Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Laddis Memorial budget amid concerns about private property status
Summary
Council members debated whether the Laddis Memorial ceremony occurs on privately owned land and whether the city should fund event services without documentation; after discussion and a request for legal documentation, the council approved the Laddis Memorial budget for the June 7 ceremony.
Council members pulled the Laddis Memorial budget (consent item 6j) for discussion on May 18 after questions about whether the ceremony site is privately owned and what city financial or operational responsibilities exist.
One council member raised two concerns: the propriety of the city paying to film the event and the absence of documentation that the event is a public, city‑sanctioned function rather than private activity. That member asked city legal counsel to provide copies of any agreements that allow city staff to operate on the property.
Mayor Raymond R. Solomon and other members provided historical context: the ceremony has been part of local tradition for decades and the city has used contractors in the past to make the ceremony accessible (including livestreaming when earlier volunteer staff were unavailable). Council members noted the event’s community value — the mayor called it an 84‑year tradition — but also said documentation about property status was important to avoid future liability and protect staff.
Council action: After debate and assurances that staff had requested documentation from property owners, Alderman Albert moved to approve the Laddis Memorial budget for fiscal year 2026–27 and Alderman Overland seconded; roll call resulted in the motion carrying and the budget approved.
What to watch for: Council members asked staff to pursue documentation verifying the event’s status on private property and to schedule a work session to map long‑term options (including whether to seek transfer, easement, or alternate public locations for the monument). The council also discussed possibly relocating the monument to city property to reduce future operational ambiguity.
This article reflects discussion in the meeting only; it does not conclude ownership status. A council member said the property ‘‘is privately owned’’ based on recent information, and staff said they have requested documentation from the property owner and are awaiting a response.
