City Council - Regular Meeting

recording in progress. Good evening. Um we're uh the city council of the city of Lewisville meeting on March 3rd. And if we could get a first roll call, that would be great. Council member Cooperman here. Council member Dickinson here. Mayor Pro Tim Hamington here. Council member Kern present. Council member Fehey here. Council member Hefner. Mayor Lei

here. If you would uh stand as able and join with me in the pledge of allegiance for the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? So moved. Second. All in favor? I

I. Any opposed? Okay. Um the first uh or the next item on the agenda is public comment on items not on the agenda and items on the consent agenda. Um, if you wish to make a public comment, you can do so. You just need to um sign a card which is right outside the chambers here. Um, give it to the city clerk the end of the dis and she'll call your name. When you are when you have your name called, go up to the dis here or the lectern and just make sure that the little green light is on. We'll keep an eye out for that. Um, and state your name and whether you're a Lewisville resident. Each speaker is limited to three minutes or six minutes if you're pooling time with another p person in attendance. All op opinions are welcome. Please be respectful of the speakers to ensure everyone feels welcome to share their comments. Please refrain from any cheering, clapping, booing, or otherwise disruptive behavior. to be considerate of everyone's time. If your views have been expressed by a previous speaker, um you're welcome to just simply comment that you agree with that person if you like. Um that may help. Um, finally, city council considers written comments that have been previously received as having the same weight as those comments made in person. So, if you have already provided written

comments, know that they're going to be considered. So, with that, do we have any public comment? We do. First up is John McDermott, followed by Dan Euing. Sorry. Is there anyone who's not speaking off?

Good evening. This has been uh quite the conversation over the past few months. I put a sheet of paper out to all of you to reiterate and emphasize my point, which I may not get to all of it at this point. The picture on there is from uh Roger Hughes. I can't take credit for that. And and these are definitely his ideas as well. He couldn't be here tonight. So, what we are proposing and you'll see a list of people's names on the back of this that signed a petition about uh 5% raise. The information that the golf management team has shared with you is uh misleading. the if you look at the fee schedule on the uh picture that I put in here, they quoted a 5% increase and then a 25% uh reduction because of only 9 months based on a very uh high fee that is not what most people pay. What they quoted was the Regal Pass with a plus addition. What most people do, myself, my wife and others, is the regal pass with range. The price is very different. What we are proposing all of those who signed this petition and myself is that there is a 5% increase. And if you look at those prices, we're asking for a 5% increase on what people actually pay. and that seniors and residents please are considered. They are not considered. Now if you look at the sample that I put on this paper, the uh senior rate is 2024. Um, my eyesight is terrible and I don't have good reading glasses on, but in the

example I put in what should be paid and with the 25% um adjustment, the fee would actually be $1,6350. Not what the golf team is proposing by any means. as a matter of fact, about $500 less. We are asking that with that 5% increase and the 25% adjustment that that's what people in those categories pay and that seniors and residents are please given consideration. We've been here a long time. We've supported the city. We've supported the golf course and all of those names on here and more. That was a quick gathering of people would really like to see the golf course honor us. Now we understand that there's going to be change and what we are asking for in this complex issue that time is taken with representatives of all the constituents over the next year to develop reasonable change and prices. Not by one or two groups, not by a few people, but by scheduled meetings with representatives of all interested parties to get together and really hash this out, to have a meaningful solution. The way this is happening right now, it's not really hashed out. It's just been quick. uh some of us were told about it, didn't even know anything about it until it

came by word of mouth and then we came in December and we came in January and now we're here. But it's all a rushed process. So to conclude, if you would follow what people want from this group is go ahead with the 5% of what's ina what's in place now. go ahead with the 25% cuz it's only for 9 months. It's going to end in December. But please consider organizing a group of constituents to really hash this out, whether it's monthly meetings over the next year. I know there are people who will do it. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next up is Dan Yuing, followed by Mark Cathkart.

Good evening. I'm Dan Yuing. I'm a Lewisville resident. I've been here about 30 years. I'm a Boulder native, so I've been in the area for quite a while. Um, I had planned to buy a season pass uh for Christmas. I'm new to golf and just started playing last summer. Uh, my neighbors got me interested in it. uh my neighbor next door, my neighbor across the street are both annual passholders and I was excited to have an opportunity to join them as I retired this fall. Regardless of where the pricing lands, I would like the opportunity to participate. And the challenge that I have with the proposal before you is it ex it excludes new passholders and only allows for renewals. I don't know how many new passholders there would be in a year, but I can't imagine it's a lot. And I don't understand what damage I would do fiscally to the city by having the opportunity to buy a pass. So, my request to you is that whatever pricing you adopt, you exclude the language that says it's for renewals only and no new members are allowed. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Next up is Mark Cathkart.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, um staff, clerk. Um I just have a quick point of order, mayor. Um I know sometimes when I come to the chambers for the city council meetings, there are packets of additional comments um that have been received. Um, my point of order is simply if there's been one for tonight or in future meetings, if there's some way that they could be made available to those of us that are unable to attend in person. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mark.

That's it. Okay. Thank you to all who provided public comment. Um, next is the consent agenda. Do we have a motion with respect to the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I I

Any opposed? Okay. Um, the next councilformational comments and committee reports. Do we have any of those this evening? And I can't see whether we've got any from Council Member Fehee. It looks like none. I do have one um uh concern. Um and we have had a number of conversations I think from the dis with um people in uh the community and um so forth. But um it has to do with civility. Um we pride ourselves in this city being pretty civil to one another. Um and I think that's a great thing and I think most often that's true. That's true for about, you know, for a very high percentage of conversations that people have whether they know the folks or not. But um I've certainly heard um and I think others on council have heard during the last probably 10 years a relative cosening of um our dialogue with particularly with um in the political area but also uh more specifically with our staff. Um, we have in Lewisville blessed the blessing of having a fabulous staff and they're good at customer service. They listen, they respond. Um, they don't always agree with concerns that are brought forward, but they do their very best, and I have utmost personal

confidence in them. other council members can certainly um chime in on that, but I my understanding from all of council is that they're in that boat as well. Um but in the last few months and more recently, we have had people in our community that have treated our staff exceptionally poorly. getting in their face, yelling at them, treating them pretty poorly. Um, and I would challenge folks and um, you know, it it's important for parents and talk to their kids and kids to talk to their parents uh, and for us to talk to one another about this and to stop doing that. If you were at work and somebody did that to you, what would you do? At the very least, you'd probably stop talking to them, and that isn't very productive. Um, at worst, you might complain about them or whatnot. Um, and that's not the greatest thing, too. might solve a problem, but uh our public servants here don't need to be doing what they're doing, and they do a great job for us. Um, and when I hear reports like that, it hits me hard. Nobody deserves to be treated poorly. So, if you are one of those people who's treated the staff member poorly, I um the shoe fits on this. Wear it. Don't do it. If you see somebody treating one of our staff members that way, say something to them. Don't just sit or walk away because we love this town. I think everybody loves this town. And we

don't treat each other that way. And we don't treat our staff that way. Whether they live here or not, um whether they're working or not, we just don't do it. So, I'm kind of fired up about that because it means a lot to me. I come from a family of public servants. Um, we do this on our um in our spare time, too. And we have to manage that. But council members can manage that in a fundamentally easier way than staff. I don't mean to say it's open season on us either, but it is just patently unfair, inappropriate, disrespectful to treat staff poorly. So, don't do it. And that's what I've got to say about that tonight. Yes, Council Member Hamilton. Thank you. Um, so I wanted to take a moment to thank OSAB um and their work on the um acquisition recommendations that we received a few weeks ago. Uh, you know, we very much appreciate them working together to update the ranking list and the corresponding map. They also outlined some really nice reasoning for their recommendations and prioritization. Uh, and so I I really look forward to, you know, working with staff to analyze that list and and act on some of the plans that we discussed last November in our joint meeting with OSAB. Um, so thank you very much to all of them for their work.

Okay. Any other council members have comments? Okay, let's move on um to the city manager report.

All right. Thank you. So, there's a few items to report. Uh, tomorrow there's a 2026 playground design dropin event. Uh, one at the recreation and senior center from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. to provide input on the proposed uh selection of a design for the playground equipment replacement there. And then also tomorrow afternoon from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. at Memory Square Park. For the same on March 12th, we have two events. So, the pros guide book open house number two at the recreation and senior center from 12:30 to 2 and then also from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. Um, that same evening, March 12th, the mayor's community meeting is going to be a different format held as part of the guidebook open house and so the mayor will have a table there where uh the public can stop by and ask questions. Um, the monthly community update was sent out today with a lot of great events noted for March. You'll start to see that we have notations of events that celebrate the 150th anniversary of Colorado, 250th anniversary of the United States. The latest edition of the Lewisville Lantern was just printed and is going out for distribution. I want to thank Chief Milin for being agreeing to be interviewed. And then uh tomorrow from 2:00 to 4 p.m. there is a South Street Underpass public meeting at Rocky Mountain Tap and Garden. And then finally, to um close the loop on an item discussed at last week's LRC meeting, uh the LRC plans to have an extended meeting next Wednesday morning to discuss uh the scope of work for the front and center project. So, thank you.

Thank you, city manager. Um, our first item on the agenda of regular business tonight is discussion direction for the wildland urban interface map. And um, uh, director Skero is going to be um, presenting that tonight.

Good evening, Mayor, members of city council. Rob Zuko, community development director for the city. Just trying to get the uh computer to work here. We go. All right. So, I'll I'll be making the staff presentation to lead off this discussion direction this evening. Um just a little bit of background. I know you you've seen this before, but I just kind of want to set the stage with some background a little more briefly than in the past, but as you all know, Senate Bill uh 231 166 established um the wildfire resiliency code board that was tasked with developing a state minimum wildland urban interface or WOOI code. So, the board adopted the state minimum standards and a state minimum map um in the middle of last year in July and now local jurisdictions are being asked to adopt a uh the state code or a more stringent code or there's opportunities to do custom studies and codes and so forth by April of this year and start implementing that by July 1st. Um just up here the WOOI definition, it's that geographical area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuels. So the intent is to have more stringent building code standards across the state um for new development and redevelopment where there are higher risk areas where um development is within or abudding to um high-risk wildland areas with wildland vegetation and some of the other factors that go into that. Um so this is this is the kind of an outline from a high level of

what the minimum state standards require. It maps different parts of the state either as low, moderate or high fire intensity. So that's based on topography, vegetation, weather, um and and a lot of other technical factors that go into that mapping. And then if you're in the low fire intensity mapped area, you have to meet class one regulations. So that includes both structure hardening and sight and area design requirements. So site and area design is often referred to as defensible space. That deals with landscaping and fences and storage of materials and things like that. Structure hardening of course is um how those structures are built, what materials and systems go into those buildings to make them more fire resilient. If you're in the moderate or high fire intensity classification zone, the class 2 regulations apply. They're more restrictive, of course. Um there's a whole slew of additional building standards and then different defensible space zones um as you extend further out from the structure that have additional landscaping standards to make the property and the buildings more resilient. So, city council had a discussion direction earlier where we presented some staff recommended strengthening amendments to our code. Um, so those are those are in process. Um, that's basically aligning our code with our citywide structure uh fire hardening code for structures which we've already adopted to make sure that our minimum regulations at least meet those standards. So that adds specific structure hardening standards specifically to decking and sighting um and some additional provisions that we have for gutters. Um so council's already provided direction on that. So what we're here this evening to talk about is the mapping option. So that's where does where where is this code going to apply? So this is the state minimum map. Again, the city has the

option to adopt this map or modify the map as long as it's more stringent than the minimum map. There's other options for for doing custom studies to ground truth and so forth, but I think so far we're looking at adopting um a map similar to this and that's the discussion this evening. The state map took state forest service mapping data that was done in 2022 and it it kind of consolidates and smooths the data into these um hexagon shapes. Um and there's a few reasons for that. There's a lot of granular data. It was really hard to apply as a regulatory map without that smoothing. It also addresses um within urban areas what are called oluded areas, kind of small open space areas that potentially have less fire danger. So it it can eliminate some of those areas as well. Just a brief overview of past council discussions on this item. I'd already mentioned in 2024 we adopted a citywide what we call the fire hardening code for structures. So that applies to all new construction in the city. There's also some um triggers for some redevelopment on like siding and roofing and decking so that when those things are replaced, they also come into compliance. Uh as I mentioned, city council had the discussion direction on the the content of the regulations in December of last year. Um and then there were a couple more actions that followed that that came out of that December meeting based on council's direction. Two emergency ordinances. The first one on January 20th was a emergency ordinance banning the planting of junipers citywide. And then on February 3rd, city council adopted another emergency ordinance requiring that defensible space in the first zone, which is 0 to 5 ft. And that was to apply just to subdivisions within the Marshall Fire rebuild areas. Um recognizing that with the additional development that we are anticipating as

those continue to to build out and and recover that the defensible space standards would apply there with the intent of having further discussions in the future with council about potentially expanding those standards throughout the city. Um on February 17th, you did receive the um the fire protection district's wildfire and conflration risk assessment that they worked on with Ember Alliance. So that's some significant information and data that you were presented with recently as well. Um so to get into the discussion this evening, we've provided you a staff report with some background information and analysis. um some options and suggestions. Um some of the significant additional data that you have in the packet include that fire district wildfire and conflration risk assessment. As you're aware from that February presentation, um there was some, you know, very complex modeling that showed potential fire risk um throughout the city based on um our building stock within the city as well as vegetation in and around the city. And there there's a couple of layers. One is the most probable path layer and one is the structural vulnerability layer that they mapped out based on that. That gives you some additional data points where what parts of the city are potentially most vulnerable to wildfire spread and then potential conflration from that wildfire spread. And then there's the state wildfire risk viewer. This is the base data that the state wooi map comes from. Um there are additional layers within that um analysis that could be helpful. staff's pointed to a layer that's is the state map isn't based on that layer, but there's an additional layer that takes into some consideration the built environment around those fire intensity

areas. It's called the wildland urban interface risk layer. So, we've provided information on that. We've provided mapping of the Marshall fire burn area as well. So, there's a series of maps that show overlays of all of that data just to help inform your discussion. Um, we're also recommending that the WOOI map aligns with uh neighborhood and major road boundaries. This is pretty typical when local jurisdictions adopt WOOI codes. It makes a lot of sense to have more uniform, predictable regulations within neighborhoods instead of splitting lots and splitting neighborhoods. Major roads also can um provide a logical fire break. We know roads don't always provide a fire break as in the Marshall fire when there's extreme fire events, but in many situations that can be a logical place to draw a line as well. Um, so here's just a couple of examples of the city of Boulder and the city of Loveland wildland urban interface maps. You could see in Boulder, of course, to the west you have the red areas which is has the highest fire intensity. Then it transitions into a lower risk area to the yellow. And they're drawing their boundaries to neighborhood and road lines. Same with the city of Loveland. Um the areas to the west, the grasslands out there. That's their wildland urban interface area. And then they have a city wildfire zone as it goes into the city. Um and then they're drawing their lines around neighborhood and road boundaries as well. Um so here those maps that I mentioned, I just wanted to show them quickly. This is the wildfire and confilgration risk assessment. It's it's a little busy because we have the Marshall fire burn perimeter there, but the most probable path analysis is the kind of blue or purple and then the the little dots that's the structure vulnerability analysis. And so so the that analysis um the cutoff is 7 and

above is higher risk. So the little dots show the structures that were rated as the most vulnerable being 7 and above based on their rating system. This is that wild land urban interface risk layer within the state forest services um layer. So you can see that goes into the city a little more um bas in comparison to the base map provides additional information uh specifically um you know it shows some potential risk within the Cole Creek area uh the Cole Creek corridor and certain areas on the north and west of the city where there's more interface with structures. So, in order for your discussion tonight to hopefully to help with the discussion tonight, staff did try to provide some structure or some decision points that you that you could consider. Um, and first are variables for the decision- making. This isn't all inclusive. There may be other things you're considering, but we thought this might help um as you think through what might be the most appropriate map. Um first is broad community sentiment um and desired outcomes for the whole community because this you know this impacts large areas of the community. Impact of the Marshall fire and of course recommendations of all of the data that we have the wildfire and conflation risk assessment um and the state map are primary ones um and then of course the state code and state map as the minimum standards. that's a data input and then also what's going to be the most effective approach. Um there are options for incentives and education and then of course the WOOI code which is a regulatory approach. Um, there may be some pros and cons to looking at where we're expecting new development, especially with the

comprehensive plan amendment coming and then already developed areas and what may be the most effective within developed and future development areas of the city. Um so with all of those inputs the the idea is to look at this you know be informed and then look at a holistic approach to what you think would get to your desired outcomes. So we pointed out three things. So there's risk mitigation cost and equity impacts and the effectiveness of the code. So certainly risk mitigation you know which options mitigate risk in areas of highest vulnerability. So you have a lot of data showing where highest areas of vulnerability could be um and how can that influence new development or redevelopment in those areas. Cost and equity. This certainly comes with cost. Um these regulations do have some cost increases for new development. Um so perhaps there's some balance of having regulations or efforts where there's the most vulnerability so that there's less impact on equity concerns, affordable housing and those types of things. And then there's effectiveness, which options result in a more fire resilient community. Um there's a regulatory approach and then there's an incentive educationbased approach. There can be overlap of those things. uh but especially as they relate to existing development and plan new development. So that gets to some of the options that we provided. We we did work with the Lewisville Fire Protection District to come up with um a potential option that does balance a regulatory and an incentive educationbased approach. um and that's to extend the the class one regulations on the west side of the city

because we are expecting um new development in that area based on our comprehensive plan goals. Um and then bringing that boundary up to Mccasin Boulevard. So within the comprehensive plan, we are expecting most new development west of Mccasin and also within the Red Tale Ridge development. As you can see, the state minimum map already captures large areas of Red Tail Ridge. Um, so this would also capture the other area uh west of Mccasin. I think we are anticipating with the comprehensive plan draft. It hasn't been adopted yet, but you know 90% of our new development would likely be captured within those areas. Um and then of course Macaslin Boulevard boundary does provide a potential fire break um as well as capturing neighborhood boundaries as well. There are certainly other areas of high risk within the city especially along the Cole Creek corridor, the north open space. Um staff noted that those areas are already developed and we're not anticipating significant new development in those areas. um we could extend the regulations to boundaries around those areas. I think there um could be some discussion about whether putting more resources into incentives and education rather than a regulatory approach would result in, you know, better long-term outcomes within those areas. Um, so I'll get a little bit more into this, but we did want to point out, of course, the other OB, you know, the other options that you could consider based on the data that you have. One is to adopt the base map. Um, and then I know there's going to be um future discussions about citywide defensible space. If we do adopt citywide defensible space um and our together with our fire hardening code

for structures, we would be very similar to a class one standard across the whole city. Um this was also the building code board of appeals. They did review this ordinance which is part of our standard procedure for building code adoptions. Um so part of their review was to review the mapping options and they're recommending adopting the base map. The other is to expand the WOOI boundary in some manner that more closely reflects the wildfire and conflration risk assessment data that you saw. that does extend to much larger areas of the city um including parts of Oldtown and and um you know drawing to neighborhood or road boundaries um you know that would capture large parts of the city as well. Um, another option is to expand the WOOI boundary um, using the wildland urban interface risk layer from the state forest service map as a guide. Um, and then trying to figure out the most logical places to draw the WOOI boundary based on that. There could be other options, but these were the ones that that we wanted to point out as a starting point for the discussion. Um, just a quick note on permitting and enforcement. Um, you know, we already regulate multifamily and commercial development, including landscaping, so the site and area design requirements. We're already regulating those through our PUB processes and our building permit processes. So, we feel like those could be easily be incorporated into our existing processes without much effort once we get the program up and running. um for single family development, we the building part of that easily incorporated into our existing processes, but we did want to point out that if we are going to be regulating landscaping with new single family development, this is a new

program for the city, uh we would have to develop those processes. Um there would definitely be some staff impact, so there might need to be further discussions about staff capacity on that. So, we wanted to point that out. So, so here here's just a summary and hopefully to help guide and frame your discussion this evening um when you get to that point. But here's kind of the four options um that we're hoping to get your feedback on. Again, we're not developing the final map tonight, but based on your feedback tonight, we'll develop the final draft map that will accompany the WOOI code when it is set for the adoption hearings. So the first one is to develop a map that extends that wooi boundary to mccasin for the class one requirements. This again this is something that we we worked with the fire protection district on. Um this option focuses um on regulations for areas of anticipated new development and has a higher focus on incentives and education for areas of existing development. Second option again is to utilize the base map developed by the state. This could be combined with future considerations for expanding defensible st space standards elsewhere in the city and then um developing the WOOI map based on the wildfire and confilration risk assessment. This is the probably the the highest regulatory option. it has the most focus on a regulatory approach that would um cover the largest area of the city from a regulatory standpoint. Um and then the next option again is to use that state um wildfire risk viewer wildland urban interface risk boundary. Um this does have a bigger focus on a regulatory approach for much of the city, but it's not as

extensive as the wildfire and conflration risk assessment as the guiding data for the map. So when you get to that point, um we'd recommend that you you maybe start at the top and and um see if that's a a viable potential option or supportable option by council and then go through the other options as well. And that and staff's presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Yeah, let's uh open it for council questions. Yes, Council Member Henley Port.

So, one one question that I have up front. Um, well, I take that back two. The first is the map that proposes extending to Macaslin um low fire. Yeah. help us to understand the decision makingaking process between designating that low versus moderate high.

Yeah. So with our low standards as we have it proposed it would include all of our fire hardening for structure standards. So that would be above the state minimum. Um on the defensible space standards um it includes the 0 to 5 feet and within you know when you get to the class 2 standards it starts talking about 5 to 30 and 30 to 100 ft and it has a lot to do with spacing of trees and those types of things. um within an urban environment, especially like a parking lot and our landscaping standards, we often have tree canopies within planned development areas that are closer than those standards would allow that we felt had a relatively low risk because they're not it's not a forested environment. They're typically irrigated um trees that are part of plan landscaping. So, we felt applying the class two landscaping standards um perhaps wasn't needed um within those areas.

That's very helpful. Um and then my second question, it's not really a question, uh but I'm I'm curious what Chief's thoughts are on this. If we can invite him to the microphone for a minute. Well, thank you very much. Um, would you like specific questions or I've prepared just a few statements if if that's your pleasure? Statements are my pleasure.

Okay. Thank you. Um, as Director Sukaro said, this is a a minimum, right? And much like building codes, it certainly is acceptable to go above minimums. Um, we recognize that the city requirements and especially the structure hardening requirements far exceed um the state requirements and we applaud the city. Um, I applaud the city for that and the department applauds the city for that. Um, it's important that uh the community and state recognize our commitment to supporting the state plan uh through adoption. The city's already done so much and I think adopting structure hardening and the recent ordinances absolutely demonstrates um Lewisville's leadership in this area. Uh this fire district like the city is also required to adopt a map. Uh at last night's meeting, uh my board adopted uh two resolutions because part of our uh fire district is within the city of Lewisville and part of it is within the county. Um and the decision of my board was to follow the direction of those two entities. So, um, just wanted you to know that, uh, that our district is is supportive of the decisions you make and we don't take it lightly and I think we could talk at length about the number of hours we have sat and discussing and and there is no um, secret Dakota ring. There is no magic. You know, as they say, a problem well stated is halfsolved. And I think that's exactly where we are with the uh wildfire uh confilgration risk assessment. We've identified those areas and now comes the hard work of addressing that. Um and what's most important is that we be deliberate and

consistent through cohesive planning and action. It's important, I believe, to recognize that this addresses new construction, new development, whereas the majority of our um building stock is existing. So, it's got to be a multi-pronged approach that addresses that. And as Rob talked about, you know, uh puts the carrot uh along with the stick. Not that we're we're talking about sticks and carrots, but uh certainly economic incentives, education, those areas are in incredibly important. Um so the community wildfire risk assessment is is very clear. Uh the risk is real in Lewisville. It's cited in there that uh Lewisville's risks are higher than 85% of the communities in the United States when related to uh wildfire and conflration. Uh probably the most important and the most moving part of that um report to me was that participation is more important than perfection. So if you've completely uh done uh incredible projects won't solve the problem. What's a more appropriate approach is you know to use the analogy of spreading that peanut butter a little thinner. um you know the more we can do across our existing building stock and then as we discussed on this map doing something to you know both declare our support of the state system and to address areas for potential uh development. Um and in closing I think uh I'll just commit that uh you know the fire district is committed to working with citizen groups in the city for the best outcome. We need to speak with a single

voice. Uh it's time for us to, you know, clearly take a look and look at the what's best for our citizens, what's best for uh fire protection. There's no way we could suppress our way out of um some of these things. So, it's a it's a multi-pronged approach. And really, the gold standard is structure hardening and defensible space. And those are things you know structure hardening hardening exists and defensible space is something that uh we need to discuss you know at at length and uh make some you'll have to make some very hard decisions but uh I applaud you for what you've done. I applaud this city for what they've done and um you know much of this adoption is somewhat symbolic as um director Zakaro said in that you know Lewisville is a shining example of of what right looks like. So with that um I'll just state that we're all in. We'll do whatever we can to help and uh if you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer or I'll sit down and you can discuss and I'll uh I'll be available should you need anything else.

Thank you. I'll just close out my my few questions by saying I appreciate the information you two provided tonight and the collaboration. I know that we're focusing on the map tonight and not necessarily conflration. It can very very easily the two blend together. But knowing we're focusing on the map tonight, I have no further questions at this point in time. Other questions? Yes, Council Member Kern.

Great. Um, I'll extend my also my thanks and the many hours I know that you're working on this um as as part of probably the most activated portion of our community being directly impacted by the Marshall fire. Um, you know, my friends, my neighbors, most of us who rebuilt, they're daily involved. It's it's still part of an everyday life. And and honestly, the thanks from all of the people who I rep represent are there and the time and from the city manager in really stepping up and working with all of you. This I think like you said, I mean, recognizing the problem is half the battle and it's wonderful to be halfway there at least four years later. I was going to say I one of the things that I noticed in the mapping that was provided in our packet it's the based on the 45 mph winds which pretty common as long as I've lived here but it was the higher winds I think there was some mapping that came in with 80 plus mph winds and though that risk oop sorry that risk area was quite profound I think there was a like a micro area of the center of the of the city that wasn't touched if you added 80 mph And I think hence the reason we saw during the Marshall fire the extent of how much burn that was even outside of the the new. So, I was I was curious to know your professional opinion on that and if you have concerns with any new construction that we might be considering um around that east side of town near South Boulder area because there is a lot of open space, a lot of grassland in there and taking into considering the north side now that like you were saying uh director Zakaro that this is about new construction with the WOI code versus the um like existing homes and how we can address that. This is like our our primary focus with the WOOI area is going to be new and that is

all fully developed. But is that some area that we should be thinking about or worried about at least at a low risk um along that south boulder east side of town?

Well, as a as a fire chief, they pay me to worry a lot. So uh absolutely you know the entire community and when you uh mention those 85 mph winds I believe the science and I believe the scientists would be the best to uh answer those sorts of questions. Um, however, I think they looked at the most probable. They looked at winds out of the west and winds out of the north and then looked at the those wind rose diagrams and came up with the uh, again, not the worst case scenario, not Marshall conditions, but I believe that's part of why they um have chose to display some of those 45 mph winds. As far as the specifics on that um that part of town, um I would, you know, I ideally uh a solution that involves structure hardening and defensible space along with collaborative respon response and uh proactive mitigation by the city, by the county in some of those neighborhood, you know, level areas. is is the the gold standard and and what we want, but I don't think I have quite enough information on that development to to to comment.

Okay. Because I appreciated um that we've been thoughtful about some of where uh the the comprehensive plan is is focusing some opportunities for potential new um residential communities. And as we saw, it's on the west side of town, west of Mccasen, south in the Red Tail Ridge area, but it was also over by the South Boulder Road area. And I just wanted to see if that should be something that we should consider maybe including because of the the possibility for adding new development into that. Um, and how you know what if or if your recommendation is maybe that should be just more of the confilgration conversation versus this the map, the new construction the the areas that are against those interfaces.

I think you you said it very well that we have we have some some work ahead of us taking a look at the conflration risk and and how to best mitigate that. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you so much, Chief. Again, thanks for really being involved in the process. It makes us feel better. It's an honor to be included.

Any other questions? Yes. Council member Coopermanman. Great. Um, so first I just wanted to ask, you know, uh, when we eventually adopt, um, a map and the defensible space standards that go along with the different the yellow or the or the orange. Um, how will that apply to existing development? Will it apply to remodels, renovations, or will it just not say anything about those?

Yeah. So the the way we're anticipating drafting the code and based on the state code is that for existing development when there is a uh a building addition that's 500 square feet or more then the portion of the building addition um has to be fire hardened. You don't have to retrofit the rest of the structure. So that's built into the state code. For example, the state code also has thresholds for when you're changing um siding and roofing that automatically requires um you know, if it's just a partial change out, there's a threshold where you have to bring everything into compliance. Okay. And for the landscaping, does it have similar things?

Um no, it doesn't have similar thresholds for landscaping. Um you know, it's pretty rare that someone does partial landscape. I mean they do partial landscaping work but not in the same manner as you know siding replacement. So I think that's one of the challenges with enforcing these types of codes is incremental additions of landscaping especially on single family as people go to the home improvement store and buy a few shrubs and plants. We that's where education is going to be really really important. um whether it's a regulatory approach or not a regulatory approach that when people are doing landscaping that they're aware and hopefully complying with best practice or our regulatory standard.

Right. Okay, that's helpful. Um so there are you know if you go to the the Forest State Forest Service um they have just a WOOI map um and then they have the WOOI risk map. And so I just want to clarify the risk map is just saying these are the WOOI areas. Now we're going to show you what is the wildfire risk in those areas. Is that correct?

So the base layer that the state map is based off of from the state forest service is based on fire intensity scale which is looking at um you know all of the factors vegetation topography weather. Um and then they have the then they have the wildland urban face risk layer which takes into consideration um certain data around buildings in and near those fire high fire intensity areas or higher fire intensity areas. So, the fire intensity scale is specifically about, you know, the the potential for flame length and um other things that the chief could probably speak more to. Um, you know, embers potential for flame length, ember spread and those types of things.

Okay, that's helpful, too. Um, and then I do you have any familiarity with the choices that Boulder made on the map you showed? Um, not in great detail. No.

Okay, that's all right. Um, so let me just ask a couple little questions about that map. Um, in like so like in the Red Tail area for instance, there are, you know, a few places where it, you know, the roads are basically not being used as boundaries. Um, and I'm just wondering, did you give any thought to, you know, would it make sense to just extend some of those areas so that it's easier to administer based on road boundaries or other boundaries?

Um, we could do that. I do think that the areas to the south are going to be fully developed and adjacent to major like major highways. So, they're not going to be adjacent to wildland areas. So I I think that's one reason that you you may not extend the boundaries that way. They are doing significant overlock grading too which can also adjust the map um through you know and that's part of the state code as well. Okay. Um I think that's good for now. Thank you.

Other questions for the moment. Okay, I want to actually take some public comment now and then we'll have discussion among council members uh after that. Um again, just to remind you um please uh tell us your name um well sign up first. um tell us your name and if you're a Louisville resident and then you're limited to three minutes or six minutes if you u have another person with whom you're pooling time. Um and the same kind of rules of civility that I outlined before apply. Um do we have any uh

first up is Tanya Samaru. Tanya, are you pooling your time with anybody? No. Thank you. Hi, Tanya Samaru, Leville resident. Um, I really want to say absolutely nothing about the map. Actually, whatever my fire chief says, I'm fine with. Who am I to substitute my judgment for fire expertise ever? Um, and I also want to say I was at the fire board meeting last night where they were discussing um enforcement for this code and whether it should be shared responsibility. Uh, very interesting. Um, I like that idea a lot. I hope council will be having that conversation with the district. Um, I just want to say something about the process of making this code and the conflration code and the emergency ordinances that pass. None of this stuff came up until our homes were 90% in permitting. And there were a group of residents who were very persistently asking council for it. And I heard your comments, mayor, before the meeting, uh, before this part of the meeting that there are staff who've been criticized, and I don't know if there was some particular thing that happened, but I am one of those people who's been outspoken about how broken the process of doing this has been. There's no reason we have to wait till four years to be making this code. Um, and you know, there needs to be a way. We know residents should not be getting in anyone's face or being disrespectful or personally critical. But there needs to be a way the residents who feel like the institution of Lewisville has failed serving the life safety, you know, you know, who taking care of life safety concerns of residents. I'm a resident who's part of the billion dollars worth of of of losses. And um I feel like we've gotten very little say, you know, for much of the years after this happened. And there's no reason we had to wait so long at all. Um, so I hope

moving forward you will seriously consider changing the process by which fire policy and and and risk reduction decisions are made. Like policy, not just we're going to bring one thing and one thing and another thing like we're going to sit down with the district in a big round meeting and now might be a better time than last year when you kind of tried to have that conversation. this might be a more ripe time with the WC and the board is on board with it too. Um to to sit down and say what should our goals be because yeah we can't do like everything in the world and it shouldn't be like infinitely expensive and there's a lot of things you have to think about. You're not going to ask somebody to take the tree out that they planted when their grandfather died or their whatever. probably not the grandfather, but um there's a lot of stuff and it's going to be hard to work out and but there is a lot of reasonable stuff to do and there's a lot of best bang for your buck and there's no reason why we shouldn't make some kind of goals around this. Like can we I would love if my neighborhood was seven out of 10 instead of nine out of 10 for fire danger. There's nothing we learned in the WC that wasn't a recommendation that was in your face in some official report that staff and council didn't ignore these four years and now we have a WC. Thank you so much to the district for that. But let's not let this one just become the the next FEMA report that got ignored or whatever. Let's sit down, please sit down with our district, make holistic policy that makes sense and is right for us. Thank you.

Thank you, Tanya. No other public comment. All right, let's bring it back to council. Um, and if there are further questions, um, we can, uh, we can address them. um now and we can talk so much uh ourselves. I I want to maybe go back. Um director, can you put up the the option list that you wanted us to walk through? Yes, Council Member Coopermanman. I I guess I have a question that's kind of related to or the the distinction between the first bullet point and the last bullet point. Um so I assume that you know Rob you were part of this um state board that helped to develop the state map and so I assume that board dis or you know looked at you know the information in the state wildfire risk viewer. Um, and yet they, you know, over with through deliberations they chose not to just sort of take that as it was, but instead go with this map.

Um, or sorry, that's referenced in bullet point two. That's what I meant. Um, and I'm just wondering, could you give us a little bit I mean, you've said a few things about how they got to the the map that's referenced in bullet point two, but could you say a little bit more about like, you know, were certain areas decided not to be such high risks or or whatnot?

Yeah, there there was certainly a lot of discussion about, you know, is this intended to address confilration? Is it intended to address new development? It's also intended to be for statewide application. So, um the idea was to provide to have to lean towards flexibility so that there is a minimum standard that could be most applicable statewide. Um it doesn't necessarily address confilration, but the idea was that then local communities that wanted to uh more aggressively address conflration risk or other things could take other steps.

Um so that was a lot of the discussion about only using the fire intensity layer and not the wildland urban interface risk layer. This is where the wildland vegetation is has the highest risk. So if people are going to develop in that area then they should be subject to the regulations. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Mayor prom.

Thank you. I have one last question as we start our discussion. It's it's um not clear to me here, but I think it's clear in the packet that staff in consultation with the Lewisville Fire Protection District came together and you landed on like the first bullet point as the option that you would recommend. The other ones are options we can consider, but the first bullet point is the one you two in collaborate. Not you two, but in collaboration we came to

Yeah. I think I think we wanted to propose this as a potential option with the idea that it it has a big focus on uh incentives and education for existing development that that could potentially be more effective than a regulatory approach, but it still addressed uh plan areas for planned significant development in the future. Okay, that's helpful because I just wanted to like root myself and what the experts recommended or where you were leaning before we start this discussion. So, thank you.

Um I I had a question. It's it's really trying to set the table on this too in the staff report. Um, and I can find it, but there there is a statement that the staff is not making a recommendation. Am am I wrong about that? Um, yes. You know, oftentimes um there's enough data and information that staff might make a recommendation because there's an obvious path forward. I think this has an enough of optionality that we really need to get city council's input um rather than staff coming with the recommendation. So I I'm I I don't know that I I think the first bullet point is somewhat of a recommendation. Um, you know, we I think we do feel like this is a good a good potential option, but again, it would need to be coupled with significant um incentives and community education to get that broad effectiveness across the community.

Um, and and it might be good to get the chief and I I just am trying to pin this down just a little bit. I I think that what can I get the chief to come back up? It's um this is not whack-a-ole. It's just asking you to come up and of course

and sit for some more questions. Um I I understand the in the presentation you talked about before the the desire to be as comprehensive as possible to you know if you had your brothers you you deal with new development and you deal with current um uh current um residential um that we have here. Um but my my question is um maybe a conceptual one. We're talking about doing some of this in in phases. I mean one the way we're doing it right now is talking about the WOOI map tonight. We're not talking about confilration and defensible space tonight. We're talking about just the WOI map. Do you have any as a as a conceptual matter are you do you have a uh I mean is that a problem to do that? I just want to make sure when you're making recommendations that you're not cross purposes with our staff or if we if we are then it's worth making sure we're

we understand that. I would start with the um the timing of the legislature is is what's driving this decision and this adoption tonight and I would hope that the intent is that we don't do something that we have to undo. So, um, Rob, you may be able to help with how often, uh, this can be revisited by a community or how often the state will, um, revise their maps.

Yeah, the state's going to revise their map and code on a three-year basis. So, we're about, you know, six months into that three-year time frame, but local jurisdictions, as long as they're not being less restrictive than the state code, can update their local code and map as often as they want. Okay. and and I I know that we are going to get to other pieces that you'll have recommendations on. I just am for the the public primarily want to be able to have some um confidence that the way we're proceeding even tonight on this is consistent with the path that um you would follow.

Well, the um

recommend that we follow. Y um you know candidly it's when we use these uh streets and we talk about you know my house is here and your house is there and I live by a different standard than you live by yet conflration yet risk can come from you know we we didn't consider the you know easternly winds there's there are so many potentials that really you know the belt and suspenders solution uh for the uh you know, for the fire district is, you know, the home hardening that's there and then defensible space, uh, coupled with what's going on throughout Boulder with the wildland initiated community conflration, evacuation, with that that that comprehensive solution. And I don't I don't mean to um uh you know blow it into the 20,000 ft view when you know what matters is is what the individuals are doing and what the community is doing. Um but I it's a little like a fasttrack construction project in that we have to define it and build a foundation that we know will support future work. And I believe the solution that we came to um uh does that. I I respect that there, you know, are other areas of potential development. Um when you look, you know, up north and east and again our, you know, most of my conferences and discussions with our operations staff were, you know, a little more tactical, a little more battle planish. if you had to, you know, if we had a flame front coming, where would you make a stand? What would you do? So, there was, you know, uh, kind of a pragmatic look at, uh, the best, uh, solution in front of

us at this time. In one kind of clarification of that, I mean it it's your or is it your recommendation that we follow on with discussions of defensible space and conf con conflration? I would say that in all caps if I if I could and I think that's consistent with what we're going to do. I just I I wanted to make sure everybody is on the same page. That that is correct, director, right? Um yes. Yeah. As as we mentioned in the staff memo. Yeah, that's the intent is that there will be follow-up discussions on that topic. And and do we have a sense of what the timing of those discussions?

Um, we don't have it calendared yet, but we understand that we need to to do that as a pretty quick followup to this. Appreciate that. Um, other any other comments? Okay, it may be now the

Yes, Council Member Cooperman. Sorry, just want to ask one more question. Um, so I'll sort of couch this question um by thinking about the north of Lewisville. Um, so you talked a little bit about um that area and maybe why we wouldn't extend the WOOI into that area. Are you just want to clarify? So are you are you thinking more so that by extending the WOOI into that area it sort of would be ineffective because those things are already developed or more so that it would cause sort of administrative issues when people are doing projects there.

Yeah. So I think that um the idea is again like you said it's already developed so we could adopt regulations and there would be um administrative requirements um but I I don't know how effective they would be because a lot of it would be we already have our structure our fire hardening code for structures so we're already regulating the structure. Um, if we're looking at landscaping on existing development, we anticipate there's very few homes that would do wholesale landscape. You know, what's the threshold for when you have to bring your landscape into compliance? So, we felt that we could put resources into enforcement or we could put resources into incentives and education. And that seemed like, you know, if you if you do the regulation, then you have to enforce it. regardless of what you do. So, I think that's that's part of the factor if that makes sense. Um, coupled with the potential for extending the defensible space requirements. So, there's options to have both structure hardening and defensible space outside of this WOOI code based on future discussions with council.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks. I think appreciate that. I I think we probably are um in a in a place where we can have some discussion amongst ourselves. One one of the things that it seems to me looking at these various options a kind of maybe bigger picture issue is whether we're looking for more of an incentive based and educationbased more voluntary kind of um approach versus a more regulatory based approach. there are sort of three of those options up there um are uh more regulatory um based on u the analysis and your uh comments um and one way of thinking about this and I'm not suggesting that we have to do it this way but it seems to me that if we're um trying to land on an approach um maybe we could um uh discuss the you know the the value of one of those kinds of approaches generally over the other. I mean the first is is a different kind of approach than the last three for example. Um or the last excuse me. Yeah the last two sorry. Um is that a Yes. Were you gonna add something? Um maybe I can ask the um um director to um test whether that's a useful way of thinking. Yeah, I think what's what's yeah, what staff's suggestion was and it could you know, however council wants to discuss it, but I I think it could be helpful to see if council is supportive of the first bullet item. Um and then um you know, if if they feel like it's um not the right approach, then it might be

appropriate to then talk about the other bullet items. That's fair enough. Um, so what uh what a council member I mean this is it's sort of the same kind of thing but it's sort of like we may be able to get to the to the resolution just by talking about the first bullet before we talk about the regulatory approaches. Yes, go ahead.

I think for me thank you. Um the path to me is clear based on the discussion and expert opinion tonight. That bullet point, the first bullet point which is a combination of regulations focusing on areas where we anticipate new development and then incentivizations and education to try to strengthen, you know, in other areas of the city. Um our work in this area seems like the most reasonable choice. I personally don't um need to discuss the other ones because that's where I'm at tonight. So, I'm curious where others land. Council member Karn,

since I would probably have the most extreme opinion based on my history and all the conversations I've had, um I I'll just, you know, for sake of time, uh I I don't need to be up here making speeches. I completely agree with the mayor prom. Um, council member Fee.

Uh, thank you. Yes, I will agree with uh the mayor prom and council member Kerna. I think option number one is absolutely the way to go. It provides incentives and it's it's a kind way to achieving what we would like to achieve. Thank you.

Thanks. Um, anyone else? Council member Coopermanman. Um I know I just want to put out sort of a different way to maybe think about the map. Um and then maybe hear what staff or other council members have to say about it. Um that said, I I could well be um fine with going with the first option. Um, so you know, you know, I guess instead of necessarily thinking about the map in terms of, you know, does it impose more regulations or less regulations, um, I mean, you could think about it like where objectively is the WOOI in Lewisville and then right ignore, you know, to some extent or however much you like, you know, what that then involves through regulations, right? So you could just say, okay, someone has studied, you know, fire risk, uh, and so forth in this area, and they've said this is where the WOOI is. Um, and then, you know, hopefully that's a fairly objective um, determination and, right, we could then base a map on that, right? Um, so I I don't I mean that would I think lean more towards the last option. You could correct me if I'm wrong, but um I don't know. I'm just kind of interested in what uh other people think about that perspective.

Council member Dickinson.

Yeah. Um mostly I agree with um everything that's been said so far and you know I think I think we're doing a good job of compartmentalizing like we're talking about the map and I actually I kind of lost you at the end Josh but like the first like this is a map of where the WOI is. It's been studied. It's you can look at it on Google Maps right you can kind of see where the issue is and then how do we want to deal with that and so I think you know potentially extending it to Macasm makes a lot of sense. I grew up in Boulder. Broadway was always the divider. It's like, you know, west to Broadway is being, you know, vacated or or sorry, evacuated. Um, so there's always like a west to Broadway thing, west of Broadway thing. So west of mccasin makes sense to me as far as if if you know, fire is coming. Um, so, you know, I I like option number one, and I I thought, you know, you're I I thought what you were saying kind of supported option one, but you're saying it feels like it supports option four. I'm not quite seeing that connection. Um but yeah, I I agree with what other people have said pri previously.

Um I agree that the first option is the best. Um and um I guess maybe just for clarity um I can ask uh Council Member Coopermanman because he said he could be convinced that uh option one is the best one. Um, I just want to give him an opportunity to to say more if he chooses to about the fourth option before we before I kind of finalize our direction.

Sure. Um, you know, like if you right, if if you go to those maps that are referenced in option number four, um, you know, they they cover areas that are or they label as WOOI areas in Lewisville that are not on the the state CWRC map and that are also not on the extended one that staff and the district have recommended. Um and you know so I would hope that you know that WOOI map that was developed by the state was developed on objective standards and you know then you could say well like you know do we want to do a little smoothing? Do we feel like these you know isolated areas in the city maybe could be excluded or whatnot. Um so that's the sense in which I was thinking about the fourth option fourth option as being a little bit more objective in in the sense that it's just like okay we did the study it it's sure it's a little bit granular but these are the places that we would call wooi by some definition um and then you know option two is peeling that back a little bit and then option one which might be fine you know is extending that a little bit based on what we expect to happen in Lewisville.

Okay. Um, yes, Council Member Kern,

if I may, I'll just kind of comment if that's okay. Um, so I do agree, right? I think that the the risk is is a lot of what we've we've all been talking about and looking at, but I think given a lot of the input, especially from the fire district related to this and I think we've already done and and I really appreciate that phrasing that Lewisville is what right looks like. The fact that we've already put a hardening code citywide. We've we determined there's a city risk, right? It's not just on the perimeters near we have open space throughout our community which is fantastic. We recognized it and said this is the first step to step to safety. We've banned junipers which are super high resin and dangerous bomb spread of fire. We are having conversations to expand the defensible space when we talk confflration with specifically around the fire department's recommendations for risk. And that's where I think these high-risk maps will become really critical to us is to making sure as the chief said the two most important things are taken care of. Defensible space, the 5ft perimeter around a home and the hardening. We got hardening. We'll get the second. We'll expand it beyond just new construction in the Marshall Fire area. and we'll use all of that risk science without us necessarily having to do this woowoo definfined designation. Let's be consistent and I think take those recommendations. But I think those two additional things will help alleviate your concerns as well as the community members cuz I agree. I'm I was concerned when I first saw this about the all the northern neighborhoods especially. We know our northern neighborhoods got very lucky um the day of the Marshall fire because there was a fire on the very edge of Boulder that was making its way toward us and it was put out just

fortune that it didn't escape beyond control and and make it into town and and now we'd be talking about well those were actually in the Marshall fire area too all of those north neighborhoods burned. So I think the people who live there who see the tall grasses who when there is smoke in the distance in Boulder would say to you why am I not in the WOOI? And I think as long as we have these defined scientific answers and we're being responsible and we're responding with again hardening and defensible space, which we will in those neighborhoods, right? and we can help incentivize and give people, you know, some help in enforcing this where they already live versus the expectation that there would be new construction. And uh I think it would be very low in those neighborhoods if at all. So that's that would be my response.

It sounds like we have a a solid consensus and maybe unonymity about around the first one. Um and so I think um that's the direction that we'd like to go and we will follow on with the other pieces that we've talked about um defensible space and the conflration discussions. But I if you are uh my question to you uh director is do you have enough direction from us based on what we've said um to um to move forward.

Uh yes, thank you for the feedback and we'll proceed to getting the the ordinance with the map ready for the adoption hearings.

I do want to say um I really appreciate the cooperation between the city and the fire district. really important. That is that's what we're looking for here. And we've got uh our city manager working um with uh other folks um uh on ODM and we've really got I think a really solid path to doing this better than we've ever done. So, thank you all and thanks to council um uh and folks who've spoken and hung in there with us. Uh and and maybe one last comment um which go hearkens back to the um little bit of scolding I did at the beginning. Um, I would never suggest that um that substantive policy disagreements should not be uh provided and and there is passionate um discussion of those things because they're about issues that matter and that is different I think than mistreating people. Um it's u there's a description in prosecutorial u world um of the law which is that it is okay to strike hard blows just not unfair ones and that the unfairness only comes in the in the respect piece but I think people uh I I want to make sure that criticism of any sort is uh something that we need to take and it's part of petitioning your government. So um just to be clear on that. I appreciate uh Miss Samuru's um comment earlier about that to raise it. Yes, Council Member Kern.

Sorry, I do appreciate that the giving you the last word. I was just thinking of something though and just wanted to extend this to everyone who's working on on the woo mapping and also the additional um protections that are coming our way based on the risk map and specifically to the council. Other communities are watching us. North Glenn just had a huge fire right 88th in Hiron and it was they were really concerned about their community and what they would do and um I was really lucky to actually brag on ODM and the city of the city of Lewisville working with them partnering with the police departments but they're watching us to see what we're doing to make sure that they then choose the right things so that none of us we don't become the next Lahina like we're making putting these is putting these changes in place um to keep our community safe, not waiting for the next fire. And other other neighboring um communities are wanting to see how do they make the changes, too. How do they fall in line with us? And uh so because fires will spread across city boundaries.

You get the last word. Sorry.

Good work. Um all right. So, thank you very much. We're on to item B, which is purchase of 101 South Taylor Avenue. Um there's really a couple of issues. One, as I understand it, is to uh whether we want to as council approve the uh contract to buy and sell real estate, which has um that the city manager is going to discuss uh and describe in more detail. and then if so whether uh council approves of the proposed um engagement strategy and if not you know what things can be done to it uh so that we can approve it. So with that I'll leave it to the city manager. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening council. Diana Langley, city manager. Uh so the item before you tonight is the purchase of 101 South Taylor Avenue. Um, so tonight we're asking you to consider a contract for the purchase of the property at a purchase price of 13.25 million. If council supports proceeding with the purchase, then we have a proposed community engagement plan which Grace will be presenting upon. So for background, 101 South Taylor Avenue was listed for sale in January for 14 million uh $13,500. The building was constructed in 2014 for Pearl Azumi and then went on to be transferred and sold to Specialized Bicycle Components. Um the 56,54t building is located on 7.96 acres. There's the potential for an additional 11,000t expansion. There's 85 plus on-site parking spaces and it's constructed to meet high levels of architecture and sustainability principles using upscaled materials and um energy efficient systems. Um here's some pictures of the site. Um, this building is unique in that if you look at the south portion, which is south of the interior courtyard, it's an approximately 6,000 square foot building that can be separated from the rest of the building. It provides a unique opportunity for potential use because that space is an an open canvas. It can be used for um a variety of events, which is one of the reasons why tonight as part of this engagement, we're not focusing on how it could be used for city purposes. We want to leave that up um if we are to move forward to have a phase two discussion about getting community in input as to how the space could be used. Um there is an interior courtyard that's landscaped. Um, if you look to the picture on the right, that

is a shot of the main building, the approximately 50,000 foot building. It's a very open floor plan on the first floor. There's a second floor that's located more north on the north side. Currently, there's configurations for cubicles, meeting rooms, office space. There's a ton of different rooms in there. Indoor bicycle storage, um, locker rooms, a large storage area where they used to house the bicycle components, and, um, like we said, unique opportunity blank space. Um, here's a site plan. Um, Taylor Avenue is to the south. The, uh, the road is to, what is the highway to the north of that?

42.

Highway 42 to the north. Yes, thank you. Um, if you look, the shaded yellow is the location for the potential 11,000 square foot addition on the east side of the building. You will also note that this site plan reflects the potential for additional parking spaces that could be located on the north and west side of the building. Um, that's also property that could be used for a variety of other uh community spaces or um events. There's a lot of opportunity here. Um, so for background, the city maintains several facilities throughout the city to house staffing and operational needs. Uh, our offices are at or over capacity right now. I think a lot of the public doesn't know that we rent office space um from an office uh complex on the north side of South Boulder Road for human resources. We also rent um space for storage. uh particularly in cultural services, they have to rent space for storage. And over the last few years, as options have been provided for additional office space, they haven't been practical. Um my understanding is that staff and council have looked at expanding the uh city hall to the south, taking over the parking lot. Um there's a lot of cost associated with that. Um looked at other locations throughout the city. And as we get into the fiscal impact, you can see why um that may not be as um favorable. Um also, as the city grows, additional space will be needed to support city functions and services. So, while we're not defining how the space could be used, I would anticipate that at least a portion would be used for city offices. Uh the community has expressed a desire for other city amenities. We received an email today from an individual that was really focused on how this could be used for a cultural arts center um community

center and those are just some of the uh responses that we've heard throughout um time at least in the last few months that I've been with the city. So as we've talked about this opportunity with council council said and provided direction to staff to negotiate a contract that provides a long due diligence period. So, as we engage in a community engagement strategy, we have 90 days to get community input, present that information to council, and then council can make a decision within that 90-day period as to whether or not we want to proceed without risk of forfeiting the earnest money. And so, um, if council wants to proceed tonight, then Grace is has a fantastic engagement plan proposed and is poised to start work immediately on that. Uh for analysis the proposed contract terms purchase price of 13.25 million earnest money of 150,000 which would be refundable up to 90 days. Uh miscellaneous items would need to be completed within the 30 to 60day time frame which would be appraisal inspections alta survey etc. This provides for a 120day financing period and I'll get into the proposed financing in a moment with a 150day closing period. Um, we would have the ability to do a 30-day optional extension period with deposit of an additional $50,000 in earnest money. Includes existing furniture and fixtures when you go in there. There's a lot of office furniture, cubicles that are currently in there, conference tables, um, things like that. And then the seller has the right within 30 days of mutual acceptance of the offer to accept backup offers. If they do receive backup offers, they will notify us in writing, at which point we would have a 15-day window to commit earnest money down without refund. Um, this purchase opportunity was not anticipated and is not included in the work plan. Um, but I will note that this site has the potential to support a variety of services provided to the

community. So, for fiscal impact, uh, purchase price of 13.25 25 million. We're requesting an additional 100,000, which this amount could be modified depending upon a direction related to the community engagement plan. Currently, this amount includes approximately $4,000 for an appraisal, uh $4,000 for inspection, $10,000 for an ALTA survey, $3,000 for a phase one environmental site assessment. Uh if council were to opt to go with the statistically valid survey, we included the price um at the very at the high end in this. So 36,000 uh website support 12,000, engagement support 15,000. All of that totals 84,000. So this 100,000 provides um some contingency for unknowns. If council were to go with uh the polling, as Grace will note, the polling estimate is much less than the statistically valid survey. And so uh we could potentially reduce this amount. I will note that the resolution reflects 75,000. So we will need to modify the resolution if we do not proceed with the 75,000. Um the proposed financing mechanism would be certificates of participation. This is a form of lease purchase financing. We would put up uh city collateral. In this case, it would be the library and a couple of buildings from city services in which we would have um an annual payment that would be made. And so we'd be basically leasing back our own facilities until the uh the certificates are paid off at which time title then reflects back to the city, reverts back to the city. this uh placing the library and person of city services would just be until this transaction's completed. We would then um swap out this facility as the collateral for these certificates so

that the library and city services would be free and clear. Um just to give you an estimate of um what a potential annual appropriation payment could be for a loan amount of $14 million of interest rate of um 14 4.25% for 20-year term. The annual payment would be approximately $1,50,000. For a 30-year term at 4.7% interest, $900,000. I'll note on the next um item down here, this uh the purchase price doesn't reflect the improvements that would be necessary to get this set up for city purposes. We would estimate an additional $2 to5 million to do tenant improvements to get it to a place that we could either use it for um a variety of office spaces, community uses. And so that would need to be considered into um any financing or cash upfront as well. Um, also this does not take into account operational expenses or um, and so as you expand you would be providing additional services. We would have to also figure out additional staffing that's required if we're doing any expansion of services provided to the community. So just for some perspective, some cost of recent city facility investments. In 2015, when city services was constructed, the price was $14.5 million at a cost of $300 per square foot. To note, at the $13.25 million estimate or purchase price, that cost us $236 per square foot. The 2018 recreation center um expansion, that was $28.5 million. Um, you can note that that is in the range of the $50,000 expansion was $275 per square foot and then the $103,000

total renovation expansion was $575 per square foot. When we compare this site to other city facility investments, so North Glenn in 2024 constructed a new city hall, 33,000 square ft at $33.7 million. that equates to $1,000 approximately per square foot. Um the 20 the proposed Lafayette Civic Center would pencil out to be about the same. So if we were to look to construct a new um similar size or even smaller size investment elsewhere, we would be looking at about the $1,000 per square foot and that would not include land costs if it was not located on a cityowned property. So, a decision point right now for council is, um, does count council want to proceed with executing the contract to buy and sell real estate for the purchase of 101 South Taylor Avenue? And then depending upon this response, we would then go into the presentation related to a community engagement plan.

Thank you. Um, let's ask uh questions of city manager right now and then I want to take some public comment on this. um given the bifurcation of the issues, I think that's the right way to proceed and then we can get public comment if if we get to talking about public engagement. But do do we have any questions uh at this point? Um I I would um well let's um well I actually I will say this just make a couple of points. One of the things that people wonder um in these situations is how did this come up? How how did this come up and what why why so why is this so is uh is this so sudden? Well, the property came up on the market um and we don't have any control over that um except to be looking around for u space and options. That's what folks do uh in the facilities part of um our city government in public works and they brought that uh to us and and that's why this sort of came up at the time it did. Some people have uh complained u and they do from time to time about executive sessions and um really wondering what's going on in executive session. And I would say that um if you um you know if you see an executive session on um strategy relating to real estate acquisition or disposition, we have some issue that we need to discuss. And then we have to do that in executive session because otherwise um we potentially would compromise um ability to negotiate well on behalf of

the city and or we just have to let things go by um and neither of which are really a good use of our duties to the public uh under the under the law. So that's why it comes up. This one came up in that way. and uh staff did what was uh kind of executed a strategy and we are here as a result of that. Um so uh any public comment you Oh okay go ahead.

So thank you appreciate the presentation and bringing this um to the council's attention. So, I I thought and and I I do thank you because it's not in the presentation, but it is in um a lot of the supporting information that was given to the council. I just was uh clarifying for public purposes. I think with this price point um and with this loan and the repayment being at roughly a million dollars a year, has the analysis from our financial department been that this would be an affordable thing for the city to do without needing to approach the taxpayers for like a bond measure that would impact their property taxes.

Right. So through the certificates of participation process, that's one of the reasons why um it's not going before it would not go before the voters um with the annual appropriation payment. Um that sets it apart. Uh in terms of how it could be financed, um there's a variety of ways in which this facility could be financed ultimately depending upon how it's used. So for instance, capital funds would be one way. There's there's a trade-off with that. So, if we use capital funds to purchase this, then there's another project that we're not doing. Um, depending upon what services could be housed, there could be some enterprise funds that help offset the cost. Um, I think another potential is with the ability to expand and serve new development. And this would be a space that would provide that opportunity as we do the impact fee assessment. One of the things that we could consider is an impact fee associated with city facilities in which we could evaluate charging that impact fee to also um help pay that annual appropriation payment. And one other thing I want to reflect upon and just address head-on. Um, you know, being here for about 11 months and working with this council for that time period. Um, council has made some decisions on some recent purchases and u my understanding is this is a little bit abnormal for Lewisville. So we have 1016 Main Street that was purchased with historic preservation funds. We have 101 West Cherry that was purchased with general funds. And then we have 1155 Pine Street that was purchased with general funds. Um 1016 Main Street's currently on the market. It was listed this last weekend and the intent is to sell that and recuperate what we can to put back into the historic preservation fund. 101 West Cherry, we are currently working on a um sales agreement to sell that to recoup our funds in which case we would also have the benefit of having

a portion of the north property dedicated to the city. So, it's a win for the city in terms of the ability to expand that open space. And then 1155 Pine Street, um that is coming out of the general fund because it was not deemed by the historic preservation commission to be uh you know necessarily a historic landmark. And so, um that one we will not be recouping uh funds from that. But as a as a resident and then also as an employee, I could see people questioning, you know, what is council doing? you're you're considering another large purchase. If it wasn't for the unique nature of this property and the price point and the potential of what it provides, we would not be before council. But the ability to look ahead and focus strategically on what does this city need long term. This provides that opportunity. And if we were to try to construct something, like I said earlier, of even lesser size somewhere else, the cost is going to be much greater than that. And this provides the opportunity for council in the community to vision. What can this be? How can it serve the community? And this is why we're bringing it before council now.

Thank you very much for that level of clarification for me and for the community. Appreciate it. Council member Cooper. Um just one little question about the contract terms um related to the backup offers. So, if we in that 15-day window, if we commit our earnest money, does that hold the contract for us? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions before we go to public comment?

Okay. Um, same rules on public comment that we had before. Do we have it looks like we have at least one uh request for public comment online. Do we have others? Just Mark. First up is Mark Cathkart.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, City Manager. I'm Mark Kar. I live in Lewisville. Thank you for hearing me tonight and thank you to the clerk for uh pointing out my erroneous question earlier. Usually when I appear before the council, I like to have a formed opinion. Um I'm I'm at a loss really to know what to say about this. Um my wife owns a sports related business and you know for related reasons I've been in that building while it was peari and again when it was specialized it's an odd building and has been called part of the cycling industry's most cursed office park. Um per the city manager uh remarks it's space can't be fully utilized without significant additional investment. A large build part of the building is just warehouse space warehouse space for 13 million using it as a community space as well. I also have some problems with um although I would be delighted to see Lewisville have a community arts center. Um it effectively which is another you know bone I could pick with people is there is no public transport up there. There's no transit to the to the Colorado Tech Center at all. So if you make it a major hub for city events and stuff, you're asking people to drive. You know, sure, some people will go on ebikes. A few of us might even walk. Um but you know, more driving. So I'm kind of a little confused about this. You know, I'm sorry I don't have structured remarks. Um it seems to me like a fishing trip. If I was still in business, this would have

been a fishing trip. I would ask, what else could you do with 13 million affordable housing? 13 million to revitalize and subsidize leases on properties on Main Street. 13 million for the former Chase Bank building um with plans to use it as a trailer park and permanent market space and outdoor space. I have no idea what else we could do. I do know that there are other buildings cuz I looked while you were meeting tonight available in Lewisville at less than that price. It is an exotic building stuck in basically nowhere from most of the Lewisville residents apart from those that work in the tech center. So I would have liked to have seen a worked financial case for this. I understand the city's out of space in a lot of its offices. I would have liked to have seen a worked financial case, understand what that was, and then be able to make a financial decision rather than an emotional one. Um, my guess is asking the community about this in the current environment probably won't go. Thank you.

Anymore? Okay. Uh, we'll take it back to council. Council member Dickinson first.

Thanks. Um, yeah, I think it's a you were kind of alluding to the awkwardness of like this is on the agenda and we haven't had a chance to talk about it, but um it's the nature of the purchasing of property like this. So, I I really appreciate staff's ability to get um a pretty uh lenient uh contract uh right now that we have some time to have a public conversation about the right um uses or potential uses or options and alternatives and all those things. But I I think it's really important, you know, I've been on council for six years and our facilities have been a topic of conversation through multiple city managers of what are we going to do? there is a storm coming for from just being able to keep up these facilities and and and having our staff spread all over town and not having that more centralized feel and and room for people and for recruiting new staff. um you you get a new staff member, then you say, "You can sit in that chair over there. We don't really have a space for you." And that hurts recruiting, that hurts retention, right? So, we need a solution in the next 10 years. That has been really clear to me the entire time I've been on council is we need a solution. And we're not really talking about it because it's not a high priority for our our work plan, but we need a solution. Um, and that solution is going to be really expensive and it's the kind of thing we probably will have to go bond for for 30 40 $50 million to really truly solve it. But we're not talking about it. So residents aren't hearing about it. It's not a big conversation. We're not talking about a pending 30 $40 million project. But if we are and you give us an alternative of 13 million, it's like whoa, that's kind of amazing. So, that's the experience I had as a council person in an executive session. Kind of that was the process I went through and I hope it's the process some of our residents can go through is this isn't just willy-nilly out of nowhere do we

want this $13 million building. There are other alternatives that are way more expensive and problematic. And this one is not perfect and we don't know exactly what we should do with it. But that's what's beautiful about this moment is we haven't actually decided if we're going to do it and we haven't decided how we're going to do it or how it's going to be used. Um, there are lots of ideas and I love all those ideas coming out. I have some, we have some, staff has some, residents have some. It's really exciting to think about all the different potential uses for this building and what the pros and cons are of that. And I think uh, Mr. Cathkart was right that it is disconnected uh, from the center of our town. You can walk there, you can bike there safely, certainly you can drive there, you can get there, but it is not on Main Street. Um, so what that means for our staff, what that means for our public depending how we use the building is a big important conversation. So I'll end my comments there, but I'm I am really excited to hear about how we might engage, but that is the direction I would like to go. I would like to pursue this and then pursue public engagement.

Other comments? Yes, Council Member Hay. Um, in the interest of time, I'll be brief and just say that I agree with Council Member Dickinson's comments. Um, I would be agreeable to proceeding with executing the contract and with that hearing how grace at all are proposing community engagement. Council member Kern,

thank you. Um, yeah, I appreciate the the clarity that uh, Council Member Dickinson was just making in helping people understand some of the things that we've heard and some of the behind-the-scenes conversations although it's not on the work plan and it wasn't, you know, the super high priority, we've been hearing for years about a need and I think even like previous councils going back, you know, 8 10 years have been hearing about this and as we continue to grow, um, I'd like to remind people we did expand the city and our population with North End and with Steel ranch and we've brought lots of additional services to the community with that. In 2015, we built a new um what is the it's not public works building, what is it called technically? You guys call it

city services. Thank you. City services. And we do have a lot of people who work there and are out in that location and that is actually in the tech center on Dylan Road like right before you crossed through the light and now you're in Lafayette. So it it's separate. So this in a way actually connects. We we do have restaurants in the tech center that I think a lot of community members enjoy and can find a way to get to whether that's biking or walking or driving. And um I I mean I would agree. I think this was one of the first thoughts I had about it being up off of Empire is there is no public transportation. That doesn't mean that that has to be the case forever. we we there might be opportunities for microtransit or working with RTD and we're and having you know larger capacity out there for services for the community might lead to to some public transportation um which might be nice for the entire tech center. So, I think given all of that, I think the price point at roughly $235 a square foot or so, 236, I wish I could build a house for that, a private residence for that. Private residential costs are about double that for first floor. And I know that firsthand. And so, I think that anybody who is in construction or a building or has been looking at things can see this, the property itself has a lot of value. And it's an interesting proposition and I would like to understand where the community is on this knowing the need that we have and I think I'm all for some community engagement. I don't we we'll get into that conversation next. So I would definitely be for the engagement and for moving forward and and I'll second great job Kurt negotiating this contract. Well done. Thank you.

Council member Cooper. Y um I agree with what my fellow council members have said. Uh I will just add that uh as part of the engagement. I would expect us to uh provide some more financial information um including about alternatives and so forth to our residents so that they can get some better perspective on this uh possibility.

Um I agree with what council member Dickinson said earlier. I think he said said it very well. The only thing I would add to this is this is a very very preliminary step. Um it's an opportunity. It's something that um the council may decide ultimately to pursue or not. There's a long way between now and what decision we make tonight and what decision we make uh down the road. And uh for the moment um it's not going to cost us anything um to engage in that at some point. You know, we'll have some money that we will have to uh put up to um to keep things open potentially, but we'll we'll get to that point. There'll be a lot of discussion around that. Um anyway, with that, um let's see. Did council member Fehee have any comments?

I I looked and I did not see it. It sounds like we have um Nope, there she is. Council member Fehee. Yes, thank you. I agree that I think this is a wonderful opportunity that we should pursue because of all the options and possibilities that it brings to the city to serve so many of our needs right now in a more coste effective manner.

Thanks Council Member Fehee. Uh would anyone like to um actually we need to um well we did get public comment we don't have anymore. Can do we um have a motion from council? I I would suggest we do the community engagement plan presentation first. Um let me make sure is the is that part of the resolution language itself?

No. No, but it impacts the amount. So, your resolution, as city manager Langley pointed out, has 75,000 authority to spend, and you may need that to be a h 100,000 if you want to do the statistically significant. No, that's that's fair enough. Why don't we move then to the conversation uh around public engagement?

So, first I just want to acknowledge Grace who's going to come up and do this presentation. Um Grace uh is our communications manager. she has uh done a beautiful job on this presentation and uh one of the things that I just want to highlight is staff's role in this. Um we are not here to convince anyone. We are here to provide information, let the public provide the input and let council make the decision. And so Grace does a fantastic job of defining roles and then also acknowledging where we we're at and where we will go. So Grace, you ready? Welcome Grace. One moment, please. Okay, Jenny, how do I share my screen? Just move it over like that's the second screen.

Oh, there you go.

Oh. Uh oh. Oops. Sorry, I haven't presented with this new AV in here. Okay, there we go. All right. Um, good evening, mayor and council. I'm Grace Johnson. I'm your communications manager. Also over here is Derek Cawson. He's our senior communication specialist. Um, first of all, just want to say thank you for thinking about this and making this a priority. Um, I think this will result in a sustainable decision at the end of this due diligence period. So, I'm excited to kind of walk through what we put together for the community engagement plan. Um, two things before we just jump through this. Um, this is high level right now. So, this isn't completely detailed. It's not going to outline every single thing, every activity that we'll do, all the all the communications efforts that will be attached to this. It won't be that detailed. um and all of that. You know, from here, from tonight on, we'll jump right into all those things. Uh the other thing I want to bring up is this, like Diana mentioned, this is the phase one community engagement plan. So, what this looks like is um we we are looking for input on the decision for no or no go for this facility purchase. Um, so what comes after this is we we go through this whole process. We're asking questions that will lead us to will lead you to an informed decision um when the time comes on whether or not there is community support for this generally. Um, and then if that does work out and you decide we're we're moving forward

with this, what comes after that is phase two, which is how we'll be we'll be working on how that space will be utilized. So, we'll be looking to the community to provide input on visioning for that space. Um, we will ask questions at this point um where we're asking people, what do you think about this opportunity? Should council move forward with it? We'll also be asking them a little bit about utilization and kind of providing context and giving ideas for what it could and could not be. Um, so we'll be doing that education, but we'll really get deep into visioning when we have the decision made and we get through the due diligence period and you all decide. Um, so with that, um, I'm going to just run through the plan. Our our primary goal is to collect input from the community, get the community sentiment on this and package it in a way that will actually be helpful for you to make the decision an informed decision. Um so with that we we already this was brought up already but we have a kind of um objectives and tactics here. So first of all we we want to share information and educate. Um awareness will be really important for this and so we will be providing context on things that were brought up already like budget um what it could or couldn't be possibilities for it next steps. So being really clear on hey this isn't the the beginning and end of the community engagement. If this moves forward we'll reach back out to you. Um so we want to be really clear on that. And of course, like everything we do, this will be paired with a a communications plan. So, um, we'll be working on that to make sure we're reaching a very wide audience, a diverse audience. And then we will also be proposing to you tonight

um potentially using a statistically valid survey andor polling um to support this process. So, we'll get into that a little bit more later, but that would be one of the methods that we'd use to collect input in addition to a general open survey, an openhouse, other tools that we have and traditionally use along with maybe some new ones if we have time. Um, the other thing is we will keep people updated. So, like I talked about earlier, we're going to talk about we're going to provide context for tradeoffs. Um, and then we will also follow up with people. So, I will get into that too, but we'll make sure that we're bringing people along through the process that they understand what happens next. Um, so with this particular community engagement, uh, we are referring to the AP2 level of public engagement. So that is the international association of public participation and that is kind of the gold standard for how how everywhere um how municipalities and governments around the world frame and plan for community engagement. So with that we within the framework there are levels that we can choose to operate at and I don't think this is the first time that you all have seen this um but we the purpose of choosing a level is to just make it really clear and easy and um help people understand their level of influence on the decision and make our communication around it super transparent. So um with based on what we know with this project um the aggressive timeline for it, we are recommending that you operate that we all operate at consult. Um we think this is the most realistic um level that we can operate at right now. So with that we kind of

have our promise to the public. So essentially we are committing to keeping the community informed, proactively engaging multiple stakeholder groups for input, providing transparency and then packaging all of that and giving it to you um to make an informed decision based off of what we get and also being super transparent about the fact that you are you are the decision makers at the end of the day. So what comes out of the community engagement process may not be exactly what is decided by the decision makers here. So we're not at that empower level where the final decision is in the hands of the stakeholders. We are at consult right now. Okay. Um so timeline um we are trying to do a lot in a very short amount of time um but it is doable. So this is subject to change but we kind of worked back from the first or second council meeting in May. Um ideally the first council meeting in May which I believe is May 19.

Sorry. Oh. Um, so maybe the second and the second meeting. Um, so we're look we kind of backed up from May 19 and we that's because our entire engagement window we have 90 days. So we're putting a little bit of buffer in there. Um, but what that looks like is us pretty much the clock starts tonight. Um, but we will be launching a community engagement website or I'm sorry, a project page on the community engagement website. Um, there you'll see a lot of things that you normally see um when we're reaching out to the community. So that looks like using our online tools there. It looks like a general survey there. All of that context that we talked about and just framing this and and the storytelling and being super transparent, you'll see there um what that also looks like for this one. um is the there's a lot of background information on this um and it's it's overwhelming. So, what we think would be most effective is actually building in the context into the survey and engagement opportunities where where normally that may look like a project page with a bunch of background information and please read all this information and then take the survey and most people just jump right to the survey. So we've talked about building in the context to the survey questions in smaller chunks so that people actually read them. Um so that is kind of one tactic that we'll take. Um back to the timeline though. So this would include activities. So an openhouse would be one of those things. Ideally we would you know tag on to events that we already know are happening and try to get feedback and input there too if we can. um if we decide to move forward with a statistically valid survey or polling, we really we really think a month may be

aggressive there. Um but we do need at least a month just for that piece. Um so then the engagement window will close. We will have time to compile the reports. That looks like looking at all the places that we got input and pulling it together in a way that is helpful and makes sense. Um and then you all have time to review the report, digest it before you actually have to make a decision. Um so again, if if after all of this you move forward with the purchase of the facility, we will propose a second phase of engagement. And then I won't get too detailed here, but of course we'll have the communications plan. Um the the the primary thing to note here that was included in the the budget that Diana presented is we we would recommend doing an every door direct mailer. We found those really really successful. We don't have that budgeted. So that would be something that we would need. Um but that would be something that's like a little bit different than traditional things that we've done. Um, so what we really want to outline here is expectations of council and staff. Um, so we wanted to put this in writing because we think it's important for this project specifically. Um, so what we expect of, you know, what the community can expect of you is that you will consider the community engagement report. in addition to all the normal channels that you get feedback. So that's your council emails, you know, talking to people that you will consider both of those things and all of those things. Um, and that they should understand the final outcome may not directly reflect the results of the report. And this is just a transparency piece. This doesn't these two things don't always align. So it's important

that the residents, the community knows that you are the decision m makers at the end of the day. Um, for staff, um, we will strive to get feedback from a demographically representative group of the community and go above and beyond our normal items that we do to do that. Um, and then like I said, we we want to remain neutral and just share the facts about all these things. So all that context and storytelling that we're doing, we're really just keeping it factual. Um, and we talked about this a little bit, but closing the loop. So, we want to make sure that people don't feel like they engaged in this and then never heard anything about it. Like, let's say that you know, you you decide not to move forward with this. We want to communicate that back to the community. We want them to know how their input influence your decision. So, that is another commitment that we're making as part of this plan is that we will keep people um updated and we will provide a way to keep them updated and stay consistent on that. So, if they're signing up for emails on this specific project on Engage Lewisville, we will send those emails as updates throughout the duration of the project. Uh so, this is the question for council. Well, I will I will take questions after this, but um this is kind of our ask for tonight. Um we have recommended either doing a statistically valid survey or community polling. Um just based on what I know of this council, I think the preference would probably be a statist statistically valid survey. Um so our plan would be to pursue that. um this is a tight turnaround for something like this. So if you think about that like our our community survey is a

statistically valid survey as was the one for the pros longrange plan um and they usually don't take a month they usually take two to three depending on the vendor. So um we are we are looking at this and pursuing it. Community polling would be sort of a backup option for this. Um, so either will be good and I think we'll satisfy what you're looking for, but we will be pursuing the statistically valid survey first and foremost. And I think that is all I have. So I will take questions. Um, yep. Go ahead. I have I have a question too.

I was curious. You mentioned the the cost of doing a a door to door direct mailer was not included in this. What do you think? how it is or is not. It is said included our normal budget. So, it's included in that number. Okay. Thank you.

This is a question that may be more for the city manager. Um, and I appreciate your presentation and and um the question. Um, I think part of the the issue um that that I would anticipate the community is going to be concerned about is it is one thing to decide whether to enter into agreement. Um, but I would imagine that the community might expect that there's a whole plan for how to use this building at the end of this community engagement. And I think it's very important at the outset that we get our arms around how what the scope of the community engagement is going to be on. I mean uh we can certainly for example we could talk about what the alternatives are to um you know for certain purposes you know we can an alternative is to scrape uh this building and build another one or to add on to this building. I mean, there's a lot of different options for meeting the needs that might be met by a new building, but um at the end of this is staff's expectation that we're going to have a whole plan of how we're going to use that u that building uh so that council can decide whether to proceed with this contract or not.

Yeah, I actually think Grace could answer this question. Um, with this phase one, it's really just to get public sentiment towards the purchase. As Grace noted, it is not the intent to have a finished this is what we're going to do this with this building. If council decides to proceed with the purchase, we would then move into phase two of the engagement plan to um help through a visioning process to understand how the building could be utilized. that would require a very extensive um amount of study and evaluation because then we need to look at operational impacts cost to make modifications for whatever is proposed. We also need input um in terms of what's in the realm of possibility. And so at the end of this particular engagement piece, it would be to as Grace noted, the questions would be need to lead with information that helps prep the person to be able to respond to the question and then take those responses and present them to council so that you have an understanding of if the public's interested in purching the purchasing this to explore what the options could be or if it's just a hard no. and there's zero desire to purchase this building. I know this is very awkward because everybody wants a nice neat package of this is what we're going to get and this is how it's going to be used based upon the time frame that we have. We don't have that ability to do so. Um and so for us it's a matter of providing the context, providing the information related to um you know the financial information uh what is the opportunity cost here and then be able to understand you know what does the public do they do they think that this is a good investment or is this something that we

should pass on and then u to council member Dickinson's point then that just brings up conversations in the future about what do we do related to um city's operational needs not just for city offices but in general would I'm going to just one followup uh to you Grace which is would you anticipate that the survey is going to ask people at all about the kinds of uses they would like to see we have just shy away from that

I don't think we would completely because I I think it's kind of um that's hard to ignore, right? So, um I I think we would ask that at a high level at this point, but I think what phase two it would just be more visioning and more detailed questions and more discussion about tradeoffs and all of those things. Um but yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um, Council Member Dickinson, Council Member Kern, then

um, yeah, so I'll start at the end. My my preference would be that we do uh polling instead of a statistically valid survey and I'll explain why but um yeah I'm I am concerned about the crunch of time because I think it is important that we do as you have planned out here a lot of engagement hope in a house all these things to help people really understand the thing that it is they have an opinion about as opposed to starting with a survey which you're not proposing to do. Um, but I think because there's a lot of lead time or a lot of time to get people reasonably informed before you put the survey out, I think we're it's kind of a recipe for disaster to try to promise a statistically valid survey and then potentially fail at that. And so I think committing to what we really can do and when we do our polling, part of what makes it statistically valid, right, is the way in which you get the information and not just asking like the four people over there, right? So I know you're going to put that effort in anyway with the polling. Um, and you may just not get to a point where you can classify it as statistically valid. And I think that's okay in my opinion. Um, I think it's the the the effort, not the result there. Um, and yeah, I mean because that basically that's my biggest concern is that is that people just get, you know, a question that's like, "Do you want to buy a $13,000 like whoa, no." So this or 13 million. Yeah. 13,000 that actually might they might have a bigger answer. Yeah. Um, get in the weeds, but uh but but yeah, so I think I think this next month or two is going to be a really important part of that. Um but yeah, I love the plan that you have put out here and I think I guess the the other sort of direction is I believe consult is the right level and I and I would think maybe involve is the right level for phase two uh with a little bit more time and lead time and really playing imagine

games. Um and and yeah, I know it's it's hard because well I don't know if we should buy it until I know what we're going to do with it. So it's hard, right? It's imperfect and I appreciate you recognizing that. Um, before we go forward, we should take questions first and then we're going to get public comment and then we can talk further about the end.

Um, this is a second piece and I think it would be useful to get some public comment on what we're suggesting. Yeah, go ahead. Um, any other questions, council member? All right. Why don't we get some public comment if we have any to give? Is there anybody raising their hand for public comment? Like we have First up is Mark Cathkart.

Mark, you you're muted on your end. Uh, thank you, Mayor and City Council for giving me a second opportunity to communicate tonight. I don't want to give the opinion that I'm against this. I'm still confused, though. So, when are we going to be ready with an actual proposal in the second phase of how this building is going to be used? I don't think I heard that tonight. Um, you know, and I honestly, you know, it's really, if you haven't been in the building, perhaps city council could consider taking a field trip um to go and visit it. It's a lot of really difficult to use space. It's a high ceiling. you're going to really have to spend a lot of money to put a second floor in some of it. So, I'm just I'm concerned whilst it might be a good use of city money to move all the broken bits of offices that we've got around the place into the building, I'd really like to see a business case for that. Um, and then have a discussion about whether it's a good use of 13 million. Thank you again.

Thank you, Mark. Anybody else on public comment or are we Nope. All right, we can bring back to council um for other thoughts. And yeah, go ahead.

Great. Thank you. Um so I I actually agree with the majority of what um Council Member Dicken Dickinson was pointing out. Um I I don't think that we need to be doing the statistically valid survey in the like the really short period of time that we have. My my concern is the same that you know getting it done getting getting the feedback from the residents. I think this was one of the things that was concerning with all of us making such a large investment that has not been on the community's like uh close radar, short radar is we want to feedback. We want to understand what you think. We want to know uh we want you to know some of the struggles that the city is having um that haven't been brought up and let you know that there's potentially like a really good less expensive solution to this but but hear what you have to say. So I think the the polling is good. I think just make it targeted. I I was going to comment on the um the use piece of it, Grace. You were like kind of like what Caleb was saying. It's so hard for people sometimes to say yes to a purchase if they don't know how it's going to be used. And I was thinking if in the survey if somebody was asked if you were able to be part of the decision-making process on how we used are your favorite uses whether that's uh community center um you know what have you because somebody might love the idea that we put like the biggest library in the state of Colorado in that space and other people might say wait then I'm not going to say yes right but other that might get other so I was curious like maybe it is hey if I'm part of that process in determining how the city of Lewisville uses this space, then I would say yes. But if somebody else gets to pick and it's something I don't want to use it for, then it's going to be a no. So that's why I'm saying I think I think that um the point that Caleb is right and that was my only thing in the the engagement piece of allowing people to

kind of have something to say. I do also think it was very clever that in the process of polling the information people have to go through it in order to be able to respond. Like I mean like the questions are kind of embedded in sections maybe is sort of what I'm picturing. Okay. I think I mean you've done such a good job with like everything I've seen you touch in the last year or so that I I'm trusting that this will be just as good. So thank you.

Other thoughts? Yes, Council Member Cooper. Um yeah coming into this discussion I was concerned about you know doing a survey or polling um without people being well informed. Um so I was you know glad to hear about this idea of embedding the information in the the poll or the survey itself. Um one little question is sort of would that you know I would imagine that would make it take longer to put together a poll or a survey. Um, and so do you think that aspect of it will impact, you know, whether we choose to do polling or a survey?

I actually don't think so because it's information that we'd have to put together anyway. So, it's the format is different, but where we're putting it, it doesn't matter. So, um, I don't think so. Okay. Thank you, May.

Thank you. Um, first I'd be remissed if I didn't thank Grace and Derek for their work on this. I mean, just in general, I think you two are the dream team and our communications has like greatly improved since you've joined the team. So, thank you so much for that. You don't come here often, so I need to take this opportunity to applaud you from the DAS. Um, and this is a great example of a beautiful engagement plan that helps us all in line, you know, in a way that we discussed at our retreat the other month to make sure that, you know, council is clear on what direction they want and then you can take that and create action from it. So, you know, based on what we have here in front of us, I agree with council member Dickinson and his nice summary of what we hear have here. I will say, you know, I was, as far as statistically valid versus polling, I was kind of on the fence about it before walking in here. There's pros and cons to both, you know, there's in the statistically valid survey part, there's the con of like it's a quick turnaround and then are people leaning into that it's statistically valid when really it's not like how we usually conduct those things, right? So I'm leaning more towards even though I'm always like data data data statistics. I feel like for this particular purpose based on you know some of the feedback I heard over on this side of the dis concerns I I'm I could be comfortable with a polling a community polling for phase one. Um and then as council member Dickinson mentioned phase two will look different in how we engage the community but I think that'll be enough to inform me to help make the decision um at the end of phase one. That's it.

All right. Um um looks like we don't have any comment from Deb Fee yet, unless she wants to make one. I'm just giving her an opportunity. Um I I agree with what uh Council Member Dickinson and me Tam said. Um I I thought of I thought maybe a statistically valid survey would be would be better. Um and I otherwise like the um outline of the engagement. Let me let me ask you a question that hasn't come up u before I finish my comment which is when does phase two happen? After we've entered into the agreement. Okay. Um because in in many ways I think that's the time when it's better to have a statistically significant uh survey because I think then you can um you know you can really run different alternatives against one another and get you know not just sort of like gee would we want this do you want that but more um kind of comparing different uh possibilities and asking people what their priorities might be. I I think that doing that now is probably not the greatest time. So I'm I'm comfortable with that. Um so yeah, do we have ah we do have council me council member Fehee. Yes.

Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I agree with what's been said. I like the idea of doing the polling for the first phase and then getting the statistical uh valid survey in the second phase when they the public has more information about what they would like to see being put into the building and when we've got more input about we how we would like to use the space and then getting a a statistics getting something valid would make more sense. at that point for me.

Any other comments? All right. Now, we're ready for a motion if someone would like to make one. Yes. M. Great. You got it. I move to approve resolution number 20 series 2026, a resolution approving a contract to buy and sell real estate for the property located at 101 South Taylor Avenue. Um, and I believe section three can remain as is. No changes. Second. So as is. Second.

All in favor? I I I Any opposed? All right, resolution passes. We'll go forward uh with a signature. I guess I get to sign that at some point here. Um but we don't need to do that right now. All right, our third item is bathroom break and then finish. Yeah, we can do a bathroom break for five minutes. We'll come back at 8:40. Thank you, council. Thanks for the reminder.

Um, the item is ordinance number 1917 series 2026, an ordinance amending title 17 of the Lewisville Municipal Code concerning electronic vehicle charging stations. It's on for second reading and public hearing. Um, first council members have any disclosures to make? We have a staff presentation and I will Yes, I am do Mr. trying to get this working here. Okay. Not sure what the issue is. Bear with me. Maybe having the same issue as Grace.

You might have to just drag it onto the screen. I can't even get the mouse to be Oh, yeah. The mouse isn't working it. Oh, okay. Yeah. Um, I think you get this. I can't even get that working. Yeah, the mouse might Oh, the mouse is up on that screen. Oh, okay. There you go. concept there.

Okay, thanks.

Sorry about that. So, Jeff hurt with community development. So, I'm here to present what's a fairly targeted zoning code amendment to address EV charging facilities um driven specifically by state law compliance, but also to align with our sustainability uh policies. So, the amendment is targeted. Um, it's based on an audit of our code as it relates to the state law on the areas that we could provide more flexibility. So, specifically, it does a few things. One, it addresses EV charging facilities as a primary land use, which is something our code is deficient on currently versus an accessory use. Um, and it does establish an administrative approval process for EV charging facilities. That's part of the bill compliance as well. Important to clarify this doesn't change any of our existing EV charging requirements in terms of the number and type that are allowed. That's primarily as it relates to having it as an accessory use. This is about more as a primary use. So there's a state law as mentioned that requires um our compliance as a city. Um a couple different examples of different EV charging facilities. Most of us are familiar with them when they're an accessory use, like accessory to a gas station or a repurposed area of a parking lot, something like that. Um, this amendment in part addresses when they're more of a primary use, which is an emerging trend in some of the images on the right where it's more substantial and closer to a gas station in size and scale. So, the city has three compliance options under the state law. First is to just fully adopt the model state EV charging code. Um the second which is the staff's preferred route is to uh customize our code to address the state law which is basically the premise is to provide more flexibility for EV charging facilities and that's what we've um what we've done. Um the third would be to officially opt out as a city via resolution of any sort of compliance. So our current EV charging regulations again the EV charging spaces are

required with new development. So the type and the location is all specified in the current code. That is not slated to change as part of this. Um but there are very limited regulations addressing EV charging when it's more of a primary land use. The specific issue with the current code as it relates to the use is that if EV charging is a primary land use, meaning more substantial the larger ones, the code treats it as a gas station and gas stations are effectively outlawed in the city. And so some of the key elements of the proposal are first to allow EV charging facilities as a primary use by right in our non-residential zone districts. The second is to allow administrative approval of EV charging facilities. And I'll unpack that a bit on the next slide. And again, no changes to any of the design or development standards, the number that are required in current code. So as it relates to the administrative approval allowance that this code would enable. Um, so basically what the what the draft ordinance says is that if there's a PUD required for an EV charging facility as a primary land use that can be approved administratively, meaning no public hearings, provided that the proposal is less than one acre and there's no variances or waiverss proposed, so it meets all the rules and it's under a certain size. The second piece of flexibility we found in our code to enable is if a PUD amendment is required when you put an access accessory EV charging facility, sometimes that would trigger a PUB amendment that sometimes could be a public hearing level. Um, this code would basically negate that and say if you're doing EV charging as an accessory use that is automatically an administrative approval. It is important to note that there is explicit language that enables the community development director to um call call it up to a public hearing if there are major impacts. Um and there's some language around that. Some of the impacts are um we see positive impacts certainly potentially

with with easier and better EV charging access for the community. In terms of any negative impacts when you compare it to like a gas station for example, um we definitely see lesser impacts in terms of things like noise, odor, uh traffic, um you know, potential for spilages, things like that, hazard risks, and the proposal is certainly consistent with u many of our sustainability policies as well. So staff does recommend approval of ordinance 1917 and happy to answer any questions. Right. Any council questions? Yes, Council Member Kern and then Mayor Patton.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate putting all this together for us since we had to, but um it sounds like there's a lot of really good like additional clarifying points that you guys found. So, I appreciate that. I had two questions. Um I noticed in here it says something about the the parking standards and if there's an EV charging uh this this could be a change. An EV charging space counts toward required off- streetet parking. So if that's the case like so that would be if there's like kind of what happened with the birdie bar right where they redid and they added I think they even added a space in street parking when they put their plans together. So it had that been a designated EV charging spot that would have counted as one of their spaces that they put in. I believe in that case, yes. The intent is to clarify. I think what we probably do as a current practice anyway, but just to explicitly state that space counts toward more flexibility

since it counts toward the parking. Um, and I don't know, and I'm sorry because I I don't think I've seen it, that's why I'm specifically asking this. Would would people who don't have an EV still be allowed to use that space if it is part of the off- streetet parking requirement? So it's not restricted to only somebody who's actually using the charger in that spot.

So one thing I would add is these like primary use EV charging areas aren't being used for parking. They're only being used for EV. So it's the accessory use. So typically those are sign um those are signed for EV use only. Um within our commercial code I would say that we typically have excess parking spaces. Um, so we don't see it particularly as an issue based on the ratios that we have. Um, so I don't know if that answers your question.

It was just that it was under like it was not in the um it was in the packet, not the presentation where I thought I read that that the amendment clarifies the EV charging spaces count toward required off- streetet parking when provided as right as an accessory use like you said. That's why I was curious to make sure that if we don't have excess parking um and it it's meeting at the absolute minimum of the parking mandate that we allow for that parking space to be used for something other than somebody charging. I I guess I would say to be fair, I don't know that our ordinance specifies whether it could be used for public or private parking that I'm aware of. I could look into that further, but I don't believe we mandate one way or another.

Okay. And the only the only um question mark that I had was you were mentioning the the impacts and I I agree, you know, obviously like the the reduced noise, not the concern of spillage of of gasoline and things, but um the less traffic is it just because there are theoretically fewer people who come into a charging station than a gas station? Yeah, that that's a good question. The um I think in part it was the duration of the visit basically. So, you think about the turnover and the constant, you know, it takes you a couple minutes to fill a tank of gas. It might take you much longer to charge your vehicle.

Oh, okay. Okay. Because that was going to be the only thing that I was going to say. I I like the fact that for the accessory uses that it's just it will be administrative. I think that makes a lot of sense to not trigger, you know, multiple hearings. I just thought if it was something in an area that didn't have a lot of traffic, like, you know, it was, I don't know, located a business that was located in more of a of a residential area that that might um come up for further investigation. So, appreciate it. Thanks, Mayor Pip.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two questions. Um the first one is regarding uh your second slide and the first bullet point that talks about EV charging as a primary land use in non-residential districts. Can you help me to understand like what exactly does that mean? What about mixeduse residential or help me frame that to understand what it means.

Yeah. So ba so again in the current code there's just an outlaw right sort of prohibition on EV charging facil because it says it's a gas station and therefore it's cap. So this basically in the you know there's a table of all the allowed uses by zone district. This adds a line item that says EV charging facility is permitted in all these zones which includes mixeduse residential. Um yeah. Okay. Thank you. And then uh second I want to make sure I'm understanding some content in the packet correctly. Um, planning commission reviewed this, correct? And they approved staff's recommendation. Is that correct? Yes. Sorry, I should have clarified that. Yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That's all.

Okay, any more questions or can we go? This is an ordinance. Um, and we have two rounds of public comment. So, the first round is now. Do we have anybody who would like to make a public comment about this ordinance? Does not look like we have any. All right, back to uh council. Um any other questions or comments? We'll go back to public comment, then we can have a discussion. Okay. Uh no, no questions. So, we'll take a second round of public comment if there's anybody who'd like to speak. Right. Seeing none, um I'm going to uh we've we've had some discussion or some questions. Uh would anybody like to make a motion or are there other comments to be shared? Yes, council member.

I'd be happy to move um that we pass ordinance 1917 series 2026, an ordinance amending title 17 of the Louiswisville municipal code concerning electric vehicle charging stations. Second. Any discussion? Okay, we'll need a roll call vote on this. Mayor Prom Hamington, yes. Council member Dickinson, yes. Council member Cooperman, yes. Council member Fehee, yes. Council member Kern, yes. Mayor Lei,

yes. Okay. Thank you very much to staff for presenting all of that and to council. Um, next up is city attorney's report. I have none this evening. Thank you. Okay. Um, upcoming agenda items and identification of future agenda items. Do we have any of those by council tonight? All right, then I think it's time for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Favor. Any opposed?

Right. Thank you very much. Good evening. Uh, M. I'm sorry, I can't read the last name.