City Council - Regular Meeting

E approval of a brewlub pub liquor license and outdoor dining agreement for Wild Edge Brewing Collective LLC DBA Wild Edge Brewing Collective located at 111 North Margaret Street Cortez I'm going to request that item D be removed from the consent agenda the applicant has withdrawn their application Does any citizen or council member wish to have any specific item removed from the consent agenda for discussion?

Council approved the consent agenda as amended. I second.

Motion made by Randall, seconded by Wolf.

West? Yes. Swope? Yes. Osborne? Yes. Wolf? Yes. Randall? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.

Sproul?

Yes. Go on to item number three, public participation. Individuals may not comment on items that are on council agenda during the public participation time. There is no limit to the number of speakers, although the public comments will be held to an overall time limit of 30 minutes. Speakers have a time limit of three minutes per person, may only speak once, and may not cede time to another commentator. Have one card here, but it's something to do with the agenda. So we'll bring that up later Does anybody else in the audience have anything they would like to? say during public participation Moving on to item number four, presentations. We have none. Number five, public hearings. Ordinance number 1375, series 2026. Ordinance number 1375, series 2026, an ordinance of the city of Cortez setting the ballot title and content for voter authorization for a 4% increase in the rate of the city lodgers tax and submitting the ballot question at the general election to be held November 3rd, 2026. Our presenter is Drew Sanders, our city manager.

Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council. So this being second reading, we'll go in a little more in-depth than we did last time. But what this is, is a proposed ballot measure to increase our lodgers tax. So a little bit of history. The city of Cortez currently has collected 2% lodgers tax since November of... 1981 per city code the largest tax can be used to advertise the community improve services finance new facilities attract conferences beautification beautification of the city. The city currently collects based on a 3 year average roughly $250,000 per year a majority of which has historically been used to contract with Mesa Verde country tourism and a smaller amount to fund the city of Cortez beautification grant. The current lodgers tax was increased from 1% to 2% in 1981 and has remained at 2% for the past 45 years. Council's proposing to increase the lodgers tax from 2% to 6% and has identified specific uses for the proposed increased lodgers tax that would benefit the generation of tourism and business development within the city of Cortez. The Montezuma County Clerk was notified as per statute in July of 2026 of the Council's intent to participate in the general election in November of 2026 and a request that the lodgers tax from the, an increased lodgers tax from the electors. So attached is the ordinance, and I would like to move in and look at specifically what the ballot language is versus read the entire ordinance. But I think it's important to actually read the whole ballot language so that the community and the council can be adequately informed. And it reads in its current state, shall the city of Cortez taxes be increased not more than $900,000 in tax collection year 2027? And I'd like to stop right there for a quick footnote. That $900,000 is not something we anticipate hitting, but we have to put it a little bit high just in case we collect a little bit more so that we don't end up with a TABR violation. So that's why. Moving on. By whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter by increasing the city's lodgers tax from 2% to 6% effective January 1 2027 and shall the lodgers tax revenues received by the city be used for the following purposes bullet point 1 investing in tourism marketing and tourism marketing including advertising the community bullet point 2 attracting and facilitating economic development and redevelopment of properties and infrastructure within the city, including improving walkability, landscaping, structures, and other improvements, and bullet point number three, investing in arts and cultural events, programs, and facilities. Provided that the council shall adopt an ordinance to implement the tax increase as provided in this question, including provisions for the method of collection and enforcement, any exemptions from the tax, and other details. That concludes the ballot language. whoops sorry there's a little bit more and may adjust the rate of lodgers tax from time to time so long as it does not exceed six percent and shall all amounts received by the city from such tax and the earnings thereon be collected and spent without limitation or condition as a voter approved revenue change under article 10 section 20 of the colorado constitution or any other law end of question

Prior to asking Drew some questions, I'd like to ask the public if they have any comments. And I'd like to have Tom Seymour come up. I believe he has. Yes. Did you have a card here on the lodger's tax? Step up to the mic and tell us who you are. And push the little button. Make sure the light's green. We got somebody to help. We got somebody to help you.

Oh, that button. Thank you, sir.

There you go. And if you're talking to the mic.

Yes. And I hope I can be heard. Is that too loud for anybody? You are just right. Just perfect. All right. I'd like to just disclose that. Tell us who you are for the record, please. I will. OK. I'd like to disclose that I'm Dr. Tom Seymour, retired. I live at 2507 Golf Course Lane in the city. And as most of you might know, I was supervised by Miss Councilmember Osborne for five years. I played golf for the five years with Councilmember Lewis. I married to Councilwoman Randall. So that's my disclosures. I'm here to promote the lodger's tax. It's a valuable source of income. I think it's wise that you should vote in favor of that. But where should the money go? I heard a list from the city manager. City beautification was named as one of them, and that means paint, art statues here and there, and perhaps more green spaces. However, Cortez has one of the most beautiful natural environments in the Southwest, with the generous green parks, clean hotels, fabulous historic buildings downtown and on Montezuma Avenue, and an outstanding golf course attracting thousands of tourists. But remember, tourists travel to Cortez first to visit Mesa Verde and the San Juan Forest. And it also mentioned in the resolution that it should go to economic development. But slow economic development is not primarily due to money issues. It's primarily caused by a tight, unskilled local labor pool in our geographic location, far away from the big city. What it should go to is towards the catastrophic failure of our water infrastructure system that apparently you've been interested in in the past few weeks. What are the three main issues that could happen? Catastrophic failures are aging underground water delivery system is at risk for sudden collapses which are occurring already. Treatment bottlenecks. You have found that there may be capacity limits in the city water treatment plant and in future aging of mechanical components. That takes money. Escalating costs. Postponing repairs to the future forces exponential cost increases. I am in favor of putting the money towards, at least part of the money, towards the water infrastructure program. we need 50 at least to go to the of the lodgers tax to go to water infrastructure but you may have to amend that resolution read by your city manager so it is up to you your legacy will rest on whether you will support your constituents and provide them with a guarantee for water and the tourists to come back to our fabulous hotels and the wonderful downtown buildings of Montezuma, or whether you will put it all towards decorative items in a beautification project. So I will leave you with one second.

Thank you, and excellent timing. Now we're gonna open it up. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak Step up to the mic tell us who you are

Good evening, Susan Chemnitz, 511 South Cedar Street. And I have an issue also with how this money is going to be spent. I just did some kind of general looking up of statistics. And in our little city of Cortez, we have 105 to 131 hotels. Now, the research that I did only brought up 11 of those names. And in those 11 hotels, I counted 743 rooms. So on any given night, it's say an average of two people in each room or just one or maybe three or more, those people are going to be taking a shower. At least most of them will. And I looked up the average time that people shower, and that's eight minutes, and it uses 10 gallons of water. So in one night, of tourists coming in here, if they fill all those rooms, which they won't, but most of them, they're gonna use 14,860 gallons of water. That's just one night, and that's not counting all the hotels that I couldn't even find names for. So on top of this big amount of water that they're using for showers, they also use water for other things. And you have all the excessive amount of restaurants in this city that use a lot of water. And we don't seem to be worried at all about a catastrophic water failure. If this happens, just like Tom said, if this actually were to happen and these people are here, they're tourists, they can turn around and go home. But every single resident that lives here will suffer if that happens. There's no excuse for some of this money at least to go into that use Not just our water. They use everything here. And they are being charged for those things that they use. So please consider changing that language to at least put some of this money into repairing that aging infrastructure. Because it's not just the water. There's a lot of other things that that should be going to. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? Anyone else in the audience like to speak? Let's open this up for council discussion, and I think it's real important that we all get involved in it. Anybody want to go first?

Yes. What's the actual dollar amount for if it's raised? So if now we're getting $250,000 a year, you raise it to 6%, what's that figure in dollars?

Mayor and Council, so that figure is estimated to be about three quarters of a million, 750,000 per year.

Just because I missed last meeting I do have several questions on each of the things so I apologize to everyone in advance So the first bullet item makes sense to me the second one I Guess I don't understand. What's our role in redevelopment of properties? I feel like maybe that's the business owners roles.

I'm having a hard time hearing I'm sorry

Sorry, everything's really spread out on this far end, just FYI. That second one, what is the city's role in redevelopment of properties? I mean, to some extent, we have the business beautification grant, which I understand, but to some other extent, what is that redevelopment of properties? To me, that means businesses. What's our role in any of that like what is what was the council's thoughts behind that specific wording on that one?

Well some of that council I think is intended to be things that And perhaps even going to things that attract visitors to like our parks and you know properties we have In our parks need some help. We lost a Bowery which you know a covered picnic area because the dilapidated we couldn't afford to replace it and Those sort of things. I think there are certain, especially with non-profits, and I'll use the example of the cultural center that the council could contribute to. And I'm just telling you what could happen, not what... There's other items that come to mind. Honestly, things like out of the Montezuma County Fair where we have the rodeo grounds and Ute Mountain, Ute Rodeo that does affect the city and probably should. And if we can contribute to that and perhaps improving facilities in part out there or partnering to do that. the there's all kinds of things we can do uh... you know even downtown there are uh... things we use with the beautiful business beautification grant where we've gone away from things that just kinda you know we just spend money to the but flowers out and so on which was historic now over the last several years we've done durable improvements and you're literally seeing that downtown where were giving them seed money and having them match it. So right now we're giving just very small amounts, everything from $15,000 to $3,000, which when they match that up to $6,000, that's just not very much on a building. If we could double or triple that, Or you know or more and help that out and make that downtown environment even better Some of the other things we can doing with with walkability and so on with properties is just our own Sidewalks and an ability to get downtown or get around down in the central business district. So all of those sort of things would be on that list of things we could do. Now, these are things we can do. We really need to get some public input and council input when we get towards budget time on that. That's where this crunch time's gonna come year over year, and those needs are going to change over time. So we're trying to be specific enough to limit the use of this money, but broad enough to give our elected officials leave to use it appropriately for the times. We can't think now. We've got to think 5, 10, 20 years down the road. Those future councils and give them the ability to operate on our on what's needed and what the circumstances are.

That really touches on my next question too in understanding that there's concerns for already existing infrastructure and things like that. My understanding, the way that this is worded, that it is broad enough. We do have some specific topics, but it is broad enough. We're including walkability structures, other improvements. So that can mean if a water pipe busts on a particular section that we could potentially fix that. I mean, and I think it's important for the public to hear and know, too. We're talking about $750,000 potentially every year. My understanding is the water infrastructure, we're talking millions. So it's still just going to be small contributions to these large projects, but There's nothing necessarily Prohibiting we do have these other things that we want it to go towards But there isn't any specific wording in the way that it is right now prohibiting money going towards that. Is that correct?

The way it's worded right now No, but I think if I understood council's intent in previous meetings This was meant to largely be very visible for the community.

Sure, which makes sense.

Okay with that being said I would suggest that this is a very Council that's very accountable and I would like to see an advisory committee with recommendations on how the money is distributed and I think it would be really important for the community to know that as well that we have a planning process of Possibly doing that and I like input from the council You know, we could have three or five members on this Advisory committee that suggests where this money goes that way the council is not up here dictating where that money goes, but we have some advice from the public, which could be part of the tourist industry, motel owners, things of that nature. So I think that's really kind of an important thing.

I have to agree on that as well, just because we really need the community input to make a good decision. And if we're going to put it as a ballot question, you know, what does the community want us to do with it? We have ideas, but what does the community want?

Is there any precedence to that? Just curious.

Actually, yes. And we do actually have it on our code. You wouldn't have to create a new one. In our code, there's a provision for a lodger's tax advisory committee, essentially. But that does bring up a good point, Mayor and Council. If we were to do that and redo it, which I think is the right answer, Another thing that we would want to add to that is perhaps a dashboard that says, year over year, this is what your money specifically went for, this is how much we got, this is the projects that we got advice on doing, and this is what we did, and literally put a dashboard out so it's easy for people to see visibly where that money went. So that's a great idea, and we can do that now, thank you.

I think that would be imperative. It's an idea so the community knows where their money is going. And I don't have a problem with the way it's worded on the ballot myself.

I'd just like to mention that I agree with with Mr. Seymour in that there's a need for putting money into our infrastructure. I disagree that this is not the way to do that. To me it's no different than taking the tax we get for our rec center and using some of that to pay for our infrastructure. It's it's taking an existing tax and and putting it in there as councilmember Osborne said This is potentially 750 thousand dollars compared to what we need With our water treatment plant it is minimal I really think we need to take this money that's being generated by PEOPLE STAYING HERE AND REINVESTING IT BACK INTO CORTEZ BY NOT MAKING MORE GREEN SPACE, BUT MAINTAINING THE GREEN SPACE THAT WE HAVE. MAINTAINING THE BUILDINGS THAT TOURISTS USE. MAKING THE ENTRANCE WHEN YOU COME FROM SOUTH BROADWAY UP TO CORTEZ A LITTLE MORE APPEALING WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH. So regarding that, I would be in favor of voting for this as the way it is printed.

I like everything that's been spoken about. I think our water infrastructure is a much bigger line item than this will fill. And when I, I know if I put $10 away for coffee every week and then I have my water heater breaks, I'm going to take all my coffee money and put it to that, right? And I'm never going to, like, If we don't my point is if we don't budget out for these smaller line items we may never get to them and I do think that the Visible appeal of our city is important. I don't think it's as important as our water infrastructure I want to be very clear on that but putting a minimal amount to it when we have the opportunity to finish projects and close priorities is is worth considering. My bigger concern in adding a specific percentage or dollar amount is this will likely be in perpetuity. And I don't have a crystal ball to read the future. I don't want to pigeonhole anybody in the future into something. And this language is flexible enough that I don't have concerns with it. I think it allows us to do a number of things, including some of that infrastructure components, and we'll have to be more strategic about the bigger line items for the water.

Yeah, I agree that if you look at $750,000 compared to if you look at what the budgeted out amount for the next 20 years for the water is like $100 million, that's a significant amount of money that we're going to have to start looking at ways to get that, and it's important, and I think everything on this list is important. One of the things that I think we have to get real with is that a big part of how our community exists is through tourism. We don't have a lot of industry here. That's probably not gonna change, and so we're gonna be responsible for taking care of our water, and we do need those people to come here and stay here. And I agree that it needs to be very specific on why we're going to do that. I don't want just throwing things up at the wall and see if they stick. But if you take that, you know, we say that amount of money away from these things, you know, that's suffering. You know, the tourism is important, and they're doing a good job for us, I think. You know, there's lots more involved with that, you know, getting people to come here and all the things. So I think that we have to be really conscientious and sure about how we want to label that money. Thanks.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. So number one, as a council or as any government agency that is in existence, we have the responsibility to prioritize our spending, that generally comes in three different categories. The first category is essential services, number one. That's our non-negotiable stuff. That's our water, our roads, and our public safety, number one priority. The second priority comes down to high impact, right? Those are things that enhance our quality of life. Those are our parks and rec centers and the like. Things that are good, that make our life better. The third thing is discretionary or low impact things that we fund. These may be the things that we put out at the end of the year with our money that we put out into the community for the grants we give out that are discretionary, totally discretionary. Again, I come back to a concept that we have been heard over and over again, and that's the undisciplined pursuit of more. And the undisciplined pursuit of more is extremely appealing when it's somebody else's money. And that's kind of the case with the lodger's tax, it's somebody else's money. Bill, to your point on House Bill number 25-1247, it has very broad use of lodgers tax per the state of Colorado. It says that it can go to public infrastructure, maintenance, and capital improvement. We have two counties here in Colorado that do nothing but 90% of their lodgers tax goes towards infrastructure, 90%. That's a lot, and it's totally acceptable and totally good, so it's not any misappropriation of funds. It's totally acceptable. I appreciate it, Mayor Spruill, that you liked my idea last week of having an advisory counter. That makes me think you were listening to me. Thank you. I am proposing and will continue to propose the 50% go toward water infrastructure. And I'll come back to the fact that public perception is everything because we're acting like we have this money. We don't have this money. We need the public to support us. And I've heard Council Member West speak about how this is a band-aid, it's not going to be enough to make a difference.

this size of project that's not what i said well i mean you did last week but that's not please don't misappropriate my words that is not what i said and for our media partners that is not a direct quote from my mouth

So, meanwhile, it is not enough to make a big dent. Would that be an appropriate use of your words?

I think if you look at the numbers, when we're talking about $26 million, the numbers we were talking about last meeting was closer to 300,000, and that's pennies on the dollar. That's not enough to cover the entire bill for what we're on the hook for.

Thank you for clarifying. So it's not enough to cover what we're on the hook for. Is that appropriate?

It's not enough to cover the full budget and my opinion.

I believe it's my time, council member, if you don't mind. May I finish my thought? And I'll let you come back and clarify what your thoughts are.

As long as you don't put words in my mouth.

Thank you. So meanwhile, back at the ranch, public perception is everything for us. As far as the money that's gonna be needed to complete or fix our infrastructure and carry us forward, it's going to require millions of dollars. But those millions of dollars are only, there's no way we're ever gonna be able to fund it. We're never gonna be able to fund it from our taxpayer's dollar. We're not ever going to be able to. We're going to have to take out low-interest loans. We're going to have to ask for grants. And the list will go on and on. But in order to do that, we have to have seed money. For those who have purchased a home, which is probably the largest purchase that most of us will ever make in our lives, we have to come up with a down payment. And this is a demonstration of a good faith, earnest effort on the citizen's part and on the council's part to say, we're going to dedicate a portion towards water because we recognize it's important to us. I was the one that originally, as I recall, one of the ones that originally said, I am gonna support this lodger's tax because I want it to go for our infrastructure. And I will do that if a dedicated proportion goes towards our water infrastructure. I will not support this if it goes towards those things that are under category two and three, which are predominantly discretionary, low impact, and enhance the quality of our life. I agree with enhancing the quality of our life, but number one on our priorities as grown up, responsible representatives of our community is the essential services. Thank you for your time. I cede.

I have a question for the city manager regarding, because that is a very valid point when we're looking for these really large grants to cover this bill. Do we have funds set aside for good faith down payments and things?

Council member, that's a that's a good question. However, I would be a responsible if I just came out and said absolutely Because the answer is it depends on what those are what are you know, we have funds. Is it enough? I don't know We're gonna have to put together what's called a capital stack Which means it's going to come from revenue from various sources grants and what they were just listed off and You know, and I'm not going to tell you that, you know, anything helps. But, you know, I guess it comes down to council priorities on this, on what do you want to do? That's budgetary politics in American government. Who gets what, how much, and when? And the answer to all of this is all of you are right. So what's your decision on what we're going to use it for?

One of my concerns about what Councilmember Randall's talking about, okay, we collect, we say that we're water, that's such a small amount. We don't use it every year. It's not enough to seed anything every year. What happens then? We have this 50% that we can't tell the public we use this for water on. And so what happens after that? Does that money roll back? Do we put in the wording to roll back that money? You're allocating 50% to a specific thing, and then we don't use it for that.

I don't believe there'd be any circumstances where we couldn't use it in our water system. There's so many projects out there. As we learned today, there's small projects that are ongoing, and the priorities run from everything from the raw water intake all the way into the delivery system. So I mean, there's gonna be no shortage of ways, even if it's not enough to finish something big, there's gonna be a use for that money. And I'm sure that our city staff would back us up on that. The question is, is it gonna get put in that way in a line item? I have no doubt.

I remember they have a structured idea of what they wanna do for the next 20 years. So any amount of money that went into that would defray some of that. beyond capital improvement money and whatever other money they get.

I personally feel if we attract tourists, they're going to bring money to Cortez. Of course, we don't want to be a Moab. I don't want to be a Moab. I don't think anybody on this council wants to be a Moab.

The tourists have destroyed their hometown, and I don't want that.

I believe, like Miss West said, that we need to attract these tourists, and water isn't the way to do that. What will attract them is statues, pretty things, little things. That's going to attract tourists. I ask people when they come, what brought you to Cortez, Colorado? People that live here, I ask them, why did you move to Cortez? Why did you come here? Because of your trails, because of the climate. All of these things is what brought me to Cortez, Colorado. And I want to continue bringing people into Cortez to visit and bring their money with them when they come. I understand we have to have water that's so important I mean nobody's going to come if we don't have water and we're all going to leave if we don't have water but I think we need to attract tourists and that's what this money will do is attract tourists it's not going to run them away it's going to attract them if we make our city prettier more desirable a reason to come here

I also like the flexibility of the language around infrastructure, being able to fill the potholes, fill the other things that if we get this money, because I think Council Member Randall makes a very good point. We're talking as if this is like Secured and it's it's not right. This is all theoretical at this point But in theory This money is not coming from our constituents. This money is coming from the visitors and in an ethical perspective I think at least some of that should go back to perpetuating visitorship if it's coming from the visitors Doesn't it make sense for at least part of it to benefit the visitors? That's why it's a lodgers tax and not a city tax. We've also looked at our road plan. We have a lot of infrastructure to work on here and I'm The two counties council member Randall is referring to our route route route route and your ray which have a significantly smaller populace and. More secure water systems they're not in the same desert that we are. So they have the they're in a very different place and they have fewer than I don't know, I'm not very good with numbers off the top of my head. Those math minutes really did a number on my fast math. Our population is bigger, we have bigger problems to look at, and I don't think that pigeonholing ourselves into specific percentages is the way to go. However, I do think that having it like a council and advisory board to help us evaluate the plans we've put in place and make recommendations for future plans is an excellent idea that I would love to hear more about.

know two areas that we really haven't talked about in in our bullet points here is uh investing in tourism as as mayor sproul mentioned um you know right currently right now we put the majority of of our money into mesa verde country And we we have not been satisfied with what's been conducted there. This is an opportunity to look at new ways to market Cortez and hopefully bringing more tourism. Another part is talking about investing in arts and cultural events. Well, most of the discussion that's occurred here is around statues and repainting. I would like to see more events like we just currently had at the park, that drone show. It was really amazing. AND I CAN TELL YOU WHEN I WAS AT THE GOLF COURSE, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE FROM OUT OF TOWN THAT HEARD OUR PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR INFORM THE GOLF ADVISORY BOARD ABOUT THAT AND CAME UP AFTERWARDS AND WANTED TO KNOW MORE INFORMATION. THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE OF EVENTS THAT CAN BE CONDUCTED TO BRING IN MORE TOURISTS. So again, I will be voting for this ordinance as written.

mayor and council i don't want to break in too much of the discussion but i kind of feel like we've got off track just a little bit on understanding so what we're dealing with right now is just the ballot question all we can do is amend the ballot question although i'd be very cautious on how we do that because we would literally have to go back to the tabor attorney to make sure that that passes however what you're talking about whether you put a percentage towards water infrastructure or any of these other things all of that can be handled should the ballot measure pass with the city code or the ordinance that has to be passed to put it into place anyway at that point is when you could start if you chose to divvy that up But right now is not the time to start putting any sort of percentages, any sort of thing into the ballot language. As written, all of what you're talking about, every one of you can be accomplished.

I think it's important for the public to know what we're using this money for. So I think we need to come together. And I understand where the city manager is coming from. We need to see if we pass this. But our constituents need to know what they're spending their money, what the money is going to be spent on. They're not paying any taxes. It's the people that are coming in. One lady says hey, I I put my brother-in-law in a motel and I had to pay his motel bill So therefore I am paying City sales tax so don't say I don't pay it. Well, it was probably three dollars so I would pay three dollars put my brother-in-law in a motel and Anyway, that being said, I think we need to concentrate on the motion right now, and then we have to let the constituents know what our plans are. And it sounds like it's going to take a lot more talking.

I think that what Clarissa had said earlier about the wording of everything being broad enough to bring in whether we do percentages the wording is broad enough that I think that yes we should let the voters know what we're gonna do with it now but with the advisory board we really would be getting that input from the community and I do think that the wording is broad enough to like to what Drew said as well all of our ideas could be viable with the wording as it stated.

I believe it's funding for non-essential issues, the way it's worded right now, and that very little of it. I think it's an opportunity for you to spend other people's money in the form of a tax and not be specific about it. I say that with all due respect. But I believe that's what we're putting out in front of the public. And that's what the public's gonna hear. And it'd be one thing if they heard that you were gonna support the people who live here who are voting for this by supporting their water structure. I think they would be able to support it. And I think that the majority of people will not, but it's up to the people, and it's in the hands of the people. But I still will not support this the way the wording is in the ballot question right now.

I support building communities and economic development, so I support this.

Is there a preferred wording that, like a fourth bullet point, a preferred wording that would make you feel more comfortable with it?

I think it's an issue of that. The way the wording is right now, it's extremely vague, right? It says we could if if the council decided we could put a little bit towards infrastructure. But what people are going to read when they read this are green spaces, walking spaces, art projects, economic development. We all know kind of where that's gotten us to now. It's all great stuff, but it's all not essential services, which is number one. And people want their tax dollars to go to essential services. And then the number two, the high impact and the discretionary low impact stuff, that's what this bill is, the way it's written right now, it's filled with number two, high impact and discretionary spending. That's what it's filled with. There's not, I mean, there's a little bit of a word that was slid in there, which was great to have it slid in there for infrastructure, but what does that mean to people? We have a huge financial load coming down the road. Could we not just say we're going to take a portion of this money and relieve our citizens, even if it's a portion that we get to relieve our citizens from having to carry this on their own back?

That's all I have to say.

Is any of the 10 to 15,000 that was estimated for the cost of this, does that go towards education of what this stuff goes to and the possibilities behind it?

I couldn't understand your question very well.

Sorry. That estimated $10,000 to $15,000 cost for this, does any portion of that go to education of the public?

No. We can only spend up to $50 of public money to do that, although we will be doing outreach, which is not telling people you should vote for this or not.

Sure.

We do have the duty to educate people on what that is. So know that $15,000 does not go to that. That's just the cost of the election to put ballots out and everything else. But we will do it just like we did with the recent charter updates where the community voted in favor of most of those. Same thing, just informational sessions so people can ask questions, give input, and we can give the council's view of what this is meant to be used for. And yes, the mayor is absolutely right. We've gotta have clarity.

I will accept a motion.

I move that city of council approve on second and final reading ordinance number 1375 series 2026, an ordinance of the city of Cortez setting the ballot title and content for voter authorization for a 4% increase in the rate of the lodgers tax. Submitting the ballot issue at the general election to be held November 3rd, 2026 and setting forth details in relation thereto.

I second it.

Motion made by Lewis, seconded by Wolf.

Osborne? Yes. West? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.

Randall? No. Swope? No. Wolf?

Yes.

Sproul?

Yes.

Motion passes, five yes, two no.

We'll move on to item number six, unfinished business. We have none. Seven, new business. Acceptance of the 2026 Certified Local Government CGL Grant Award, requesting authorized signatures for History Colorado 2026 CGL Grant Award. Presenter, Helen West, Community and Economic Development Specialist.

Hi. Thank you, Mayor Sproul and Councils. This is a pretty straightforward grant. We received notification on July 27, 2026 that the city had received a grant from History Colorado for the amount of $24,937 to survey 15 properties in the city of Cortez. That are potentially eligible for historic designation It is a no match grant and we intend to appropriate that funding for the 2027 budget along with the regular budget cycle in October this is simply a request to authorize the mayor to sign the risk assessment form and then further authorization for the city manager to execute the grant and sign what he needs to execute that after the mayor's signature and There is a list of properties that I can read off for the record if you want, but they are also on the agenda.

Does anybody have any questions?

No questions. It's pretty straightforward, I would agree, and I think we need to move forward with this. I agree with it completely.

Thank you. Council have any comments.

Can you elaborate on the value of designating buildings as historic. Why do we care.

Yeah, there are three levels of historic designation. The first is local, which is honestly just cool. Local level does not restrict what you can or cannot do to a property. However, it does make you eligible because the city of Cortez is the certified local government, which is a whole thing, but we became a certified local government in 2010. And because of this, any locally designated properties are eligible for potential grant funding and historic preservation tax credits in the state of Colorado on residential and commercial buildings. Property owners can apply for these tax credits. There are some hoops to jump through because it is state public money, but you can get income tax credits back on your state income tax for historic preservation work done to your property if it is locally designated. This includes things like repairing the roof, replacing windows, potentially painting. You can get 35% back in tax credits as a rural community as a CLG grant or CLG community. The other two levels of historic designation are the state and national level. Those are much more restrictive and often what people think of for designation. I typically do not recommend that private property owners apply for state or local or state or sorry I I don't usually recommend that our private property owners apply for state or national designation because these come with heavy, heavy restrictions. We have some very beautiful nationally registered buildings. These include the Calkins Building, the KSJD Sunflower Theater, and the Ertel Funeral Home. I think we can all attest that these are gorgeous buildings. Two of them are owned by nonprofits. Nonprofits can apply for grants to help upkeep those nationally designated buildings. or tells is a very old business in town a very prominent community member and they chose to make that designation and we can as a community be very very proud of that building but it does come with a lot of restrictions again the local as a level has virtually no restrictions on what you can do to your property it's just cool it preserves our history and it allows you to apply if you choose for historic preservation grants and state tax credits This grant that we applied for would survey properties. This is just a historian's survey on if they think this property would be eligible. All of these properties, except for one, are not owned by the city of Cortez. These property owners would be notified, but actually the surveys do not go onto the property. They take pictures from the public right-of-way and they look into historic public records so no private information is needed to conduct these surveys it is a historian's opinion backed up by their expertise and data on whether this property would be historic or not so at this time this is not placing restrictions on what no the city cannot legally restrict a private property owners

Historic designation.

No, that's we can't legally force one to restrict Attorney, I'm gonna look at you that I feel like I'm speaking on a turn.

Well, I'm all I'm asking. So here's my understanding You're asking us to approve this grant. This grant will go towards a third party historic survey which will then go possibly or possibly not to either a local or state or federal historic designation, is that correct?

No, that is not correct. This grant inventories properties to determine if they could be historic or not. The private property owner is notified of their potential eligibility for designation, and that property owner can choose to apply for historic designation. A building is never designated without property approval, a property owner approval. In fact, next council meeting, you all will have a historic preservation application. The city never, to my knowledge, has ever placed a property on our registry without a signed application from a private property owner. We don't even place our own properties that are historic on the registry without approval by the property owner, which is you all.

Thanks again. I'll entertain a motion.

I move that the city council approve on second and, or sorry, wrong one. I move that city council authorize the mayor to sign the risk Yes, risk self-assessment form and other documents is necessary for the 2026 CLG grant award from History Colorado and authorize the city manager negotiate and sign the grant agreement. I second.

Motion by Osborne, seconded by Wolf.

Swope? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.

Osborne? Yes. Wolf? Yes. West? Yes. Randall? Yes. Sproul?

Yes. We'll move on to item number 7B, notice of termination of fixed based operator lease and operations agreement. Notice of termination of fixed based operator lease and operation agreement is presented by Drew Sanders, our city manager.

Mayor and council this is a request for the council to authorize the mayor to sign a notice of termination of fixed base operator lease and operations agreement for Cortez Flying Service Cortez Flying Service is currently contract with the city of Cortez to provide what's called fixed based operator services Which is essentially, you know maintenance selling fuel other parts and accessories for aircraft Right now, this current contract was put in place on January 1, 2021, and it was meant to end after five years, December 31, 2026, with an automatic 20-year renewal ending December 31, 2046, unless terminated. The city of Cortez feels that it is best not to continue that contract for, well, essentially perpetuity for 20 years, is suggesting that we terminate that contract I have been in contact with them as in conjunction with our airport manager and they know this is coming and have agreed in principle to a year-to-year contract going forward so I want to be clear this is not terminating our relationship with them this is merely stopping the current ending the current contract starting a new one That's all we're asking for is just the mayor signature for that.

I Was just gonna say I think this I applaud city management for looking at this closely and for detail Contract in perpetuity, but either way, it's a good thing and it keeps everyone sort of accountable and up to a level of standards for our flying community and well done.

Agreed, that's all I was gonna say. I was shocked to see a 20-year contract, so I think going year to year is normal, reasonable, very good.

I think it's great now that we have an airport advisory board, they can look into this a little better and see if we're going in the right direction, so that's a good thing.

If there's no further discussion, I move to authorize the mayor to sign the notice of termination of fixed base operation lease and operations agreement letter for the Cortez Flying Service, Inc.

I second.

Motion made by Lewis, seconded by Swope.

Wolf Lewis, yes, Randall, yes, spoke.

Yes.

Sorry, Swope. Yes, Osborne, yes, West, yes, Spruill, yes.

Moving on to 7C on the agenda 2026 amendment to the city attorney employment agreement.

The agreement to the 2026 city appointment agreement to increase his compensation will be resented by drew centers our city manager yes mayor council the City Council has met with our city attorney and conducted a performance evaluation and Following that considered an increase to his compensation This month the city attorney's current annual salary was set at grade 17 step 2 which equates to one hundred seventy four thousand three hundred forty two dollars a year and and that was effective in June 30th of 2025 and I have been advised by the council that you desire to amend the agreement by increasing the city attorney's salary to grade 11, sorry, grade 117, step three, in accordance with the city of Cortez's general government pay scale that was put into place in fiscal year 2025, thereby fixing Mr. Coleman's annual salary at 179,572, effective with the pay period commencing on January 4, 2027. So with that, I'm recommending to council that you consider signing the agreement with Mr. Coleman and authorizing the mayor to sign such.

I move that city council approve the 2026 amendment to the city attorney employment agreement.

I second.

Motion made by Randall, seconded by Wolfe.

Osborne. Yes. Wolf. Yes. West. Yes. Randall. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Swope. Yes. Spruill.

Yes. Item number eight, draft resolutions and ordinances. We have none. Nine, city attorney's report. No report, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Item number 10, city manager's report.

Yes, Mayor and Council, I do have a report for you this evening, but I'll keep it short. The annual Sonomer Send-Off, or formerly known as the Balloon Rendezvous, was held in Park DeVita, as previously mentioned in this meeting, this last weekend, that included a spectacular drone show that was produced by the State of Colorado honoring the Cortez 140, Colorado 150, and USA 250 anniversaries. Mayor mayor Spruill did a great job in presenting the city's America 250 150 or sorry Colorado 150 and Cortez 140 Proclamation that was passed by the council last year Celebrating our shared history to the attendees prior to the performance The show is well orchestrated and delighted the packed part court The those who joined us at the park I would also like to take a side note and recognize Asia Lynn Hager and and thank her so much for being the impetus behind actually getting that drone show here. It was her connections, her hard work that made that happen under the leadership of Creighton Wright. So very proud of them once again. Next, Mayor Spruill welcomed a delegation from the Spanish Fork, Utah Historic Preservation. Commission on Thursday August 30th of the Montezuma Heritage Museum for a cross and culture relay commemorating the 250th anniversary of the 1716 domain Dominguez Escalante expedition the pass through our area on one of the more significant explorations of the Southwest that would are all aware of and we're proudly part of that trail and Congratulate and thank mayor Spruill for a job well done on that that concludes my report

I will do I will say that we have big kudos for the people to put on that show this week it was absolutely phenomenal like it was very good Creighton and I think you we thank your staff because you did a fantastic job I did get to attend and I really enjoyed it walking through the crowd everybody seemed to enjoy it will go on to item number 11 City Council committee reports.

I attended the August 4th Cortez Historic Preservation Board meeting. The first item that I think is mentionable to the council is that we had applied for a 2026 CLG grant in the amount of $24,937, and those funds had been held back while they weren't released. That grant is for a school inventory of our schools here in the city, and 10 individual properties, including the Empire Electric Building. That money has come forth, so it is now in play. Along those notes, the Cortez Historic Preservation's has received $225,000 since 2011 in grants. So they do a bang-up job. Second thing that is of, I think, import is that there's been talk of a birthday party for the city of Cortez. So on December 15th, 1886, the first legal plaid of the city of Cortez was recorded, or excuse me, was drawn up by Mr. MJ Mack. And it was literally recorded on December 22nd, 1886. So that makes again our 140th birthday right around Christmas time. so there's some talk of some coordination of having some form of a birthday celebration. We're not sure what that will look like, but I think it should merit some excitement. The third issue that I'd like to share is that the Cortes Historic Walking Tour has been very successful. Up to date, at the time of August 4th, about 93 participants had gone on tours of either Main Street or Montezuma Street. And along that line, it's probably going to continue into September, perhaps into October. I have here some brochures that have just been put out on the new self-guided walking tour of Montezuma Avenue for the council members. So I'd like to share that with you. And those are self-guided tours. And that's all for now.

I mean, I'll be brief because we just made the airport advisory committee, but our first meeting is August 24th. So I should have an actual report on the 25th.

Excellent.

THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MET ON AUGUST 7TH. THIS IS PROBABLY THE BUSIEST WEEK FOR THE GOLF COURSE. WE'VE GOT THE LADY'S LARGEST TOURNAMENT THAT JUST TOOK PLACE TODAY WITH 88 PLAYERS. IT'S CALLED THE TEA CUP. AND THERE WERE MANY LADIES THAT PARTICIPATED THAT WERE FROM out outside of the city and County also coming up this weekend is the men's largest tournament the Pinto bean and They are expecting about 230 players there will be fireworks on Saturday evening weather permitting LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE GOLF COURSE IS THE TREND STILL CONTINUES WHERE REVENUES AND ROUNDS CONTINUE TO GO, CONTINUE TO INCREASE AND WE KEEP LOOKING AT EACH OTHER SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOT TO BE A POINT WHERE IT'S GOING TO LEVEL OUT. BUT LUCKILY, THIS HASN'T HAPPENED. SO IN 2025 TO DATE, OUR REVENUE WAS 512,165. TO DATE FOR 2026, IT'S 575,785. INCREASE OF $63,620. Our rounds last year were 16,332. This year it's 17,849, an increase of 1,517. It's just incredible what's going on there. So kudos to everybody with that. That's the end of my report.

If I might add on to Councilmember Lewis's report regarding the teacup tournament today, Councilmember Lewis is being very humble in that his wife and her partner scored second overall in the tournament. Congratulations to Tina.

Councilmember Swope, nothing?

We meet on Thursday.

Okay, we'll move on to item number 11a. It's the mayor's report on the workshop. During the work session, Cortez Council took a very informative tour of the Cortez Water Treatment Facility. We learned how the water enters the plant and after filtration is sent to our households. And that is probably one of our number one priorities is making sure that everybody has safe drinking water. And that was an amazing tour that we had. And I want to thank the staff for putting us through that tour. It was excellent. He also offered school tours. So if there's a school class out there would like to see how they receive pure, clean Cortez water, they will do a tour for them as well.

Mayor, if there are interested, contact the city manager's office. We will get them in touch with the right people.

Thank you, city manager. Appreciate that. Moving on to 11B, other board reports. Do we have any other board reports at all? Okay, moving on to item number 12, public participation. Individuals may not comment on items that are on the council agenda during public participation time. There is no limit to the number of speakers and no overall time limit. Speakers have a time limit of three minutes per person, may only speak once, and may not cede time to another commenter. Please, is there anybody in the crowd that wants to speak? Nope. Item number 13, other items of business. This is the time that I kind of encourage any council member that they have something burning on their mind they want to talk about.

No, I would just like to congratulate our Director of Parks and Recreation, Creighton Wright, for an outstanding job this weekend. Well attended. I just thought that DRONE SHOW WAS PHENOMENAL, AND I WAS DOWN THERE THE NEXT MORNING EARLY, AND THAT PARK WAS COMPLETELY CLEAN. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT. SO PLEASE TELL EVERYBODY, WHAT A FANTASTIC JOB.

And I want to put a little kudos out to the people of Cortez and our visitors that we had. As my wife and I were leaving that night, we looked around and she goes, look at the litter. There is none. There is none. People kept it clean. There was plenty of trash cans and they used them. And there was vendors there with solo cups and things of this nature. They all went where they should, not on the ground. And so I commend the people of Cortez. I thank you guys for keeping our parks the way they are. Anything else? Other items of business? We have none. Other than that, execs decision we do not have today. So?

Mayor Spruill? I move to adjourn.

Second.

Motion made by Lewis, seconded by Randall.

West? West? Yes. Yes. Swope?

Yes.

Osborne? Yes. Wolfe? Yes. Randall? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.