City Council - Special Meeting

Council Member Cooperman.

Here.

Council Member Dickinson. Council Member Fahey. Here. Council Member Kern. Present. Mayor Pro Tem Hamlington. Council Member Hefner. Mayor Lee.

Thank you so much, Mayor. Council members, committee members, thank you for being here tonight. We have quite a full house. I appreciate your patience as we sort of reconfigure ourselves to the spaces. We are going to start tonight's presentation with some guests who are here joining us from our neighbors in Superior, but also the designers who've been working on the Remembrance Project. And we're going to be able to come up and speak a bit more to the project itself once they're done, I will step back up we'll talk a bit about the survey, but I want to make sure we get to that piece first so give me just one more moment of grace, while I share. The right screen. the presentation. And with that, I'd like to welcome up our friends from Superior to talk about the presentation.

Feel free to drive. Good evening. My name is Julie Meenan-Eck. I'm with a firm called Land Design. We're located in Denver, Colorado. Happy to be here.

Yes, and thank you for the attendance. And likewise, my name is Lupe Cantu. I'm with Davis Partnership Architects, also out of Denver. I'd like to just refresh the uniqueness of this project. When we were looking at the overall RFP that described what Superior was looking for as it resulted into the final project that they were aspiring to, the it was very unique in the fact that um memory oftentimes brings together this idea of metaphor and um but their proposal was very unique in that it actually wanted to have an idea that when people visited this future remembrance that they could grasp the time that this fire took place and that there was more of a real relationship as opposed to kind of a metaphor. As designers, we oftentimes strive for metaphor, just in kind of finding a relationship in what we do. But we started to look at actual inspirational kind of imagery that came during that time period that this fire took place. And so from this imagery, we like to propose that at that time, you had 398 structures specific to Superior, over 1,000 overall structures that were laid bare through the fire. And what was really kind of moving to us is the fact that you had these elements that left memory. And oftentimes in that fire, what was left was these kind of masonry hearths, these kind of the fireplaces of the homes that, you know, usually when you look at a home, that's where the family gathers, that's where people actually commune. And so this image in particular, that was shot where you had the remembrance of that fireplace. And then likewise, the kind of the two memories of where the mantle was connected and the two holes that you see on the side, but then also the resiliency that was shown through the actual hanging of the flag. And then, of course, you had the infamous photo of Willie the horse, who during that time period was just trying to look for opportunities to kind of find its way and survive. on the following day after the fire on the 31st, the third day, excuse me, you had the snowfall. And likewise, what was left in that ruin, but also in the piece of the snow and the white, you had this wonderful kind of terracing that was there and was left over. And then finally, in the fourth photograph, the idea that there's this notion of growth and the idea of kind of renewal and kind of what was then sprouted directly after that period.

So we had the RFQ that we responded to. And within that, there was the information on the fire. And so the sheer numbers that we drew from, there was testimony from people that lived it. And Lupe had sent me and said, hey, do you want to go in on this right before I went on a road trip? So these things were going through me. These images we talked about were going through me. And then we had the story of the arc of the event, which was the event itself, the response, the aftermath, the recovery. And I happened to be driving through New Mexico, which doesn't have anything to do with Colorado, but I was looking at the different layers of the rock and how it went from buff to mixed and then down to red as we got to Arizona. And so, um, having all of this in my mind, I got to the hotel and I called him right away. So what do you think of this? And we work very well together and it just went from there. So, um, Inspiration came from, from all of those things together.

And once again, just to kind of speak towards that kind of RFP, RFQ process, what was really asked was to define the concept on how we were going to approach this idea of remembrance. And so we pulled together a concept that at that time, the requirement was to absolutely have no visuals. Nothing to kind of represent physically what this was going to be, but what was the larger idea behind that? And so very unique in the idea that we were not only providing a main concept for a place to gather, but we also had these other pieces which came through with the idea of a pet remembrance and then the potential for additional opportunities to provide educational opportunities throughout the community through these dispersed components.

So we came up with an idea of the rings and the first ring we called destruction and it was to reflect the fire itself. The day of the fire, we were going to use materials that were red, limited plant material we can do out here, but it was going to be in more reds and yellows. This was going to be the actual memorial. It was the largest place for gathering, especially for groundbreaking or anniversaries. It allows you to have a group event if you wanted to, but allows people enough space in this first ring to kind of reflect on their own. It also has, which we'll get to the images later, but it also has some seating in it, some stadium seating. So you can get these great views because it, It has to be more than just a memorial remembrance project. The second ring we called displacement and absence, and that was the day of excavation, of leaving your home. It was confusing. We were going to shift to some darker material, maybe do some cobble paving so you're unsteady under your feet. There's one way in, there's one way out. sidewalks are kind of undulating. So it kind of was mimicking that state of confusion that everybody probably went through. The third ring we call snowfall and recognition. And that is the day that the snow fell. I mean, that brought hope for everyone that helped put out the fire. It just had such a meaningful impact on These days we had and then the outer ring we call redemption. It's looking new. It's watching this field regenerate and it's an opportunity to educate on fire wise plants and fire breaks and stuff like that. So these are some of the images that we came up with. Again, this was our concept. We're switching from the RFP and then getting into our first presentation where we actually started to do some design work. And so this material kind of signifies materials we may use in that inner circle. And then the outer circle where we turn to the darker materials, same with the benches and the plant materials and things will have that same feel. And then the snow, so we bring in the whites and the light grays and that kind of impact. And then we get to the getting back to the native seed, maybe connecting to the trail system that's already there. and just looking out on a regenerated prairie. And so this is what the design looks like. We were given a location. We have a point of entry that's already there. We were working with just aerials and making a guess as to what the topography was like, but it's great topography. And so we had native open space, so we didn't want to stick up and be obnoxious. There's no utilities, significant slope. We had to come up with a planting strategy because we didn't know whether we had water or not. We didn't know if we were going to have lighting or not. There are utilities close by, but we know now that we can't use them. And then just dealing with the slope and how to adjust in there.

And so the slope, as you see for yourself, this is now looking through the site, looking towards the Flatirons. And then you have the project itself kind of inlaid within that slope. So you can see how it begins to work its way back into the terracing of the landscape. We start off with an entry plaza, that entry plaza, basically goes from at grade to about three and a half feet down, all of which can be navigated and brought through universally. But then we have the ability to then come down into that first ring. That first ring goes from that negative three and a half feet to now an additional five feet down below. So we really start to play out towards the terracing and really begin to ingrain ourselves back into the landscape. where we can now focus on what's going on not only in the immediacy of its materiality, but then also begin to focus on the community that it's meant to kind of entail. And then lastly, we start going into those additional rings as we slowly work our way back down towards the natural grade.

We started with the idea of universal design. It's ADA accessibility by everyone, someone with a stroller, someone who doesn't need it. We wanted everybody to travel the same path. So the size of that first ring really had to do with a simple ramping system to get you down into the entrance. You can go down and come up the other side. There's opportunity to do that, but everyone is taking the same path. to get down and anyone can use it of any ability whatsoever. So that kind of triggered the sizing of this thing.

As we come down towards the first ring, we really begin to see the kind of the entry plaza at that point and then what it's overlooking. Working with the superior team, we're able to kind of make sure that we're kind of pushing the focus back to the overall communities that it's on setting and overlooking and bringing the focus back towards the communities that the fire absolutely impacted. From this instance, you know, we're here now into that kind of first fire ring. And just to kind of give you an orientation, the plan is located on the lower right in that little red triangle is kind of the direction that we're looking at in that plan. Here we really begin to look at that idea of remembrance and what was laid bare when the fire actually consumed a number of those structures. And this is where I take the idea of the hearth, the fireplace, the idea of the remembrance of what was left. We have that situated down on that lower level of the ring. In and of itself becomes a constant reminder, regardless of how this remembrance is utilized overall as a space, that element directly speaks to the day that the fire took place. Oops, excuse me. And this speaks towards that. This is actually oriented in a manner, and the kind of apertures that are cut through that memorial, that idea of the hearth, with both the areas that are remembrance of the mantle that was once there, and likewise the kind of overall opening where the fire would take place. Those are oriented in a way that during the first call on December 30th, that the sun will perfectly align to then what is laying bare and overall light that then goes to this kind of overall plinth that then speaks towards the nature of the fire. And more importantly, this is shown 20 minutes prior to that time. And then 1109, during the first call that happened on that day, as the sun begins to directly align with those components. The plinth, like I said, it really begins to describe that narrative. But the mantle with the two cut openings then begin to kind of speak towards the idea of the two lives that were lost during that day. And then finally, another 20 minutes after that, you can begin to see how the shadow then displaces during that time period.

Can you go back from here? So again, this is where you have one way out. And so thinking of the evacuation day and getting into that next ring, this is the way that you leave and enter that second ring. And the second ring, what we're showing right now are steel posts. We have, because this was in Superior, we have 398 posts to represent each of the structures that were lost. But if you go back to that image of Willie, it's also to remind you of those trees in the background. And these are just the trees that have been burnt that are just sticking up through the fire. Any landscape material that we put in there is going to be more architectural in nature. So when the leaves are gone. It's craggity. It looks like it was the burnt situation that was left over. And again, the tumbling of the pavers, the undulation of the walkway, you go down again through universal design measures to get to the next ring to get you out.

And it's partway through that kind of path of you're reminded of here we have a steel cut image of Willy at the tail end of this. And because we're now kind of displacing ourselves down below the actual natural fall of the grade, we have these retaining walls that we very much are looking towards the opportunity to recognize all the individuals and kind of systems that were there to help with that fire management. So here you not only have Willie, but then you have opportunities where you can then provide kind of the thanks of the community members that were involved in that fire.

Then as you get into that third ring, this is the representation of snow. Everything's white. Your benching is a little bit more space so you can have some personal time to reflect out and look at the beautiful scenery that you have. And the fourth ring you can see in the ground, that's representing this fourth ring. The other part about this is it's also the firewise. It's the firewise idea where you have the landscaping using fire plants. CSU has a great list of plants that would be harder to burn. We also have a horticulture team that's ready to help us do this. And then that was wide enough. That white walkway is wide enough to do a fire break. And this is an educational moment where we can talk about firewise plant material, where to find firewise plant material, where to find the, how a fire break works or supposed to work. We know with the winds that was had that night that this probably wouldn't have happened or it wouldn't have worked this way, but that's the intention of the fire break design. And another alternate that we had, we looked at were two alternates. One was to do dispersion events throughout the town. And we thought we could have a QR code that gives you a map of where you can see some artifacts from the fire. And the other alternate was a pet memorial garden. So here we have, we envisioned a structure, a statue, a structure above that has little cutout glass that is in rainbow color. And as the sun shines down, it goes onto the white pavement and you cross the rainbow bridge to get into the plant or the pet memorial. And one other thing about this, in that white layer, the walls are a little bit taller that you saw in one of the images. As the wind drifts, as the snow drifts, we're capturing the snow and it becomes part of the monument.

As was mentioned, our goal was not to necessarily stand out. our goal was to blend in and allow this to be an opportunity where once happened upon, there's the opportunity for not only an education experience, but then an opportunity where you can make the remembrance of what you take in. And so we wanted to make sure that we scaled the remembrance in a manner so that it really started to blend and cascaded with that landscape. So what you'll see here in these several shots are the kind of inlaid version of that memorial and then as we kind of turn everything black and white you'll see this in a second how in and how minimal hopefully that we're really impacting that landscape so once again you see the kind of memorial here in full color with everything else and then all of a sudden we'll turn everything off other than the memorial you begin to see the scale of that memorial and this is from the neighborhood that's immediately allocated just to the side of it Once again, looking back up to the terrain and then turning everything off so you begin to see how the memorial begins to really inlay itself into the landscape. And as you're kind of entering towards that trailhead parking area. Then once again, the sidewalk. Hopefully, we're doing more of a service for the actual landscape where this really becomes an idea that, unlike a traditional monument which wants to stand out, we're really trying to kind of embed ourselves in and really take onus of the landscape that we're in. And that is our overall presentation. So we're happy to address any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

I'm ready to go. From this, I didn't mention that there are officials from town council, But this is something, just so that people know, we've gotten together and counseled. Real question for us is going to process and that's something built side and one of the ways we've discussed it a little bit is whether some folks have already provided some aspects of this in some ways are the periphery but are really important So the one thing that I do want to emphasize to all is one of those beautiful things that happened is that communities Thank you very much. those are just i just want to sort of set a frame as to what we'll be doing tonight uh it's not going to be a question sure about design and so forth um getting in on this certain place Thank you.

Yes. I want to first reiterate that the design itself, I think, is amazing. The way that you brought it into the four levels and just incorporating the side of the hill at different levels. My question, well, I have two questions. One is on level two, You said you were going to have a bumpy walk. I'm wondering if that's going to be accessible to people who need a cane or something.

They do tumbled pavers is the description. So it's a product that you would see anywhere in any environment that is ADA accessible. I describe it a little bit more than it really is.

That's the theory behind it. All right. And then the second question I have is, if we're going to be doing this as a joint memorial between Louisville and Superior, why are there only metal stakes for Superior's homes that were lost? Because there were more that were lost in Louisville.

At the time when we worked on this, it was just a superior project and they had 398. We also came, again, this is a concept. We came with the idea of maybe etching the number of every structure. Then they thought neighborhood, then they thought if they opened it up, you know, it's the symbology that we're showing. It can definitely change to incorporate without changing the design. Maybe it's by neighborhood. Maybe it's by account. Who knows? Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry. This one doesn't work. It's not on.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Great. Appreciate it. Appreciate you guys and the work and the design. I also want to thank Superior Council and staff for embracing the idea of this being a unified remembrance. I think the mayor very well stated, as a fire survivor myself, my home was a total loss the day of the fire. I remember every one of those war events quite clearly. And I will say, even just sitting here and listening to your presentation today, It's still four and a half, almost five years later, very emotional for me. I live this every single day of my life. I'm not home yet. So I'm still in one of these like very much recovery phases. And I think all of us, even the people who are home are still recovering. So, but thank you for this and incorporating it. That unity with the communities, I still feel that. Every event I go to, there's no difference. All of us who were impacted by the Marshall Fire, we became like a new family. And I actually, one of the reasons I felt that this was such an appropriate thing to have for everyone, Louisville, Superior, Boulder, is because it isn't a remembrance of one town in an event. We are all the same in this event today. as being one of the people who's very much entrenched in this. I can tell you I have not met anybody who feels differently than that. But I was curious, since we are having the conversation, have you had any specific thoughts? I know it's been not very much time since the new suggestion to incorporate everyone. Could you share with us any ideas that you did have to embrace some of this Louisville and Boulder piece, not just the superior component, as Council Member Fahey sort of alluded to?

So in the description of the hearth in particular, when the sun does shine through that opening towards that larger plinth, the story has yet to be written. And we're hoping that in the conversations that take place amongst the communities, that can be a unifying element that begins to tell that story. So we have not imprinted ourselves on that. We made sure that we had an opportunity to provide that kind of plinth, that tablet to then receive that story. And I very much hope that that is one of the opportunities that can at least speak towards how the community came together, this idea of looking forward.

And those end pieces that had Willie, that was just a concept. Both sides have an end piece where you can sit and you could do anything there. The walls are tall enough so you could do edges of poetry and all that, all of this discovery and finalizing is yet to come.

I thought it was clever, your idea too, of having, whether it's QR codes or some other identifier to other components that people might want to be interested in. Louisville did erect a pet memorial for all the pets that were lost in the Marshall fire, not just the Louisville ones. And that might be something that is located in the Louisville Arboretum. So rather than like recreating, it could be one of those like gestures who you can, You can't see it directly from the Remembrance, but you can see the direction of it. It would be within the view that I'm seeing right now of where the Arboretum is. It's just below the rec center. So I think that could be one of the ways that we can tie it to the two communities as well.

Might be a lovely thing to do.

And last piece that was brought up was, I like your idea of, and I'm sure that there's been a lot of thought with the input from superior residents, with the firewise plantings. But I also agree, I think this is an amazing opportunity if there's still room. to expand and go beyond just the plants. There's so much more that we learned in being resilient to wildfire, and it is not only affecting our communities now, but it's actually becoming a statewide thing. There's a lot of recognition, right, that our fire brought to the whole state of what needs to be embraced and done to make everyone safer. And that little piece of education, you'd be amazed how hard that information is to get out there. And this might be a phenomenal opportunity to do that if there's will behind the scenes to kind of make a few adjustments. Thanks. Thank you.

Appreciate it. First, a sort of mundane question. The land where this is produced, projected to go, is that superior open space land? Yes. Yes, OK. I think there's county land nearby too, so I just wasn't clear exactly. And then, so you sort of implied that there might be interpretive materials incorporated Is that the case? And if so, were you thinking about actual signage or some other form of interpretive materials?

I think that was the idea of the QR codes. One of the things we heard very clearly is they don't want to junk this up with signs, donor signs, educational signs, and all that. So it would be a continual opportunity to strive to do something that's tasteful and part of it without... adding stuff everywhere. So the QR codes was one idea of how to link you to something that then you can get all the information that you need. But also the interpretive opportunities are things like to give a nod to the first responders or to have a meaningful poetry that kind of talks about the event or anything like that. We have ample room throughout it to do tasteful stuff.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. It says it's on, but not up here. That's the real question. Sorry, there are a couple of elements that I just wanted to kind of lean into just a little bit. One of them had to do with sort of the extent to which it commemorates particular groups of people that were, you know, as I kind of mentioned, maybe in my framing, we are extraordinarily proud. And I think all of the folks, whether superior or unincorporated or otherwise, really proud of the people in our own And all of the folks from the governmental entities that really were pivotal for us, that sort of focuses especially on public works because they were so crucial to the survival, I think, of both of the communities, or all of the communities. I wondered... Is there, apart from the QR code, is there anything in the physical design that references that?

The two ends, at the ends of the ramp, like the willy. Those are not designed. Those are to be part of the process. It's an opportunity for a space with additional memorial opportunities.

I appreciate that. I may have missed that. The other one was just to follow up on Council Member Kern's question about the pet memorial piece. Can you bring up the part of it that you're going to point out the piece that

refers to that the pet memorial piece was an alternate so it wasn't designed as part of the package but the thought is that you could do a sculpture an overhead sculpture and then you could walk the rainbow bridge to get to a future pet memorial gotcha alright why don't we usually on presentations okay

Just let me mention this. And usually in presentations, we don't have public comment. On this one, we definitely are going to. But Council Member Fahey, please.

I am just wondering, doing a pet memorial, I think, is a lovely idea. I'm wondering if we could also do a memorial for the two people who died.

So that is inlaid. Within the hearth. So the two openings on the side of the larger opening, which traditionally holds the inset for the mantle, when the fire hit, that burnt away. It left the openings there. When the sun shines... at the specifically at 1109 that then begins to tell the story on the larger white surface that it shines down onto. It also highlights the two smaller plinths that are in memory of the two individuals who had passed.

And is that going to be acknowledged somewhere in the design? Is there going to be a tile there or something?

That's what those two smaller. The two white tiles. Okay. Thank you.

Anne Brennan.

Thank you very much. I'm Anne Brennan. I also, like Judy and probably others in the room, lost my home of 30 years and my entire neighborhood along with it. This was a lot. I've seen this online a few times, much more emotional listening to you guys talk it through. So if that's your goal, you hit it. Out of the park. So I'm here tonight because my email to city manager Langley was included in the packet. So I thought, well, I better show up. And so I'll let that speak for itself. This is a beautiful remembrance. I don't have strong feelings about whether Louisville goes in with Superior or not, but I don't see how we could top that. Especially, it's going to be a huge investment, and it's beautiful. And I think Louisville needs... some acknowledgement and I offer gratitude to the town of Superior for getting it this far and hopefully we can come in on this. And I'll just go back to this idea of education. In the five years since the fire, it feels like five years, As our council knows, I've gotten very active in the community in terms of advocating for resilience and mitigation and education. And it's a much harder lift than you would imagine, even for people who were here at the time. And we have lots of newcomers who weren't here at the time, and they just cannot fathom that anything like this will ever happen again. And so while we mourn and grieve and deal with our loss, it's really an important opportunity to help educate people about our shared responsibility public and private, homeowners, renters, business owners, we're all responsible to reduce the risk of this going forward. I'm sure you're aware Louisville's fire district sponsored a wildfire and conflagration risk assessment, which is just for the city of Louisville, but I imagine that the conclusions would extend to much of Superior. Any part of the city of Louisville can vanish again under the right conditions, the wrong conditions, and depending on where another fire starts. There is not a single part of the city that is exempt from that risk. And the most important statement in that report, in my opinion, was it's less important that a few people do everything right then a lot of people do something right. We need everybody pulling together, defensible space, hardening roofs. We've got some of it in our code. We don't have everything in our code. And so I just hope this will not... this opportunity will not pass by without ending on that note that we all have to take responsibility going forward to increase our safety. And just one final note, when I was, my husband and I were in Kirk Gowdy State Park in Wyoming recently, and they have a firewise garden outside their visitor center. And there's a bunch of plaques like this. This one says, can your home withstand a firebrand? And that's a great question. I know we don't want a lot of plaques and signage around, but through QR codes or however, this is the kind of question to get everybody thinking about something I could do in my home and my neighborhood to help us all be safer. So thank you.

Thank you, Anne. Any other public comment? Okay. Appreciate that. We'll take it back to council then. I'd like to kind of frame it. We can talk a little about the memorial, but I want to try to make sure we get to the question of whether we should do a survey and whether folks have any questions about the survey that has been drafted by staff. I will throw out one comment, which isn't necessarily my own. It isn't my own, but it was a comment made, which is, gee, it's a memorial. Do we really need a lot more public input than we've gotten? I'm not going to answer that question myself, but I would throw that out in order to say it's not a foregoing conclusion that we have to get. We have to do a survey, but I throw that out first, and then we can talk a little bit about that. So why don't we start with a survey, if that's okay, and we'll kind of proceed. People happy about a survey, not happy about a survey?

Yeah, I think, Josh, did you have something specific? Go ahead.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Wow. Maybe I'll step back. I am interested in doing this survey, particularly representing Ward 1 and only having to evacuate for the fire. I just don't feel like I have the kind of input from my constituents and even my circle of friends and so forth that would let me make a very informed decision. So I would really, I think, benefit from having the survey go out and getting that feedback. And I had one question about the survey, which was on number four. It's more a comment, I guess. I just thought on number four, it would be useful to have maybe like one more option. In particular, like, so there's only one no option. I would prefer a Louisville allocated fund exclusively to a Louisville based remembrance project. I feel like, I don't know. I feel like there's maybe some other, some room for another option there. Especially since they're, yeah. I mean, so the first two seem very clear to me. Um, I mean, the third one is also clear. I'm, you know, you're unsure. Um, and that's fine. I, um, I don't, yeah, I don't know. Like, is it, um, I'm not sure what the option would be, but maybe you'd like Louisville to do something different for the five-year. Yeah, I don't know exactly, but it just felt like there needed to be another option there.

I mean, you could... Let me try to clarify that for just a second. This one is very... very specific in its qualification. I prefer Louisville allocate its funds exclusively to Louisville-based remembrance project. There might be something else that Louisville might allocate its funds toward conceivably. That might be another one. Councilmember Kern.

No, I was just going to say, I think the thing to remember is this is going, this remembrance is going to be built. Whether we participate, which we have been graciously invited into a process that has been long underway, or not. it will still be there it will still represent every one of us who has gone through something in some way whether you you know directly impacted by the fire or it's just impacted your life you know since living here since the fire um it will have meaning to anybody in louisville who tries it so that it's going to be built it's this is not about whether that is it's a weather There are maybe some small changes that are made to better incorporate that feeling of all of our communities coming together and whether we take some dedicated funds and help do that. Again, I think maybe the idea of sharing the pet memorial and the other remembrances there, and that's one way to link both of the sites, could be a lovely way to show that unity versus doing another pet memorial, for example, and saying, oh, here's a way that we're separate instead of a way that we're together because this whole thing is about us being together and going through it and surviving it together. Honestly, I think that the survey, we could do it. I have been in the room with several events now with a lot of martial fire survivors where I would say the majority of people would like to see something. And this was when this idea came up and we first started learning about it as a community, people thought, well, wouldn't this make more sense to be a joint thing? It didn't seem to make sense to try to do two things. And I think as Anne Brennan well said, She said, I mean, this is it's lovely and it's here, but we're not going to top it. We're not going to try to top it. So let's, you know, be unified in that. And I don't know how much surveying we need to do to say, let's do that. It may cost more money to do the survey than some of the funds that we're going to contribute. So that's something I think that we should be thinking about.

That may be worth a question to staff about how much is the survey. The survey is not something that's, I mean, I know there's a plan for that if we do it. And why don't you, can you sort of describe that a little bit more?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. So the survey we ran through Engage Louisville, which means that there are no extra costs to running the actual survey or analyzing it. We're able to do that in-house. And then just to speak to the clarity of question four, if I may, for a moment, the funds that we are looking at with this survey were the funds that were dedicated in May of 2025 by council, specifically for a Marshall Fire five-year remembrance project. And so an alternative no for that question would still direct them to a Louisville-based project, which is why it's worded so tightly, because those funds are allocated specifically for that, but for a Marshall Fire five-year remembrance project. So they're not able to be absorbed into another discretion or project without council redirection of those funds.

Yes, Council Member Fahey.

I will just add that as another fire survivor, I like the idea of combining it for a Marshall Fire Memorial, not Superior, Louisville, Boulder County. It's all the same. It was one fire that destroyed it all. And I like the idea of having one place that it's memorialized in an effective and inclusive manner. So that's why I'm suggesting adding for all of the structures lost, not just the ones in Superior. And I like the idea of connecting it with the Louisville Pet Memorial that's already there. And I know a lot of people from Superior came for our grand opening of that and honored their pets.

How do you feel about it, sir?

I personally don't think it's necessary because as Judy said, I've talked to a lot of fire survivors and we're all pretty much in agreement that this needs to be done and it needs to be a joint thing. I'm not sure if if other people in other wards are feeling quite that strongly, but the survivors themselves are.

Thank you. There are quite a few since the Ward 3 council members are unfortunately not able to join us tonight. There are a lot of people who were very directly impacted in Ward 3. And those are some of the same people that I think that Deb, as well as I, have had an opportunity to communicate with. And so I think I feel comfortable in speaking and representing like a broader community that is beyond the ward. And it is that collective community of people in Louisville that we've spoken to that have been impacted that I think would be strongly in favor of this. City Manager.

Thank you. So a couple of points. One of the reasons we're bringing the survey, requesting to bring the survey forward is staff. We've heard some mixed messages from the public. What those messages have included is what the price tag associated with this memorial. If we're going to go through the process of fundraising that amount of money, why wouldn't we put that money towards home hardening or defensible space? And so, you know, we've heard If you proceed forward with this, you know, you're raising funds for something that could go to other uses that could benefit the community. So that's one of the reasons that we want to get sentiment from the public is because we have heard the yes, we're really for it. But then we've also heard, you know, how could you spend this amount of money on this? And so we have $35,000. Brandy's team is tasked with using that money to not only come up with the actual like events associated with the memorial. Um, but then also are we doing something more permanent in nature of which our funds could go towards a small, as we noted in the council communication report, whether it's a peace garden or, um, you know, a labyrinth or something like that, we need to figure out how these funds are going to be allocated and, um, the, So this is why we're requesting this survey, because we have received a lot of mixed input from the public. And you're probably going to get a lot of mixed input in this survey. And then we're going to come back to you and say, this is what we received. What would you like to do with these funds? And so we could be back here two months from now, and you're still having the same conversation. But at least you know where the public sits on this. And then that helps. And that's why some of the questions are structured the way they are, so that you can distinguish between people who actually, you know, were impacted by the event in more severe ways than others. So thank you.

My take on this is that I appreciate that. I think there's a couple points. big things that go through my head. One is we're one community and the community, while the biggest effect of the fire clearly was on the survivors, it was a signal event in the entire community. And because it was a signal event in the entire community, the entire community should have some understanding and some input. And this isn't, we're not making a decision tonight. about our participation. This is more discussion direction to see what we do next. And I think a survey is useful to get that information. And I do appreciate it because I have heard some of the same You know, different views. People are, I don't know if the word is right to say enthusiastic, but they're interested. They're invested because so many of us even, you know, my home was damaged, but not burned. A lot of people are in that category. And there were people in Ward 1 who thankfully did not. suffer the loss of their homes. There were some fire damage there too, but I mean, I was an N in Ward 1. And I take Councilmember Cooperman's point seriously, that getting that input is really a good thing. And I didn't hear from either of you that you don't want to, just that maybe it's less like you have a good sense of what might be appropriate for the award that you represent. And I don't, I would never second guess that by any means. If that's kind of the consensus that doing a survey would be an okay idea, especially because it doesn't, particularly because it doesn't have a financial impact. So it doesn't cut into the $35,000. What thoughts do you have about other questions that are on that draft survey? Are there any from the council members?

So I'm going to digress for one moment. I am curious. City Manager Langley mentioned hearing concerns from residents about the spend. And I know when we had our joint conversation, that was one of the thoughts that I had, too, when we heard. what the potential price tag for this lovely remembrance would be, it is a whopper. So, I was curious if Superior had heard anything from their community members to that effect, because there are a lot of people there who, for a lot of financial reasons, will never be able to return home. And so there's a lot of hard feeling sentiment with lack of fundraising or ability to get assistance. And now we're talking millions of dollars into a remembrance instead of helping. the community members directly impacted.

I don't want to put them on the spot right now, but I think we could direct staff to get in touch and because I'm sure that they would be more than delighted to provide information. I mean, that's a good it really is. That's a great point. I think it's a good thing. We can include that in the direction if that's all right.

Yeah. And I think the survey might help, like help us. Yeah, it's not specifically in here, those kinds of questions, but might give us some path.

Other. Any other comments about the language? I appreciate the staffs putting this together. It's very thoughtful. These are hard questions. Do you have any other thoughts? What I was going to say is we have had a number of meetings over the years about memorials, and they've been at times really hard, really, really hard, fraught. This one is at some level, and I recognize and I really appreciate all of us hanging in there. Because it's not easy to consider all of this. And I'm starting to get the jitters now because we're getting close to five years. You know, I mean, jitters is probably the wrong word. But I'm starting to really think about, wow, what have we done and what have we not done? in those five years, how is it affecting people? Because there are probably as many answers to that question as there are people who went through this, which is a whole tens of thousands of people. So anyway, I'm really glad that this is taking off. I can't say enough about how thoughtful the memorial is. It's just amazing. And it is going to get... constructed no matter what. And one last point I wanted to make about it is memorials are interesting things. I think certainly there's a question of, gee, could we spend money on something else? And I don't mean us, but could money be spent that's going to be spent on this memorial for some other purpose? Of course it could. But in my view, and I've had discussions with folks from the museum and people, this is one of the two or three most important events that ever happened in Louisville. Maybe the founding, maybe the one or both of the strikes. I mean, you need something like that and it needs to be something that's gonna be here for generations. so that people will remember what happened. And so I, you know, With all respect to those who might want to put money somewhere else, I think it's really a both end. But I really feel strongly from the standpoint of just preserving the history and making a statement and doing it thoughtfully. This is just fantastic.

And learn. And learn. It's remember and learn.

Well put. So if we can kind of go back and summarize a little bit, it sounds like we want to get a survey out. And we'll come back to council with the results of that. And then we can have further discussion, hopefully with the full council. Then when they've come back from vacations and so forth, we can get information from hopefully through staff from the Superior Town Council on some of the questions that we've asked. And I think we've talked about wanting to have a very strong education component, which it sounds like we're kind of on the same page about that, that there be some reflection of what to do in the future, some kinds of references to that, perhaps in the QR codes or some such that we might like to have our pet memorial reflected in this project somehow or tied in. somehow. I'm sure that people would love to have input into what remains to be designed. But that's to be determined. And the fundraising will be a separate matter. I know that that has been complicated in Superior. I'm sure it will be complicated in Louisville too. But am I catching everything? Staff? Any, right. Thank you all. And appreciate the time that you've taken. And particularly for all the council members, I will give a call to council member Shaw and Mayor Laces and ask them why they weren't here.

No, I'm kidding.

Thanks for all of you for coming and being a part of this. Thanks to everybody. And thanks to our staff for putting all that stuff together, and council for great comments. All right. The next piece of our meeting is joint meeting with Historic Preservation Commission and the History Museum Advisory Board about the historic preservation tax. Welcome to both of you, both. Commissions? Pardon me? Both boards. Yeah, both. Both people. No, both boards and commissions.

I'm so impressed there's more than two. Thank you so much, as many of you, for showing tonight.

Yeah, yeah. And we are considering whether to go to the voters with a proposed preservation tax. And so why don't we start with Director Zuccaro to... introduce this.

Yeah, good evening. Good evening, everyone. Those of you I haven't met. I'm Rob Zuccaro. I am the community development director for the city. So I was just going to kind of kick off the discussion. And I don't know if any mayor if it's okay. I know a lot of the people around the room don't know each other if would be okay, maybe new introductions.

I'm sorry about that. You've introduced yourself director. Go ahead.

Sloan Witten. I'm the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Marty Beauchamp, also on the commission. Keith Keller, I'm on the commission, Marty as well. Delbert Wilt, also on the commission. I'm Barbara Taylor, I'm on the commission, but I also served on the task force. John. Beasdale.

Diana Lely, City Manager. Brandy Cummings, Director of Cultural Services.

And I'm Judy Kern. I'm City Council for Ward 2, which if you don't know, it is basically the northwest corner of our community.

I'm Deb Fahey. I'm also a Ward 2 Councilman, which is the northwest corner of the city.

And you're also on the task force.

And I was also on the task force, yes.

Chris Lay, Mayor. I was also on the task force as chair.

Josh Cooperman, one of the council members for Ward 1. Thank you for the.

Yeah, sure. Yeah. So I'll try to do a fairly brief introduction. I think, as you all know, you know, we've had a tax here in the city, a sales tax and a use tax since 2008 for the sales tax, 2010 for a use tax. The original purpose of the tax, it's a one eighth of a percent tax for sales and use. And it originally was to go towards historic preservation to provide money for incentives. It was a 10 year tax originally in 2008 and 2010. or I'm sorry, 2018, it was renewed. And at that time, when that ballot initiative went forward, there was 20% allocated in that ballot initiative to go towards museum operations. So it's evolved over time. It's helped fund great programs at the museum, of course. We've had a very successful... Well known very unique historic preservation program with all the funding that we've gotten through the tax so we've been working with city council on this upcoming expiration in 2028. To consider an extension and put something on the ballot, so this task force was created with. representation from the Historical Museum Advisory Board, the Historic Preservation Commission. There were nine members included, including members from the Louisville Chamber of Commerce. We had a local architect. We had three resident members and two council members, Mayor Lay and Council Member Fahey. So we actually have four members of the task force here. It's a really important funding source for the city that provides great programming. We work very closely with Gigi and the museum on historic preservation. They're very supportive of the program. They provide a lot of great information that support historic preservation. So we wanted to get both groups together. As you know, there's a first reading of an ordinance that would put the ballot question on the November 2026 ballot to extend the tax. We're a couple of years early for various reasons. It could be placed on the 27 or the 28, but council is very interested, I think, in considering putting it on the 26 election and So the task force was put together to answer some pretty fundamental questions about how to form the ballot initiative. But because both of these groups have such a big stake in the ballot language, we wanted to get you together to get any additional final input you have before they consider the ordinance and the ballot language. So we thought it would be helpful just to get you in the room and look at what the task force was asked. If it's possible, I don't know, Jenny, if we could do the click share and I could bring up a portion of the memo.

Yeah.

Oh, I need to join. Okay. Well, never mind. So if you looked at the memo at the very end, and I'll go through it, we laid out really the primary questions that the task force was asked, which was, do you want to place this on the 2026 ballot? The task force said, yes, we want to place it on the 2026 ballot. Do you want to change the amount, the one eighth percent taxed? The task force supported the 1 8% tax and extending it for 10 years, because there were questions about, you know, could you make a permanent or a different timeframe? And then there was a lot of discussion about, you know, the allocation to the museum. And so the task force recommendation was to increase that amount between 30 and 40%. Last time we talked to council, And what's going to be presented to them tonight is to increase it to 30%. And then so far, the funding has been limited again to the 20% for the museum and then incentives for historic preservation. So the proposal includes having more flexible spending for the tax beyond the 30% museum allocation that could go towards any programs, capital projects that promote and preserve the city's history and cultural heritage. So it's a very open-ended item. And the idea is that in addition to kind of the primary funding that the museum needs to maintain their service levels, there could be opportunities with discussions with city council and the Historic Preservation Commission about allocating other money for, again, promoting history and the cultural heritage of the city. So those are the primary items. Again, we just wanted to get these two groups together to provide your feedback to city council, engage in a discussion before they start taking formal action on the ballot initiative.

Just before we jump in, as a reminder to all of our friends who might not have used these microphones before, there's a little person button. You'll see a green light come on. When you speak, please push that so everyone can hear you.

And you can know that it works when you see the little ring at the top.

And I'll just add one more quick thing. You know, the task force met two times, two fairly long meetings. They spent a lot of time really digging into museum operations, funding challenges and opportunities, as well as understanding historic preservation program and the opportunities and funding challenges. So there was a lot of information in the packet. If you have questions for staff during this discussion on our historic preservation program, the museum program, we can certainly help answer that as well as each of you can answer it from your perspective being on the board and commission.

And just to open that up, I think we are here we're here to have a discussion, but would very much like your feedback. And I think that may be where we start, because you've had a chance to review all of the information and consider all of these things. Some of you were on the task force, so we can do that. And then we'll probably get some feedback from the public, if we have public comment, and then we can have that discussion further. So do you, on either board or commission, do you have some, I don't know, some feedback concerning what we've done so far, what the task force did, what council did in response to what the task force did, or any other related matter here?

And just raise your hand if you want. As I say, we'll call on you if you don't offer.

Yeah, yeah. Please. Since I tried to represent the board, I came into the task force with a lot of information about the financial and physical problems at the museum. faces and almost no understanding of how landmarking worked. I knew we had a landmarking program. So I got an education in that. And it was a really, really rich discussion. No one would be surprised to say that I said I advocated for a 50-50 split on the tax. The museum is beloved and it's a public good. And then that supports the also historic preservation. 30% is an improvement. But I just never miss the opportunity to say that, well, first of all, the landmarking process is dependent on the museum. Because what you learn about the historic homes, it comes out of the museum. And also, the museum is doing real scholarship work. at a level that other communities are not doing. I'm working with a bunch of museums across the Midwest and it's more like where does grandma's stuff go when she dies and we feel bad about throwing it away. And so this opportunity to sustain and support growth at the museum so we can keep staff longer, Gigi has constant turnover. And so it's remarkable that we get that and maintain the landmarking program is a great opportunity. So I think a lot of people know that you can go to the museum and learn things and get treats at the parade. And very few know about the landmarking. So it's a great opportunity to educate our community.

Talbot, did you? I saw your hand go up.

Please. Talbot Wilt with Historic Preservation Commission. I just want to show full support for the work the task force did and the ideas that have come out of it. and bumping up the percentage that goes to the museum, because I'm only a year and a half on the Historic Preservation Commission, and I'm still learning a lot. But first thing I've learned is that Gigi and her staff are amazing. Anything that we ask of them, they're more than willing and and able to help and oftentimes give more than we asked for to, to help us out. So I do see and understand a real need for more funding to go to their efforts. I also love the idea of having some flexibility with some of the funds because, um, in a critique of our own committees and counsel with us. I don't feel there has been a lot of cooperation through everyone involved. I don't feel a ton of visual support. This is the first time I've seen the board for the museum. I wish there were more. Council members here, I wish on our walk tour of historic landmark properties that we did last month. Judy wasn't the only person. in the group other than ours who attended. Thank you, Judy. Those who didn't make it, I'm sorry, whatever your reasons were, but you missed a great opportunity to show support to the homeowners that were landmark in the past six months. And the homeowners opened their homes to show finished projects, to show the value that these tax dollars bring to our community in general. So I would just love to see the funds have some flexibility. In my mind, I envision some kinds of workshops, some groups, something where we can, as entities that right now are working very independently other than the hands-on level that, you know, the work that we get to do with Gigi. So I would just love to see the allocations changed and some more flexibility into it.

Yes.

I was just going to build off what Talbot just said. I'm the only person that goes to both meetings because I serve as the liaison. So it's like, it's wonderful to see everybody in a room together so that everybody can get to know each other a little more. I think it's important to have a collaborative approach.

There's on the commissions, any reaction to the allocation, the decisions.

We made the percentages and all that kind of stuff.

Yes, Scott.

It's on. I am the chair of the board and Barbara has explained quite well kind of our thinking, but we did have a meeting in which we devoted a substantial amount of time to looking at the task force recommendations and what was involved. And the board itself was strongly in support of the task force recommendations and going forward that way. I don't think I can add much to the praise that's been given other than we agree with it, but I think task force recommendations are good and that's what we concluded.

Do we have any public comment? No. All right. Well, let's have a discussion.

Yes. So would this be a good time to discuss the ballot language? I don't know if anybody else had some comments before I kind of jump in. First of all, thank you for all of you, seriously, for being here. When we put together these group meetings, I know it can be a challenge. Tuesday nights, like we all have carved out for this, but you guys always don't. So, and staff too, thank you for making the time to be here with us. And thanks, Talbot. It was actually my pleasure to join the walk and see the historic homes. I loved it. So I come, just a little bit of history. I come from Philadelphia. A little bit of history. You might have heard about it recently. More specifically, I was raised in Chester County. In Pennsylvania, it's considered the most historic county in the state, which means there are more homes on the historic registry, buildings on the historic registry than anywhere else. So for me, it was one of the things that I had an affinity for Deb being on council and she's been on council even before me and I was one of her residents, was I appreciate that. I love the fact that Louisville is embracing its history and it's a living, learning history, right? We can walk up to these homes and it is so special, but so is the museum. And I have to tell you, the first time that I was able to get in when it was open was three years ago. Just with my work schedule and the hours of the museum, it was always a challenge. And I can't praise it enough. And I brag about it. And I tell so many people about the amazing work you do, Gigi, and your whole team. And thank you all for the input that you give for this. I personally think it is critical that we renew the sales tax. As a city council member, I think this is something that we need to do for the community. I think this is really important. And I think expressing to the residents why this has so much value to them. And it may not need more than the blink of an eye. Most people might agree. already, which would be really lovely. And this may be more a question, Diana, for staff. It's the very beginning language always makes me nervous when it starts with taxes will be increased 1.5 million in 2029. Since we are just continuing the percentage of the tax, is it necessary, a requirement that that language, because we don't actually know that we'll increase it since it's maintaining the same tax. So Kathleen's behind you.

So she's going to address that.

So I'll introduce myself now. Kathleen Kelly, I'm the city attorney. Nice to see everyone tonight. So the Taxpayers Bill of Rights in our state constitution has very specific language that must be used, even when it's an extension of an expiring tax. And the $1.5 million estimate is important because if we overcollect, then we have a problem under TABOR in 2029. And I know that You didn't ask about the number specifically, but unfortunately, we can't change that language because the tax is expiring. Under Tabor, it is considered sort of a new pot of... $1.5 million when it continued.

Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. I thought because it was a continuation that we wouldn't have, like we wouldn't be bound by that same. Okay. That helps me understand. So that might be a challenge for all of us to work together to make sure that the community outreach is there, that people don't think that this is more than It's just a continuation. And I mean, I'm more than happy to be part of that boots on the ground, assuming I don't break my foot again. And I can actually do some walking. But that would be what I would ask of all of you. I mean, you already put so much time into this. If there's a way for if we put this on the ballot to work together.

We have to, I want to draw a distinction. We have to make the decision of whether to put it on there. I think, can we make a resolution eventually to support it as council? I think we get our one bite and then we can't. We can as individuals.

Individuals, absolutely. So the council can adopt a resolution supporting any item on the ballot, whether it's put forth by the city council or somebody else. What the city can't do is circulate or publish or otherwise publicize that resolution in a manner that you don't do with other resolutions. So it'll be a resolution that's part of your meeting minutes and it'll live on your website just like every other resolution does. But yes, as individuals, that's where you'll need to do your campaigning and support.

And that means, so the boards and commissions are more than able to be out there supporting if they, as individuals or as a group, can they?

As individuals.

As individuals also. Okay. That's an individual ask then. Thank you for the clarification. Get myself in trouble.

We don't want to get you in trouble. I think you were actually suggesting just what we.

Yes.

Yeah, there you go. Okay. Other, did you have other comments on the language? Do staff have any comments or city attorney have any comments?

No, other than your meeting packet addendum does contain a corrected version. We found a couple and it's up on the screen. And what has the language that was inadvertently left out is in red. And so that's the version that council will consider for adoption on first reading.

Given that, do you all on the board and commission have thoughts about the particular language one way or another? I mean, this is what's going to go to council, but if you have any thoughts, I'd be glad to hear them. It's just a little more specific than the original draft.

Okay. Yes, Council Member Cooperman.

A little question maybe just for staff. So as it's currently written, these changes would come into effect immediately, even though we're still – well, not immediately, but shortly thereafter. We wouldn't continue with the previous stipulator – the previous language. Yeah, for the last couple of years.

Failed to mention that. So if this is put on the November ballot and it passes, the new allocations and the new language for flexibility could start in 2027. The extension would start in 2028 for another 10 years, but the allocations would be 2027.

And was that specifically recommended by the task force?

Yeah, it was discussed by the task force. They endorsed that.

Okay. I did have one question about the language. So it talks about the museum campus specifically. And so I'm wondering, you know, like we have those miners' cabins over by the baseball field. And I might say that that's not part of the campus. I don't know. So would this language pose a challenge to doing a project over there or – Yeah, I don't know.

Thank you for the question. No, we believe that the projects such as the miners cabins, which while they are a part of the museum would not typically qualify as on campus because of the proximity, would be covered under the stipulation one, the city programs and capital projects that promote and preserve the city's history and cultural heritage. And so that would be one of those areas of flexibility that this new language would allow us to partner with HPC on the preservation of those buildings to our community.

Okay. And maybe the follow-on is you think it's preferable to stick with the language that says museum campus as opposed to, I don't know, like if we just said museum, I don't know if that would be a little bit more flexible or not. I'm not sure, but.

Yeah, no, I appreciate the questions. I think within the scope of the next 10 years, museum campus is an appropriate language for the ballot and for what plans we may have for continuing to support that beloved jewel in the middle of our downtown. Future iterations of the museum, we might want to talk about what that looks like. But at this point, I believe museum campus is best in line with the intent of this tax.

Okay, thank you.

Let me push that a little bit more. We have in the past talked about arts and cultural center. Next 10 years, I would hope, but that's just me right now. And it's... There's a lot that would have to go into that to happen. I could see, for example, a room in there that might be an extension or an annex of some sort to the museum. That might be something that... would be useful. Is that going to limit? That's what I get out of Josh's question, which is if we're just talking about a campus and that building most assuredly would not be on the campus, are we limited and would it be useful to have of the keyword campus structure.

I greatly appreciate this line of questioning, and I agree that I too am hopeful in 10 years for expansion of arts and cultural spaces in the city of Louisville. Again, with the spirit of this tax and the intent of this tax being for historic preservation, our historic museum campus is the most appropriate use within the spirit of that tax for our voters. um to invest in something outside of that and i agree any sort of footprint for arts and cultural expansion would certainly include our museum would have to be addressed with different funding initiatives which i believe is most appropriate fairness other thoughts comments about this measure yes i will just say um

As a 46-year resident of Louisville, I did spend probably eight or 10 years as a volunteer at the museum and then was on the preservation commission for, I don't know, five or six until I got out to council. And this is the reason that I've been involved with city things for the last, 30 years. I think it's wonderful that we're getting together and working toward a common goal, which is to preserve the history of Louisville. And thank you all for what you do. And I am 100% in favor of the ballot issue because I want to get this through.

Any other comments? I think we're pretty clear on the direction, but I want to make sure if there's anything else to be discussed with the language, should we do it?

I have nothing else on the ballot. Are we planning to continue our conversation aside from the ballot with the two boards? Just a conversation. I just don't want to step ahead.

I think this was the primary issue. If there are other issues, the focus of this was on the historic preservation tax.

I would say that we really tried to... This is a great conversation because I think there was some discussion about there's so much overlap between the purpose of the boards and they haven't had enough communication or communication with council. So we just really wanted to make sure on the tax question that there was an opportunity for any discussion around that. So this was agended to be specific about that. Both boards will have future agendas with council to talk about broader issues and opportunities with each board. So you will have those one-on-ones with them.

Perfect. Just so you know, I'll echo. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the contributions. And I know I'm looking forward to being able to have that more in-depth conversation with each of the boards. I think there's some interesting things to bring up probably later this year that could be relevant to this. So thank you.

It's wonderful you have a liaison to do that. So I agree with my previous council members. Um, so do we have direction? Are you comfortable with the direction that we've given?

Yeah, and so and so we do have another like, we have a separate agenda item to actually make the decision understood.

I just want to make sure we've got everybody on board and it sounds like everybody is on. On board and that's terrific. Yes. Council or city manager.

So I just want to know, so you have received, I know you've received an email related to the use of the funds. And I don't know if this is what council member Kern was alluding to, but I know that there's been some questions in terms of the programs. And, you know, Director Zuccaro and I have had conversations. The item before you tonight is the actual extension of the tax. The opportunity to discuss the programs will come to you, you know, and really needs to be a discussion amongst Historic Preservation Commission and... the museum advisory board in terms of the structure that can come at a later time. And we don't want to confuse the what's before council in the community right now and just recognize that those programs are structured by resolution, Rob.

Yes, for the incentive programs.

Yes, yes. So for the incentive programs, they're structured by resolution. So there's opportunity to have discussions about modifying those. The programs were last modified last December.

It was a year and a half ago.

Okay. Yeah. And so, you know, I know there's a lot of interest within the community in terms of those types of discussions. Our conversation being limited tonight about extension does not mean those discussions aren't going to happen. It's just a separate course than what we are dealing with right now.

Thanks for the clarification. So I appreciate all your participation, and we'll move to the next item, which I think we are going to be adjourning to our dais for the next piece.

Yeah, if we could take a brief break so we could set up the room in addition to our regular meeting.

If I had a car. Work. Support. Jenny, people are running. They don't even know where these go. Behind the door.

Sorry, Rob. More cardio, I can tell.

Thanks for taking the lead.

Sure, yeah.

You guys said nope. My homie Rob got it. I'm just talking to him with the

Record. Right.

Okay.

All right, we're back a little bit longer just to try to get situated here after our last item. And I think I underestimated the importance or the time necessary to get that done. So I'm sorry about that. Our next item is ordinance number 1928. Series 2026, an ordinance extending the city's 0.125% historic preservation sales tax for an additional 10-year period, expanding the purposes for which the historic preservation sales and use tax may be spent to include city programs and capital projects that promote and preserve the city's history and cultural heritage. Increasing the portion of such tax allocated to the Lewisville Museum campus from 20 to 30% and providing for the submission of this ordinance to a vote of the city's registered electors at the November 3rd, 2026 special election. This is a first reading, which includes a staff presentation and questions and from council. There is no opportunity for public comment tonight. We're going to be setting, assuming that council sends this on to second reading, the second reading will be the public hearing. And there'll be two rounds of public comment because this is an ordinance. So with that, I'll ask for the staff report for

All right, good evening again, Mayor Lay, members of City Council, Rob Zuccaro, Community Development Director. I'll be making the staff presentation. Again, just a brief background on our historic preservation tax that we've had since 2008. It's a 1.8% tax that pays for historic preservation incentives in Old Town and Downtown. And since 2018, when it was renewed, City Council by a supermajority can also approve incentives outside of Old Town and downtown across the entire city. But again, we've had this tax since 2008. It was renewed in 2018, each for 10-year terms. The tax is set to expire at the end of 2028. So this is consideration of an ordinance and ballot language to put it on the November 2026 agenda. set up for the 2026 election. The historic preservation use tax, which followed the original 2008 sales tax, was approved in 2010. It is a permanent tax. It does not have a sunset like the sales tax. And it is also a one-eighth percent tax for use tax, which we collect on building permits for building supplies and equipment and those types of things that are bought and brought into the city. As we were just discussing, there was a task force that has made some recommendations to city council on the ballot language. They are recommending extending it for another 10 years at the same percentage rate. And they also recommended, as we just discussed, allocating additional funds to the museum campus operations going from 20 to 30%, and then adding some more flexibility to spend money on programming. And capital that also promotes the city's history and cultural heritage. So you'll see all that language and what's proposed. You were provided that task force recommendation at a previous meeting. You've provided staff some direction, which we have drafted for you for consideration this evening on first reading that reflects that recommendation. up to the 30% limit. Again, the task force was recommending between 30 and 40%. There were differing views. So council has directed 30% at this time for the museum campus operations. So included is the ballot language as well as amendments to the city ordinances to align with the ballot language. Again, to continue the tax for another 10 years, both for the sales tax. We do have an outstanding question on the use tax if you want that to sunset or to keep it as a permanent tax. Okay. The ordinance in front of you reflects again that 30% allegation to museum campus operations and it includes additional allowed uses of the tax for that more flexible funding to promote the history and cultural heritage of the city for programming or capital expenditures. The ordinance also does include a step for Historic Preservation Commission review and recommendation on additional expenditures for that new more flexible category of funding that we could use the taxes for. So here's the proposed ballot language. We can come back to this or pull it up. Again, you looked at it as you were discussing the last item with the board and the commission. For fiscal impact, we are anticipating, based on past ballot initiatives, a potential cost of at least $32,000 to place this on the ballot. Right now we're receiving about $900,000 in tax annually. Again, 20% is currently allocated for the historical museum campus with 80% going towards historic preservation program incentives and staff support and operations of the incentive program, which is allowed by the tax. The proposed question before you, as we talked about, also due to some of the TABOR requirements, we're asking that the language allow up to $1.5 million annually, even though we're not collecting that now. We want to make sure there's enough buffer so that there isn't a refunding issue. Again, it's presented for you tonight on first reading so that you can have second reading at your July 21st meeting. This is to align with some deadlines related to Boulder County's coordinated election so that we can get it on the coordinated ballot. And so here's the timeframe if you have any questions about that leading up to the November election. So staff's recommending approval of the ordinance on first reading, setting the public hearing for July 21st and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Director. Any questions? Yes, Councilmember Cooperman.

One question. The $1.5 million number, do we use some kind of formula to determine the best number to put there?

No, there's no formula for it. It's variable. Again, we want it to be to have a reasonable buffer. I mean, it could influence the voters in some way. So there could be some suggestion that it could, you know, the lower it is, the more appetite there is to vote in favor of the tax question. But we landed on the 1.5, not by some calculation, but looking at what we have now and having a healthy buffer.

Okay, thank you. And then the ballot language refers to ballot language from 2008 and 2017. Is there some way that voters can easily access that information? Would it be in information that gets sent to them or anything like that?

Well, I think that, you know, we can't be sending information as the city, which we talked about. But I think we can post factual information on our website. So we would have to get guidance from the city attorney on, you know, oftentimes with these things, we might do a website with factual Q&A type information. And we could probably put this, I believe, on the website.

Okay. And then just one more question. I want to follow up on a question I asked and that you responded to before the meeting. So the previous ballot issues, right, established language about sort of what the meaning of historic preservation purposes are, I would say. And then we sort of... we interpret that language when we make policies about say our incentive program for landmarking and things like that. So, you know, I asked you about, you know, someone came to us, part of the work they were doing was in their home, was putting in a heat pump and that did not qualify for funds. But you were saying that like, if someone was doing some rehabilitation work, as part of their project in a historic home that would qualify for funds. And the way I would understand that is the language from 2008 or 2017 is consistent with our policy that you can get funds for rehabilitation. Is that the way you would think about it too?

So if you look at the actual language in the ordinance and that was on the ballot, it's based on incentives for... for preservation and there's three different categories and we can bring them up. I can't cite all of them, but there's a lot of overlap between them and there is flexibility. But after the original 2008 ballot initiative, when we created the program and came up with our first funding resolution. So the ordinance says that by ordinance or resolution, the city council can come up with basically an incentive funding program. So we've used pretty standard categories, kind of best practices in historic preservation for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation, and have been using some standard definitions. So the intent is to use the money to preserve the historic elements of the home. So there's an argument under rehabilitation that a home has to be structurally sound and code compliant. to be maintained. So if somebody is rehabilitating a home and they have mechanical electrical plumbing, Upgrades that are needed and how we've structured it and how best practices, if those are needed to meet current building codes. So if the upgrade is needed to me, and it's not just an upgrade that the homeowner wants to make on their own, but it's actually mandated by the code and triggered by the rehabilitation work, then we will pay for. you know, those are eligible under our resolution. Again, that's not defined by the ballot language or the ordinance, but that's how we've operated the program since 2008 based on, you know, kind of standards and best practices for grant programs for historic preservation.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you very much.

Council Member Kern.

Great. Oops, thank you. I'm just going to piggyback off of what Councilmember Cooperman was sort of asking about with doing other measures related to rehabilitation or renovation. So if somebody was coming to you and applying and they were qualified for the grant And there were other measures they wanted to take. They did maybe want to update the heating and cooling system in their property. Would you be able to then guide them to other resources that the city offers to help them get maybe rebates or other incentives? And so they don't have to go hunting for themselves. If they're already coming to you, you can inform them of those programs.

Yes, we could. Yes. Oftentimes, yes, we could. And those are available. And we have staff knowledgeable that we could put those people in touch with.

That'd be great. Thank you so much.

Council Member Fay.

I'm going to extend that same discussion a little further. If they're upgrading their heating and cooling system, for example, and they want to switch from gas to electric, would that be covered?

So that wouldn't be covered under our current resolution and definitions for grant funding because it's not code required. So what makes you eligible is when the renovation requires that the upgrade meet a certain code standard and they're not just deciding to make the upgrade on their own, if that makes sense.

If the heating and cooling system needs to be repaired or in some way upgraded, can they switch to electric as part of that?

Um, yes, potentially. Yeah. So I think it has to do with if the, uh, you know, the heating and cooling says if the code mandates that the heating and cooling system in their home is not code compliant. And here's, here's the trick. Sometimes the renovation triggers the upgrade versus them choosing to make the upgrade. So that, and again, these are policy discussions outside of the ballot that we can engage in and provide more information and kind of thoughtful pros and cons. We've also run these discussions through Historic Preservation Commission extensively before they come to city council to kind of weigh how we define the incentive program. So you'd probably benefit from their recommendations too, but if council in the future wanted to reopen the funding resolution,

and the incentive program as long as it's consistent with the ballot language there's flexibility okay thank you um thanks you were reading my mind um in terms of focusing on the language i i think what you're hearing though is something that we encountered And you'll remember in the task force discussions, which is that there is very much a desire to talk about the policy decisions and some programmatic things down the road. And that'll be really, those will be good, fruitful discussions. Hopefully after we get this thing passed or at least before the voters and, and hopefully passed, I had, one question about the language you know these things are always a mouthful and uh it's always you know it's just tabor and um mostly tabor right it causes a lot of the mess yes it is tabor that requires the specific wording yeah and and i very much appreciate all that i'm i'm wondering though i'm i'm about this, I'm always thinking in terms of those who might not be too thrilled with this language. And I know there are people in the community who are already very unhappy with the increase in percentages and the new provision that we have in there. We have a clause that begins, shall, And then we have another one, shall the city be authorized to? And, you know, shall the city of Louisville's taxes be increased, et cetera, et cetera? And then it goes down and... The next shall is, shall the city be authorized to expend funds? What I'm a little concerned about is this language, historic preservation purposes consistent with ballot measures, consistent with ballot issues approved by the voters in 2017. councilmember cooperman talked a little bit about that but what i'm wondering is are we potentially at risk um by a challenge that says, look, this isn't consistent with the ballot issues approved by the voters in 2017. And, of course, because it's being changed and so forth, I'm wondering whether What is it that's consistent with the ballot issues? Is it the amounts that are utilized for historic preservation purposes? Is that what's being modified there? I'm trying to get an understanding of what consistent with ballot issues approved by the voters.

Yeah, so I think you have to go back and read the ballot language in 2008 and 17, which we could provide. And so it authorizes – certain use of the funds. So this is supposed to be additive to those. So I think, you know, you could go back to 2008. 2008 was the incentives. 2017 was additive to add the 20% for the museum. And the 2017 measure also referenced back to the 2008. So it doesn't change that. So I think that's the intent without restating it.

Let me make just a suggestion and see whether this makes any sense. And I'd be very interested in, obviously, your and the city attorney's comment, which would be what if we put a semicolon instead of a comma after 2017? which would set off the first piece, that is the taxes being increased, consistent, blah, blah, blah. And the second piece being commencing on the 2027, shall the city be authorized to, and then one and two. And the reason I'm thinking about that Is. That would indicate pretty clearly that there, that is something that's in addition to what happened that was supposed to be consistent with the previous measures, because clearly what we're doing in the second half of that is changing. the measure or the purposes that were approved in 2008 and 17. And I don't know. First, I want to make sure that my intention is clear or my question is clear. Does that make it a little bit less vulnerable to a challenge based on the first part of that, the consistency piece?

You know, I'll be honest, I don't see the vulnerability. This is ultimately your measure. If you would like us, you know, majority of council wants a semicolon there, we'll put a semicolon there. We'll send it to public finance council and make sure we didn't derail anything with our punctuation. Substantively, I don't see the issue, but this is your Yeah.

I'm really asking the question. I'm not, I would, it would be nice to know whether it would make it clearer. Um, I'd be interested in other council members thoughts about that. Yes.

So your concern is that, um, historic preservation purposes consistent with the two previous ballot issues then the two new things might not be consistent with those purposes and so therefore you want to make it clearer um that that one and the two new purposes don't have to be so explicitly consistent with the previous ballot measures, is that?

Yeah, I mean, my concern is somebody might say, We are changing it. It's not accurate to say it's consistent, that the whole thing is consistent with the ballot issues approved by the voters in 2008 and 17. The reason I raise that is that is exactly the concern that I have heard from two members of our community who are very unhappy with the changes that we're making because it does change what happened in 2008 and 17. So I'm just anticipating that. And I don't know whether it makes it any clearer. It might be worth a question. That's all. I'm not going to hang my hat on whether a semicolon goes in there or not. I just want to make sure my intention or my question is clear that I just don't want that challenge to be brought.

Is your concern mostly around the museum funding? Because that's the big change that happened in 2017. But we reference it. So we're referencing the 2017. So that change already occurred. All we're changing is the percentage. So I think that when we're saying that the purpose is consistent with, that purpose is still consistent with the 2017 ballot measure.

Sub one is not, though.

Right, that would be the expansion.

I mean, and somebody could also say that increasing it by 50% is not consistent with 2017. I mean, that's, again, I'm trying to be very antagonistic to this language because I have heard the arguments that, some length.

And you're right, because I think we have to be ready for those conversations. And so, Rob, were you going to add something to that?

Oh, when you're done, yeah.

I was just going to say, because you definitely know the 08 and 017 ballot measure language better than we do sitting here, I think, right now.

Right. So I also, you know, one of the things I wanted to add is I think that there is an ability to continue a tax. I think I want to ask the city attorney this. And So I think what you're asking is there's a community perception and they may not like a policy change. And I think that's a different question than is it legally challengeable. But I think there's flexibility to change the purpose of the tax. And maybe that's more of a question for the city attorney and the city council has the authority to do that. Through this process.

I absolutely believe we have the authority to change the tax. I just don't want somebody to be looking at that term consistent and say this is misleading because of that. And I am absolutely willing to defer to legal counsel, and our city attorney indicates that she didn't think that that is something that creates a vulnerability. If that's correct, and if our, I mean, I don't know, if our public finance counsel is even, I guess she's looking at that issue too, it may be worth the question. That's all. That's all I'm raising.

Would you rather that it restate them instead of referencing the 08 and 017? Is that your concern too? Maybe if those were stated?

No. It's to set apart what happened previously consistent with the voters from what we're doing commencing on January 1st, 2027. That's the reason for some kind of break in there.

Right. Could you say more about what you see as the inconsistency when the ballot language clearly says commencing January 1, 2027? There's not any intention to lead the voters to believe that this is mirroring the prior voter approval. It is just consistent and it's, it's not just consistent. It's utilized for historic preservation purposes, consistent with those ballot issues. And I guess what is inconsistent? I don't think that changing, I mean, you could say that extending the tax at all is inconsistent, right? Like that's not consistent because the tax was supposed to end. That's why we go back to the voters for additional voter approval. I don't know. I mean, if you want the semicolon, that's a real easy fix.

Don't get me wrong. I'm just raising the issue. I honestly and I'm suggesting a fix that addresses it. I don't I'm struggling because of really an issue that it derives from Councilmember Cooperman's original point. Which is that we, I don't even, I just don't know what that, do we absolutely have to have any, the reference to 2008 and 17 in there? Is it important when we are increasing the taxes? I mean, we are essentially, I mean, we are starting anew, are we not?

So I think the benefit of having the 2008 reference at least is it references back to the incentive program authorization. So it's really reauthorizing the incentive purpose with this initiative for another 10 years. I mean, I think if we took out the reference to 2008, it's not an extension, you're not extending it anymore. You're almost asking the new question, even if you're restating the exact same ballot language.

Yeah. I mean, that's why I understood 2008 and 17, you're in there. I don't want to beat this anymore. I mean, I think if it's something that doesn't materially raise or raise any vulnerability with it to the argument that I've described, then I'm fine with the language. In my view, it's not just a Scrivener's question, but I just want to make sure that we're not at risk for suggesting something we're not wanting to suggest. Council Member Cooperman and City Manager.

So instead of consistent, would you prefer as established by? So utilized for historic preservation purposes as established by ballot issues approved by the voters in 2008 and 2017. That seems a little better.

It sounds better. And say the language again.

So to be utilized for historic preservation purposes as established by ballot issues approved by the voters in 2008 and 2017.

I like that. That actually has the meaning of we keep exactly what you already voted on and expand it. So, Chris, I think that does achieve what you were talking about. It clearly identifies the two previous taxes you already voted on are moving forward, extended for another 10 years, and now we're adding two additional provisions. Good job, City Manager Langley.

Okay.

I mean, I think that language is better than consistent. I'm not sure it alleviates this possible issue that the mayor has raised, but.

So if I may, I actually do think that it alleviates your concern at this point. And I'd like to move that we pass the ordinance 1928 with the city manager's recommended language changes. So we pass ordinance number 1928, series 2026 on first reading instead of public hearing for July 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second. Second.

I would like to make one clarification item too. We are not proposing to put any type of termination date on the use tax.

Not with this conversation tonight. Correct. Yeah. Yes.

All right. Thank you. The next item is post-charter amendments, first reading. Again, this one is just going to have a presentation by the clerk and questions by counsel, not input or comments from the public. That will happen on second reading if we pass it. Take it away.

I am trying to up. There we go. Thank you, Mayor and members of Council. Tonight, we will be discussing potential ballot questions related to the charter. Just a brief background. We had these discussions in February, 2026. You discussed potential ballot measures during your council workshop. April 28th, you gave direction to return with proposed ballot measures. June 16th, you instructed staff to return with ordinances for all six proposed charter amendments. So that is why I am here this evening. I did want to point out at the June 16th meeting, council asked about the number of ballot questions from the state and the county. As of July 8th, there were seven confirmed state ballot measures, six initiated, one referred. There is also one measure in signature review, and the state has a deadline of 831 days. For that, there are also 21 petitions authorized to circulate with a deadline to return signatures of 8-3. In my opinion, looking at some of these questions, that's not going to happen. And then Boulder County also has possibly two questions, increasing the number of commissioners from three to five. They have a deadline of July 16th to submit that petition. And then a child care district, which is a property tax to fund child care, that has a public hearing on 7-23. The county commissioners are not scheduled to decide these until August. So that's the answer to the question you posed during the last meeting. So I'm going to scream right through these. The first proposed amendment for your consideration is executive session authorized topics. The proposed ballot title is shall the city of Louisville Home Rule Charter be amended to authorize the city council and other public bodies, this does include boards and commissions, to convene executive sessions for the purpose of considering any matter authorized by the Colorado open meetings law as amended, thereby expanding the topics for executive sessions currently permitted under the charter. Do you want me to go through all these or do you have questions as I go?

I think it would be good for us to, I don't know, with consent, I think it would be good for just to kill each one as we, not to kill them, but to work through them each. put them to bed one way or another. Do council members have questions about this one? There was a really good question raised about whether this rule or this change would apply in some manner to open space and I think the answer is yes correct and I guess one question on that is is it just bear with me for just a second um Two questions. One, is it the case that an executive session that OpenSpace might want could be requested for other matters? I mean, all of the, or any of the enumerated

Yes, Section 2 of the ordinance that would refer this ballot question to the voters amends Section 10-2 of the charter. And if approved by the voters, it says an executive session may be convened for the purpose of considering any matter authorized by the Colorado Open Meetings Law.

So in that case, if they want open space, well, who invokes that? Who can invoke that? Just

That would be the board itself.

And so the board could seek legal advice?

Yes. Yes, and the language under the Open Meetings Law is legal advice on specific legal questions.

Sure. No, I understand that. And I can see that that might be a very useful thing for them to have under certain circumstances. Is it only open space or is it every board or commission?

So section 10 dash two address of the charter addresses board and commissions generally. So it's not limited to open space. And, you know, in my years working with municipal governments, I have also seen planning commission have a need for receiving legal advice on specific legal questions. with regard to pending quasi-judicial matters. You know, I think that there are some of the topics that would be rarely or never used, but legal advice would be available to any board or commission.

Of course, I'm thinking about mischief, and I'm thinking about legal fees, and I'm thinking about other sorts of issues. I mean, it's certainly conceivable that OpenSpace might ask for legal advice about something, and city attorney has on occasion said that's a policy matter, not a matter for legal opinion. I wonder how, whether it's, is it possible to limit in any way if we chose to, which boards and commissions can seek such, whether we want to even.

Yes, because your current charter does exactly that. Boards and commissions are only able to meet for legal advice on pending litigation. That is the one topic. You know, I...

Right, but it wouldn't be on the... If the charter amendment passes, it's not going to be listed that way.

If you look at section two of the ordinance under consideration tonight, which is on page two of the ordinance itself, page 77 of the packet, I think the language might just make it more clear and answer your questions. And I'm happy to read it, but it's not very long. So what would be stricken is the limitation that currently exists that board and commissions can only meet in executive session for pending litigation. And that would be replaced by language that allows them to meet for any topic authorized by the open meetings law.

Right. Well, the question I suppose is for counsel then.

Yeah, so we are able to amend the executive session limitations and follow the state open meeting laws for the city council. We do not need to extend this to our boards and commissions. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So that might be just the thing to do is to say this, we want to make the change for the city council, but we do not want to make the change for the boards and commissions.

Or we want to make it for some boards and commissions, but not others planning commission or, open space might be good candidates for providing more leeway to to have executive sessions peep lab. sustainability? I, I don't know. I, I guess that's a question for, that's a, that's a policy question is how, how widely we want to do that. But I am, I don't know that we just want it for council because of what the city attorney just said about other.

Yeah. I think my intention with this was to align for the council and, with the state open meeting laws, not necessarily all of the boards and commissions, unless staff is finding a real need for us to do this. Like if there has been an urgent legal need for the boards and commissions to be able to have this ability.

I think what's problematic is specific to the Open Space Advisory Board as they evaluate and prioritize land acquisitions. It's difficult because those conversations have to take place in public. And so if there's any type of strategy of which we want to potentially purchase those properties, those owners already know that there's interest and that their property is high on the priority list. And so they can... you know, act accordingly. And so this is one of those, you know, property acquisition specific to OSAP. I see the benefit of being able to discuss an executive session.

But isn't that list made public after they have a meeting anyway? I mean, currently we make that public.

Currently we do because we're not allowed to talk about it in executive session.

So the idea would be if we allow this, then that also those land acquisition priorities are no longer public. We would keep those private. Essentially. Okay. That's a big fundamental change.

And it's a big fundamental change to transparency too. But I can tell you that at least in one discussion that we had with the county, that was, you know, something pointed to as, oh, well, you wanted that, therefore you should kick in, you know, more money. I mean, it is an interesting question and we don't have representation, of course, from right now, and we're not doing a public hearing on this. So, I mean, it seems to me trying to tee up this issue for public, I'm trying to think how we do that because the variables that I'm thinking through is right now, the language that we have makes this change applicable to all boards and commissions. And I think it doesn't... the revitalization commission have a separate, it was separate rules. So that would be the same thing, you know, because they obviously we, you know, I mean, there's some of these commissions and boards that I think would benefit from this. Then the question is which ones are in, which ones should we not? allow and this is a charter amendment this is a that's what i was thinking too deal yeah so um and then the other possibility is can you limit if you're really concerned about it limit to just one of the sections or one of the subparts of uh executive session like would you want you know

Like it currently is. Like right now, it's only for pending litigation. So you're thinking you could say pending litigation or land acquisition and add that if that's what you're thinking?

Yeah, I don't know. I definitely don't want to noodle this from the dais, but I think those questions are legitimate. And I don't know, can you say, could you say, for example, we only want to allow peat land? to be able to invoke the executive session rule for property. I don't even know whether that would be But I mean, if there were some peep lab input that might affect the property evaluation or something like that, can you limit the sorts of reasons for which a specific board is allowed to? Yes, you can.

I mean, I mean, that language isn't available tonight.

Right. I mean, it could, you know, this stuff can get very complicated. I'm just throwing it out as an analytical matter. Those are two things. It's probably the first is the more important, which is, are there committees that we just do or commissions or boards? We do not want to extend this too, because we think that ought to happen. All their stuff should happen transparently. And there's no real policy reason to permit that.

And so during those executive sessions, would the notes of those executive sessions be available to the city manager, the city attorney and to council members? Should we be interested in knowing what was discussed or will it be limited to the members that are present during that executive session?

That would be limited to those attending the executive session.

So that's actually where I'm seeing the issue here, Chris, is that these are advisory boards to the city council. There is nothing that they discuss that the city manager and that the council should not be aware of. So thank you for that clarification. So I think given that that's the limitation that the council cannot know what is being discussed and there to be doing it for an advisory purpose, I think we should limit this charter change to the city council and not include boards and commissions.

Let's talk about that. Yeah, go ahead. Council Member Cooperman.

I mean, one thought is just, you know, like the Revitalization Commission or the Planning Commission or maybe HPC2, it seems like there are possibilities for when it would make sense for them to hold executive sessions because they do I mean, some of them have quasi-judicial roles. It seems like there could be situations where maybe they should have that power. I'm not quite sure, but that's just one thought. The other one is, I mean, I don't know if we have a history of a border commission having an executive session, but like, would they just have the same process that the council has for whether or not to go into an executive session and... and staff would just have to accommodate that decision?

Yes, that's what the charter currently provides is that they follow the same procedures that council follows in Section 5-3, but they're only permitted to meet for pending litigation as set forth currently in Section 5-2D. So if the direction is that council wants this to align with the open meetings law only for city council, we will still need to make amendments to Section 10-2 because Section 5-2D will no longer exist if the voters approve the ballot question.

And is there a way for, even if we're not party to the executive session, for their deliberations to somehow be viewable by us? I mean, is there some way to make that a provision or?

Generally, so what the open meetings law provides is that executive sessions are confidential. And so they're not accessible to those who are outside of the executive session. You know, on the fly, I don't know if there would be procedurally a way to get that confidential information because the confidentiality runs to the entity, not to any specific board. But I haven't given this question any thought until tonight, so I'm not prepared to answer that.

Yeah, I mean, I think that's fair not to put you on the spot on this. I mean, the comment that you made earlier, though, is you had certainly heard of some municipalities having executive sessions or allowing executive sessions with Planning Commission.

That's the only time I personally have participated in an executive session is with the Planning Commission for legal advice.

And I am, I guess I'd be concerned not, you know, I do see this as a bit of an issue. We can talk about it at our public hearing too. And we all ought to be thinking about that. Again, we're straying into, and I'm doing it too, is straying into the merits here.

Do we know if the planning commission has requested or wanted to do that anytime in recent years and has not been allowed to because of the charter?

I'm not aware one way or the other. I don't attend planning commission meetings. Nobody from my office does. Unless we have in the past, but it's very infrequent.

And in the last year, Diana, there's been no specific request from planning saying, hey, this would be a case where we don't want to have this public conversation or staff is saying this is inappropriate public conversation?

No, the only request that I'm aware of is from Open Space Advisory Board. So I don't know if that's a concern, Chris.

Well, the fact that it hasn't happened yet. Right. Not necessarily. I mean, you were I mean, again, this is I think you are correct in what you were saying initially, which is we were just talking about council. Yeah, I thought we were. Yeah. And and we were a city manager.

So one potential compromise to this would be that if they call an executive session, it has to be a joint executive session that includes the city council.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, So I've been a nurse. It was a good suggestion with the land acquisition with those AB.

PB, David Ensign & I mean, PB, Lupita D Montoya, City Council request an executive session and include an advisory board because they want to discuss something private.

I think that's possible is not because we do that with staff.

Yeah, perhaps. I think that

It's a different issue.

The one issue that comes to mind immediately in terms of counsel being a required participant is that planning commission, you are not supposed to be involved with that quasi-judicial application. So if the legal advice is about the application, then we've got a due process issue.

And I am concerned sort of with... binding unnecessarily LRC, preventing them from having this kind of... possible authority without any input from them, but it is a council decision.

I mean, right now, the policy is the way that it is, right? They can only talk about pending litigation. We've not heard from them saying, oh my gosh, this is a very high priority to change the charter. So I think as a council, we've had conversations together that we do feel it is a smart priority to align the city council's executive sessions with the state open meeting laws. And I think that would be a smart way to move forward is to do that. And I think if... three other council members want to come in and maybe they disagree and they like the idea of us making this available. I think my concern here, Chris, is that it's a charter change and this is not something easy. If it starts to get abused by our board members, it can, I think as Council Member Fahey mentioned, and please correct me if I'm wrong, If one of the boards wants to have an executive session, the city council could request an executive session and include them. Is that currently how it could be done? Let's say we wanted to have a conversation with OSAB about property acquisition. No.

No, because they would need to be also authorized to hold that executive session.

I mean, procedurally, you would each be- Not just invited to attend our executive session. We can't bring them in to do that?

I mean, you know, one, when I go back and think about all of this, the whole point, one really important point anyway, is that the presumption is transparency. The presumption is that things, the city's business is done in public. So these are exceptions. And I think to your point, Council Member Kern, you know, that's a good reason for saying, gee, if we haven't had anything So far, why should we sort of extend this? And I don't, you know, the comment about OSAP and the list is, you know, that's an interesting thought. I wonder whether not wanting to make staff do or put more weight on staff, but I'd just be interested if anybody else around extends their executive session rules to their boards and commissions.

I mean, I can say that is the norm.

It's the norm.

It's the norm under the open meetings law. It's a local public body, which includes the elected and appointed bodies.

Okay.

Council Member Goodwin.

David Price- yeah just a brief comment on that. David Price- I mean i'm i'm not certain but i'm almost certain that the county open space board has executive session powers and does use them for discussions of property. David Price- We I mean that would be one place to to just ask and see how that works for them, or you know what are the mechanics but.

I think that's maybe a good ones that really are likely to, well, it's a discussion that we're probably going to replicate at our, I can just sort of see this not, you know, we need to move on, but.

So I guess, do you want second reading amendments brought to you? How would you like to?

I think that's the question now. and which amendments would we like? You know, I think we're, I'm happy for council's purposes, the language that you have there is great. I don't think we want any change to that as it pertains to council. The question is how do we want to do any limitation on extending that to any other board or commission. My understanding just now is that it is the norm to have that with respect to all boards and commissions in other cities. They don't somehow limit that. That's interesting. If we had an amendment, it might be to limit To certain boards and commissions, I think, but I'm not sure how complicated an amendment that would be, but it is important to have it in advance of the, if we're going to have an amendment like that, it's important for it to be drafted in advance, which I think is the city attorney's point. Yeah. What would you like?

I don't think that we need an amendment. I think it can go through for all boards and commissions and give them the opportunity to experience it. We can always change it in the future, change the ordinance back, but yes, but this would possibly counteract the negative responses that we're getting from the public on the other

ordinances we want to pass in this ballot I think the simpler we make it the better which I think I I appreciate the concerns about limitations which is why I brought it up I mean I because I was sitting there wondering wow that would be interesting wouldn't it um I think staff would have input into those decisions staff can call the executive session or not but whose discussions would be, you know, between whoever is calling, you know, wants the executive session, it might be a good thing for staff to be working with them for that purpose, right?

Should we clarify that with the city attorney, that it is, that staff would have a say? Because right now, if the council wants to call an executive session, staff calls, does an executive session, right?

So would it be the same application for the board?

If a board, the majority of the board says we want an executive session, staff would have no, like no, they couldn't make a recommendation other than to say this would not qualify under the Open Meetings Law.

Right. So, I mean, a couple of limitations. There has to be a super majority vote to even go into executive session under the Open Meetings Law. If it's an executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, the attorney has to be there because otherwise there's no legal advice. I guess I don't really know what to say other than in my experience with other municipalities who operate under the open meetings law, this hasn't been an issue. I can't tell you it won't be an issue. It just hasn't been. I mean, I've probably had one or two executive sessions with the board or commission and they've been for legal advice and was happy to have that opportunity to meet with them.

It's also for us, it's this, you know, two-thirds of the whole council. Is that going to be true of each of these boards and commissions too?

Yes, that's required under the...

I think that's a very big... Yeah. check on this um and you know when i say staff i i just mean there's there could be discussion i you know maybe they can't veto it okay but there'd be discussion i i think i'm comfortable with just leaving the language it's i think it is a high bar to to match i mean like you're right it's not that one or two people could request it every single month

Yeah, yeah. I think that was my concern is that, you know, and maybe the limitation for OSAP needs to be it's an annual, you know, property acquisition conversation. It's not a monthly. And I don't know currently how often they discuss that, how often that comes up as part of their where they would need the executive session.

The land acquisition item comes up quite frequently, but not necessarily actual properties. It's more about the process or the criteria. Some meetings actually get into the actual properties. So for OSAP, it could result in probably some more frequent executive sessions just because they review this list annually. And it's usually over several meetings that they're going back and forth on the priority ranking.

But this would just be kind of like ours. It would be a component of their normal meeting time where staff would already be allocating those hours. It's just more formalized. Nobody else can be in the room.

And it'd be dependent upon whether or not we need legal counsel in there. Cause that would require more time of legal counsel.

Yes. And if it's just the open space, if it's just the land acquisition conversation, it's not specifically about a, a purchase agreement or something, which they don't have the right to do anyway, you wouldn't need legal to be in that room in that conversation. If they're just discussing the option for the properties. Isn't that what kind of the scenario you were giving us that that's one of the reasons they want the executive session?

Correct. Not show our cards to land owners.

Yeah.

So it wouldn't cost us any more money if it's not for legal reasons, if it's just for confidentiality reasons. It would just be the next piece of that is going to be no one in the public is going to have access or know where those properties are located because that's the whole point of the private conversation.

And also, I mean, we have an exhibit in our comp plan, so it's not exactly, you know, but as new properties come up for discussion, or if they want to talk about strategy, that's where it would really come into, it's the strategy behind it, not so much the property itself.

Okay, thank you. Priority is way different than the valuation and all that, I think, in the strategy piece, so. I think I'm comfortable with it. I don't know if others are sending this on.

We can send it forward. I'm still not loving the idea of it, but I think as City Attorney Kelly was saying, it's pretty consistent with how their municipalities actually already allow for their boards and commissions to perform.

We don't have a roll call vote yet on this. Can you withdraw the motion?

I move that ordinance number 1929 series 2026 pass on first reading and the public hearing be set for Tuesday, July 21, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second.

Okay. Roll call.

Council member Kurt. Yes. Council Member Cooperman?

Yes.

Council Member Fahey? Yes. Mayor Lay?

Yes. All right. Next is Ordinance Number 1930, Series 2026, an ordinance amending city charter concerning the date on which the mayor and the council members take office following the election, providing for the submission of the ordinance to a vote of the registered electors at the November 3rd, 2026 special election. Do you have anything you'd like to...

Correct. So I will just state the proposed ballot title for this is shall the city of Louisville Home Rule Charter be amended to provide that the mayor and each council member shall take office at the first regular council meeting following certification of the election results, as opposed to the first meeting following the election.

Right. Any comments or questions?

I do have one question. I was wanting, and for the record mostly, a reminder as to why this is recommended as a charter amendment.

It's recommended because there could be an occasion where the two or possibly even three people running for a council seat or a mayoral seat, it's too close to call with comfort who the winner is. Elections are not decided. evening of election day. There are days after where overseas ballots can come in. Voters can actually cure their ballots for a period of time after an election. If the election is closed, those numbers can change. We just saw that happen with the Republican primary for governor. We had one candidate who was up in that seven-day period. The next candidate rose to the top. So it's possible. As a city attorney, so eloquently put last time, There could be the possibility of someone demanding that they take the seat, even though the election has not been certified. They vote on things, the election goes the other way, and we're in a pickle.

And you could have somebody literally unseated. If you seat somebody before it's certified, if they're seated right after the election, you don't want it. There's so many reasons not to do that. Are you...

So we had some residents kind of comment. So I just throw a clarifying thing. Our election, our budget cycle is a two-year cycle and the elections are held in the off year, the mid year of our cycles. And so therefore, a new elected official coming in would actually not be voting on a new two-year budget cycle instead that would have already been in process and they would be taking office with an already approved budget i just for clarification am i correct yes okay thank you and i and just to point out too

Your procedure is to approve the budget or has been recently to approve the budget in early November. I think in that comment, someone said something about you have until the November 30th. And if I'm remembering this correctly, they made the comment that elections aren't certified for several weeks. That's not entirely true. Elections... unless there's a recount for some reason, are certified by that November 30th deadline.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I mean, I think as a matter, just to address that, because I think that letter or email sort of suggested that the most recent election at the tail end of a budget cycle, either in an off year, is somehow the right time to upset the apple cart. And quite frankly, from a representation standpoint, it makes zero sense to me that somebody should come in on an election with sort of saying that their whole point in being elected is to upset a budget that was proceeding for months and indeed the two-year budget more than a year before that. It's like, You want to come on to council, you wait for another six months for a budget cycle to start.

May I make a motion?

You may. Oh, wait. Go ahead. Did you have a comment or question?

I guess a comment or two. I actually think it's sort of an interesting question, this issue about the budget issue. I mean, one very small comment just to add is that we do have special elections, which could fall when we are adopting a two-year budget. But in any case... I've been thinking about this a little bit and I feel like there are actually arguments both ways. Would you want the outgoing person to be able to vote on the budget or would you want the new person to be able to vote on the budget? I'm actually not entirely sure how I would come down on that. So, yeah, so I think it is a little bit interesting to think about the schedule of our budget adoption and where it would land with respect to when we when we see the new council member. I'm not I'm not hung up on that, but I think it is kind of interesting. The other thing I wanted to comment about, so I think this came up last time, right? Part of the idea, apparently, when we set up the charter in the first place was to avoid a lame duck situation by seating the person who is hopefully won right away. And then the person who is lost doesn't get to have any more votes. And I've been thinking about that a little bit too. Again, I'm not... I'm not overly concerned, but you could think about something like saying that you don't have meetings at which votes are taken between the election and the seating as one way to sort of get around that issue. I thought I would throw it out there just as an idea. I'm not committed to it, but I thought it was something to consider.

Maybe it's just that I'm jaded by being a mayor already and running these meetings. I can't imagine suspending votes for that period of time. There's so many things that could come up. And I think this is just all, you know, at the margin, there's always an issue, but it's like... You know, you come in and you come in at the time you come in and you leave at the time you leave. You could say, you know, that that, you know, that all of this shouldn't depend just on election certification. It just depends. We have, we have city business to run. We got to pick something relatively arbitrary. I think, I mean, there are, you are correct that there are reasons for considering it. I just don't find them persuasive, but that's something that we have to take a vote on and decide whether we go forward. I think, did you want to make a motion?

I'd like to move that ordinance number 1930 series 2026 pass on first reading and the public hearing be set for Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second.

Okay, can we, any comment further? Roll call.

Council Member Cooperman.

Yes.

Council Member Fahey. Yes. Council Member Curran. Yes. Mayor Lay.

Yes. All right, next is ordinance number 1931, series 2026, an ordinance amending the city charter, changing the number of signatures required for initiatives and referenda, and providing, isn't it, referenda?

Yes. Sorry.

It's all right. I'm not a scholar of Latin, so. and providing for the submission of the ordinance to a vote of the registered electors at the November 3rd, 2026 special election.

And the proposed ballot title for this is shall the city of Louisville Home Rule Charter be amended to increase the number of signatures for initiative petitions from 5% to 7.5% of registered electors and to increase the number of signatures required for referendum petitions from 2.5% to 5% of registered electors.

So trying to limit or do we have any question about the language, any suggested amendments that should be or could be prepared? Yes, council member Kern.

Does the chart stay in there or is that for our purposes? So it's just going to be the ballot language at the bottom?

Correct. This is just for your purpose.

My recommendation would be that the count, well, I guess we can't really, it can't because it's current. Yeah, but there'll be a reference to this information on the city website.

Oh, yes. As Rob stated previously, we can put factual information up there.

Okay. Yeah. I think that would be, sorry, talking to her. So I think that maybe that would be helpful if we could make sure that that information is just available so that people understand like what kind of, like the increase in the burden of number of signatures that would be required as to why we're doing this. Some explanation. I'm My concern is centering around, I don't want there to be a misperception that we are trying to limit the public's access to put ballot measure. I mean, this is, I think, advisable, especially in today's day and age, and how things are proceeding in other communities. We don't always have to do everything like everyone else around us, but there's some good and some consistencies, I think. But I think tying it so that the community members understand what 5% looks like, what 2.5% I think is going to be beneficial. I think a lot of people will try to reference that. Thanks.

I don't see any way we can do that on the ballot measure.

We can't. We just have to reference it on the website. I'm just hoping that it'll, I just wanted to verify it. We could get it there.

But it's misleading to say that that's the number it's going to be when we're increasing probably the size of the city. Those numbers are going to increase too.

And the number of registered voters, right?

That can change. So I mean, I'm not sure there's any, is there an amendment that can be proposed? If there's an amendment that you can propose or want to propose?

No, I just think that this, and referencing that this is the 2026, or is this to 2025?

No.

Numbers. For the informational purposes for people. I actually do think that the committee members have.

That's something we can talk about in the public hearing.

Oh, sure. Okay. Yeah. The ballot language is fine. Yeah.

Yeah. If we can, if you're comfortable with the ballot language, I'm going to, on this, well, do you want, somebody want to make a motion on this?

Oh, sorry. Before you call for a motion, if I can make a suggestion relating to your referenda, as you pointed out, I think that maybe the ordinance would read better if it said an ordinance amending the city charter, changing the number of signatures required for initiative and referendum petitions and providing for. I think that's a little more accurate.

That's a really good clarification. That's a really good one.

So if you'll include that in your motion, whoever makes it, we will make it so.

Okay. I will move that we pass ordinance number 1931, series 2026, pass on first reading with the amendments made by city attorney and the public hearing be set for Tuesday, July 21, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second. Second.

Okay. Any discussion? Can we take a roll call?

Mayor Lay? Yes. Council Member Fahey? Yes. Council Member Curran? Yes. Council Member Cooperman?

No. Okay, next is ordinance number 1932, series 2026, an ordinance amending the city charter concerning the locations for public meetings, providing for the submission of the ordinance to vote the registered electors at the November 3rd, 2026 special election.

So the proposed ballot title for this item is shall the city of Louisville Home Rule Charter be amended to allow the city's public bodies to hold public meetings and locations other than public buildings and public facilities?

I I thought there was maybe some suggested language that had come to us that clarified what was meant by that. So that it was locations other than public buildings and public facilities. And it was like, but are still accessible or something like that. Did I read that someplace or no? Am I making that up?

You're not making that up. So the discussion was, is, you know, the current charter language is proposed to be amended by adding to the end of that sentence in 4-5D or in such other locations approved by the public body. And just given the questions that we had, I wondered if it wouldn't be better to have shall occur in public buildings and public facilities or in such other locations approved by the public body accessible to all members of the public. Public buildings and public facilities are by their nature accessible to the public. And so having that be the qualifier at the end might make more sense.

I agree. It is interesting that that's implied or is in fact the case that public buildings are accessible. Is there any reason for limiting that phrase about accessibility? to other, I mean, is there something which might suggest to some people that public buildings might not be?

No, and I'm sorry if what I said was confusing. I think that public buildings and public facilities, particularly for the purpose of meetings, have to be open to the public under the Open Meetings Law. We can't hold meetings that aren't open to the public. So they have to be in buildings that are accessible. So, you know, I think the word accessible can have a few meanings. You know, we have like ADA accessibility and there are certainly requirements under federal law for that, which as the city clerk pointed out is why meetings aren't held in the White House because we can't make that open to the public and be accessible.

Got it. So, you know, I understand the suggestion you're making. Do you follow that? Are you comfortable with that?

I think it's an excellent addition and clarification that we'll make certain that a place other than a city-owned facility will be accessible to people. And I think that's a good clarifying point to make.

Yeah.

Yeah. And if people want to push us on that, it's accessible in all material ways, which.

So I'll make a motion and add that if that sounds good. So I'll move that ordinance number 1932 series 2026 with the additional amendments recommend language recommended by the city attorney pass on first reading instead of hearing for Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second. Second.

Any comments, questions? All right, then let's take a roll call.

Councilmember Cooperman.

Yes.

Councilmember Fahey. Yes. Councilmember Kern.

Yes.

Mayor Lee.

Yes. The next one is ordinance number 1933, series 2026, an ordinance amending the city charter to require a review and comment period for initiated ordinances and charter amendments and providing for the submission of the ordinance to a vote of the registered electors at the November 3rd, 2026 special election.

And the proposed ballot title for this is shall the city of Louisville home or all charter be amended to require proponents of an initiated ordinance or charter amendment to first submit the text of the initiated measure to city manager for review and comment at a public meeting. Subject to the limitation that city staff shall not have the authority. to require any amendment modification or other alteration to the text of the proposed measure or to impose additional procedural requirements on the proponent.

Okay. Any questions about that language? Council Member Cooperman.

I don't really have a question about the language. I'm struggling to understand the purpose of this. And I mean, I, I understand what the what staff has put in the packet, but I let me maybe, let me make that a little bit more explicit. So. So, you know, if we put this forward, and it were adopted, and we had an initiative come forward, and there was this public meeting, So the city manager, let's say the city manager was taking the lead at the public meeting. The city manager would not provide feedback on what the city clerk would normally do. Is that correct? Like the form and the...

Correct. I mean, she could say this is not... You know, you do realize she could say to the proponent, you do realize this has to be in the form of an ordinance. And as it sits, it currently is not. They can either choose to go back and modify, but they wouldn't be required to. So they could still come. They could still submit that to me. And I would reject it on that basis of saying this isn't in the proper form. Please try again.

Right. Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, so we already have a process to review the form, right? We do. So this meeting is, for it to be something novel, the idea is that it's something other than reviewing the form of an initiative, right? And moreover, couldn't someone just come to you and say, oh, I'm thinking about initiative. Can you take a look at this for me? I cannot. have to start the process before you can okay that's fine um and okay so then another sort of question in this line of thinking um i mean couldn't someone just come to this and say oh um i'd like to have a meeting with you city manager i'm thinking about um an initiative and i just want to talk to you about that right that would be perfectly fine right they can um

Some choose not to. And that's really what this is trying to address is just to have the opportunity to have the meeting to provide information. And as the city clerk noted, they don't under this proposed language, they don't have to make any of the changes or and we did have a specific situation a few months ago where an individual scheduled a meeting with me. um indicated interest in bringing forward initiative and through the discussion found that there's already something that's implemented by the state of colorado that this this this would just it wouldn't do anything because it was already implemented and so that person was like oh therefore okay i don't need to do anything and so that's where it's we view this as being helpful is to just kind of like provide information or um you know give some like factual information, not opinion.

Yeah. So I, I mean, I don't doubt that it would be useful to have that conversation. I just don't, I'm not, I don't know, somehow I'm not yet convinced that the way to, that we should have a requirement for a public meeting. I don't know.

From my perspective, I think the situation that I'm thinking very very much about is that there was a measure proposed that created essentially might have been unconstitutional. Now, is that something that a city manager would say? No, but you could say there is a recent statute that you may want to look at. And I think that would be enormously, I think that would have been enormously helpful. But I understand you could do this, you could do it in a very informal way or you could do it in a formal way. I think it's a good thing. It's in many ways, it's kind of an exercise in public process to have that kind of discussion

um publicly but you know the question is whether we want to send this on to second reading or not yeah go ahead so how do we define um like what would what would a public meeting look like i mean how formal is a public meeting going to be

A public meeting has to be noticed. So it would be noticed as a review in comment period. It would have an agenda item. Whether we wanted it to be an in-person meeting only where people would have to come in or if we wanted to do it on Zoom. I mean, that would be... something that would be a policy decision that we would have to make, but it would be a publicly noticed meeting, just like a council meeting or a board and commission meeting is.

But we don't have to like require public comment at a public meeting. It just has to be that the public has access to hear the meeting.

Correct.

So it could be reasonably informal is my thinking. And I'm actually, so if I may, I was thinking the advantage to this would be that it's not so much forcing the person who's potentially a petitioner, but instead... God willing, you will be here till I'm no longer in the city, but should for some reason you not be, it would require our city manager to have this meeting. So if it isn't Diana, another city manager will be like, oh, well, I have to have this meeting with you and I have to take a look at this. And so I think the advantage actually is to the petitioner. I mean, we have an amazing city manager who would take the time to do this But if we made a mistake and had a city manager that wouldn't do that, it will require them to. And that's where I see the advantage of this, honestly. It's not the reverse, if that makes sense. Yes.

So I just wanted to add another benefit. I do agree that the intent of this is to help petitioners understand the bigger picture. Whether it's a state law that already exists that covers what they're interested in, or other portions of the code that are implicated that may frustrate the purpose of their petition, it's a way to give them that information. I think what becomes difficult is that once that petition is filed, the clock is ticking. And so we want to be able to give the petitioners the information and help them. It is not to thwart the initiative process because they don't have to take our feedback at all. And it's not under the time constraints of the statutory procedures for moving through review and approval of the petition, and they have only a certain amount of time to collect their signatures, and they can't change that petition once it's been approved.

I think one of the other So long as we're talking about the advantages of this there's consistency, which is the point I think part of the point that you were mentioned literally it happens all the time and it's required that it happened all the time. I end that it's helpful and frankly that it's public is really good because people could see if they had a city manager. exception for you know or if we have had a like errant city manager who was giving advice and trying to throw cold water on that well that would be something that would be really important for people to see the current situation where people could or need not uh go to see the city no idea what That conversation was about public doesn't know about it. Yeah. I mean, there's an advantage to having sunshine around that too. I think you could do without it. We've done without it. But I think the point is to enable. I mean, especially when you're talking about initiated ordinance, what... What I have thought about this quite a bit because we've had these is the people are standing in the stead of the council. I mean, that's what they're doing. And, you know, I mean, it's a good thing for a council to get information, as often happens with things sometimes the city won't take a or the staff won't take a position on something certainly city attorney is you know often won't take a position on the you know whether it's good or bad or it's not their job it's it's but it is I think this is really an enabling it's not a it's not a hobbling procedure shouldn't be bad We'll see what people say, but you want to make a motion?

I move to approve ordinance number 1933, series 2026, pass on first reading, and the public hearing be set for Tuesday, July 21, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second.

Any discussion? All right. Roll call.

Mayor Lay?

Yes.

Council Member Curt? Yes. Council Member Fahey? Yes. Council Member Cooperman?

Yes. Right. And finally, Ordinance Number 1934, Series 2026, an ordinance amending the city charter to update and clarify terminology and providing for the submission of the ordinance to the vote of registered electors at the November 3rd, 2026 special election.

Um, so the ballot title for this one is shall the city of Louisville home or old charter be amended to remove gendered pronouns to replace references to citizen with resident and to replace references to city offices with city clerk's office and city website.

Council questions on this one.

I'd like to make a motion.

I have a question on this one. Bear with me for just a minute. I really appreciate the red lines on this. I understand the reasoning behind not using citizens Um, I wonder if residence is too limiting. Um, for example, um, section I'm looking at, uh, let's see page 93 of the packet section 5.5 dash five public records. Um, this one says, um, and by the way, just to preface is, I'm not sure citizens is very good anyway, because I think a non-citizen could make a public records, but a non-resident could do that. And I wonder if it's possible, and I haven't checked this, to put just persons or something that's a little less Tied to.

Members of the public.

Yeah.

Boom. I agree. I think almost all of the situations, like if you go back up into section four, it's very similar, both under A and D. This is promoting resident participation in municipal government, promoting the public. Yeah, I agree. I think that good point that resident is actually limiting. It doesn't necessarily just to be a Louisville resident. It could be somebody other than that.

We can make that revision if you adopt it with that revision on first reading. And then, of course, you'll have another look at it on second reading. It's a good idea. If you think of something you'd rather it say.

Yeah. So are you suggesting we task you with an amendment to this?

The motion can be made with the revision of members of the public be used instead of resident when replacing the word citizen. Okay. And we'll go through and make those changes.

Any comments? I'll make a motion that I move the ordinance number 1934 series 26, 2026 pass on first reading with the change proposed by the city attorney substituting members of the public for resident in the revised draft. to replace citizen, yeah.

And the public hearing date that you're proposing?

Public hearing date, Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second. Any discussion? Roll call vote again.

Council Member Cooperman?

Yes.

Council Member Fahey. Yes. Council Member Kerr. Yes. Mayor Lay.

Yes. Great. Thank you very much. This is a big lift by staff and the city attorney and I appreciate all of that. These are really hard. I think they're harder these things are just harder than most of the work. They're fraught and they're really serious. So thank you. Thank you to council too. And we will enjoy this second reading. All right. Upcoming agenda items and identification of new ones. July 15th, 2026 to October 31st, 2026. I think if I think the city manager is going to handle the presentation on this.

Yes. So in your packet, you have the agenda forecast coming up for the next few meetings. For July 21st, we have quite a few consent items in terms of regular agenda items. We have the Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation. Staff has specifically requested if the proclamation can be part of the regular agenda because it then transitions right into the 2026 Colorado Lottery Starburst Award presentation. Um, we also have, uh, the historic preservation sales tax second reading, and then also the charter amendment second reading, and then a resolution calling a special election, um, for the advent health PUD. Um, this is coming forward for the project and then also especially used for the helipad and, um, It's gone to planning commission now needs to come before council. And then we also have the Centennial Valley GDP Amendment First Reading. This is for the affordable housing project that's proposed by COBOL. The city is actually the applicant for this GDP amendment. And so that's for July 21st. Also next week, we get the pleasure of having a second meeting, which is our budget retreat, which will be from noon to five. It will be broadcast. So this is a change that we're making for special council meetings. They will be broadcast in the future. And then looking ahead to the July 28th meeting, we will have an executive session. This is related to city manager and city attorney reviews. This will be at the end of the council meeting. And so there's a series of consent items in terms of the regular agenda. It's the first reading for the inclusionary housing ordinance. And then we would move into executive session after consideration of the inclusionary housing ordinance. Moving forward, we have some items agendized as shown for August 4th. One of the things that this is still tentative, so this could move, but August 4th is slated to be a pretty heavy meeting from the standpoint of we will have discussion direction on the PROS guidebook and then also the Trestle strategy final presentation on the housing strategic framework. And so there's going to be, I would expect that to be a pretty long meeting. And then August 11th, we have the joint meeting with Sustainability Advisory Board. And then as we get beyond that, things start to get more tentative and we will be filling in. Just to go to the end of this presentation, If you look at upcoming items, one of the things you do not see on here is a cellular service discussion. As part of the upcoming ward meetings, we will be talking about cellular service. You've all received some emails recently, but you've also heard a lot from the public about lack of cell service within Louisville. This is on Council's work plan, and so we will be ramping up to start taking this on. and then i would anticipate bringing an update to council probably early fall in terms of the process and the status of of what we're doing so um you know the next few meetings are somewhat heavy i imagine the rest of the meetings will be heavy we just haven't populated them yet but is there anything um in addition that's not on here that you would like us to consider

Thanks. Is there anything on here? We kind of have ongoing Xcel Energy conversations, but we've like recently had some energy issues. And I didn't know if that like we might be able to address it at some of the ward meetings, but maybe it's something that needs to be like more officially addressed.

So I think there's a couple opportunities for that. So we will address it at the ward meetings. We're also, we've met with Excel about doing potentially, so there will be a business roundtable related to the CTC and the energy resilience or reliability there. We've also talked about doing an Excel meeting at the Recreation Senior Center to discuss, particularly for the western portion of town, as people that rebuilt Wendell Electric, what are things available to them to be able to provide either backup power or options. And so we're trying to coordinate a meeting with Excel related to that as well. And then separate from all of this, Our franchise agreement expires in 2027. I'm expecting to get a draft proposed franchise agreement from Excel within the next couple of months. They're legal is drafting that right now. And so I will need some direction from council, because as we know, this is a topic of interest, not only from council, but the public, and then also from the Sustainability Advisory Board. in terms of what are some priority items that we're looking to include in that Excel franchise agreement. And so there's going to be a lot of opportunities to discuss Excel over the next few weeks and months. We haven't calendared anything, but in terms of the power outages, there's several opportunities to have that interaction with the public.

Great. Thank you.

I would also expect at some point that from a water supply index, we are trending towards needing to implement stage two mandatory restrictions. Rather than doing that, we would prefer to keep it voluntary. And so we're working on a campaign to issue to the public, really encouraging them to conserve water, but then also how to report water waste. If that's not successful, we would be bringing back a water supply index update to council to let you know so that we can then declare stage two mandatory water restrictions to be put in place.

Okay. after implementing the voluntary program, would you evaluate?

Yeah, so there's a few factors. So with El Nino and looking at the precipitation outlook, it's looking like September through November are supposed to have increased precipitation. So that's one thing that we want to monitor. We want to monitor the impact of putting more out there about the voluntary watering restrictions. And, you know, in talking to the public works director, as we monitor this, we would see potentially stage two, if needed, hitting it hard in 2027. So early on, we'd be bringing that forward to implement that so that we could set the, especially if it's a dry winter, needing to implement that fairly early so that we can try to manage water throughout 2027.

So we're talking about a matter of months, not say weeks. Right.

Okay.

Got it. Okay. On August 4th, there's a budget amendment. Fire Smart Louisville. How much is that?

$100,000. It's a budget amendment. So we programmed approximately $214,000 in this year's budget for joining Boulder ODM because that's coming to council next week. We will have some savings associated with that. I'm requesting to allocate $100,000 of that savings to go towards the Fire Smart Louisville initiative, which would actually be an agreement with the Boulder Watershed Collective.

Go ahead, Council Member Kern.

Thank you. And will the Fire Protection District be part of this process with the FireSmart Louisville?

So FireSmart Louisville has met with the Fire Protection District. The chief has committed that going into 2027, whatever the city's funding does not cover, So the $100,000 was for about a year. I'm proposing to put that in place so that when their grant runs out in September, it could just automatically, the program would continue. And so whatever, any deficiency in 2027, Louisville Fire Protection District would potentially address that. FireSmart Louisville will be addressing the Fire Protection District Board at their meeting on August 3rd. to discuss what their proposal is. And then also if they had some additional requests, Louisville Fire Protection District could potentially cover that as well. So we're really trying to partner together to see this program through the end of 2027. At that point in time, we can evaluate progress and then also look at how we're doing with Boulder ODM because that's going to change how we address things as well.

And is it possible to ask the chief to kind of be here and speak to his participation, why the fire district is liking the program and wants to move forward and the advantages they see?

Yes, the budget amendment right now is proposed to be on consent.

Oh, OK.

But but we could bring forward as we start looking at this ties into defensible space home hardening, which is also a conversation that we'll be bringing back because we need to finish. the policy direction on the rest of the city outside of the WUI area. And so that ties into that because the WCRA discussion and how we are addressing that all tie together. And so that would be an opportunity for him to

That would be wonderful. And just real quick about the drought. We send the notification to residents, like the campaign that you're going to be doing is encouraging them to reduce their water use. Is there a way for us to very specifically reach out to businesses and apartment complexes within the community and make sure that they are absolutely... Because right now it seems like they're in no way voluntarily reducing their water use.

Yeah, as we develop the campaign, we've talked about not only ways for the public to report water waste, reaching out to HOAs, the landscape maintenance companies for the HOAs, commercial establishments that have large irrigation areas, And then also apartment complexes. The other thing is with the sustainability division, they will be tabling at quite a few events. So they will be able to address this as well, just from an education standpoint. Thank you.

Anyone else? I just wanted one clarification. I don't know exactly the wording that you used, but on the cell phone coverage thing, we're not just getting going with that, that that's something that you've been working on. And the staff has been working on for some years now.

Yes. And so, you know, one of the things we have some mapping that shows existing carriers where their antennas are located. We also have some mapping that shows areas within the city that do not have coverage. One of the things. And Kathleen, stop me if I'm getting too off track here. One of the myths, I think we need to have a myth buster section. One of the myths is that the cell phone carriers are coming to Louisville and are being denied the opportunity to build infrastructure. There are no cell phone carriers knocking on our door. And so from an initiative perspective, this is going to be the city taking the lead to build this infrastructure and then requesting that the cell phone cover carriers asking them to place their antennas on our. In most situations, you would get lease payments. I'm hoping we can work out something like that, but I don't know if that's going to be the case. But in the time that I've been here, I've heard that Louisville will not approve cell towers. That is not true. That might have been something that occurred many years ago, but there haven't been any recent applications. I've also heard that we're denying cell phone payments carriers, that's not true either. And so, you know, there's, I just think there's a lot of misconceptions out there in terms of what's occurring. And it's really that we're such a small market, the companies just aren't coming to, to install additional infrastructure.

Does like just an added to that, is this something that maybe we need a placeholder for at our budget retreat? I don't think that we've had any that that's been brought up to add.

Yes. Yeah. And that would be a one-time cost. So that, that would be something that we could add in there is a one-time, you know, budget request for this specific project.

I don't know if there's any way to bring us estimates for that meeting, if we can be prepared for something like that, just so that we, because I have no idea what else.

Yeah, I would just do, I'd probably just do a placeholder and I can figure out what an amount would be to hire, because we are going to need some consultant services to help us through this process. And so we can put a placeholder in there of, you know, $100,000 or $50,000. You know, we'll have to figure that out. Once we figure that out, then we can go through the CAP, the CIP request process to determine any type of like towers or, you know, building mounted things that we need to do to accommodate this. I just thought it would prepare us for that.

Yeah. On the subject of the budget retreat, this is not really for a future agenda item, but it's one since I've got a captive four of us here. Just a strong encouragement to come very, very well prepared to that meeting and to be thinking about things to cut. and things if you are looking to add, you better come with things to cut to make room for it because it's gonna be hard enough coming up with a budget this year. And I don't mean that, I mean that only because that's the reality and that's what the public is expecting us to do. And this is something that every municipality is wrestling with. They are absolutely, when I talk to mayors, this is just number one on the list. Everybody is having challenges with this. We need to be ready to deal with that. And there's going to be a lot of discussions in the public that we're going to have to have about, you know, service levels and what we can afford and what we can't, you know, what The options are for raising revenue or not, which I think are all difficult options to talk about. But we look forward to that. I'm really looking forward to it. I think that the staff is really prepared. And I think some of you have attended the finance committee meetings. And I think we're going to have a bang up retreat. The other thing I was going to say is that last, this is just again sort of an announcement, not an announcement, it's just a kudos. Last Friday, I was out of town, but my understanding is it was quite the street fair that there was like a microburst that tore through and ruined um some tents and that those tents are going to be replaced this week which is great but i got an email today for a text actually from lawrence anderson who runs the street fair for for um dba who was very complimentary of our city manager for quick action and help in dealing with all that so thank you city manager i'll have to say i didn't do anything to help i was there to sell tokens

And I just moved to the north side. So thank you.

Whatever you did, I happen to think that Lawrence doesn't tell fibs. And, you know, you can be really humble about it. But I think they were appreciative of staff to help. So real good. Do we have any other comments about future agenda items? If not, motion. Motion to adjourn. Second? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you all.