of like the junior sports not profit charity that they are. Could we maybe look into how we can better advertise the ability for for not-for-profit organizations to partner with Louisville for that kind of advertising but that was something we could look into do we need a agenda item for council meeting on that I don't know we should ask city manager if we do or if that's just something that staff can handle on their own I think staff can handle it thank you thank you

WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S ABILITY TO HANDLE THINGS. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WE NOW HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTERTAINING A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN.

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR?

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED?

BUILT IN 1870 WHICH BECAME A ROOMING HOUSE FOR MINORS. THE HUGE COTTON WOOD IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WAS PLANTED IN 1885. John Mayhoffer, David Kerr's maternal great-grandson, has continued to operate the farm, outlasting the coal mines. The Rex II mine was located on the farm, a gaping water-filled hole in the farm's