LCC 8-11-2020 - 11 August 2020 - 07-03-09 PM
4:07AM Aug 12, 2020
invited to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when we when you are called upon to speak. Comments are limited to three minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. All right, let's go ahead and we have a motion to approve the July 28 2020 minutes. All right, but it's been moved by Councilmember Christiansen and seconded by Councillor Morton. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right. Do we have any agenda revisions or motions direct the city manager to add agenda items?
College is a muted but still thanks me. Yeah, there are two two items on the heels of our our conversate discussion about the short term rental ordinance and in what whatever we see back now in terms of the the sense that staff made out of the The direction we gave. I think we need to my view and I've heard from residents that we need to take a look at our ad EU ordinance on the heels of that, especially if we're going to expect to see more ad use used as short term rentals. So I'd like to move that the staff find a time on the agenda. On the heels of the the update of the short term rental ordinance that we take a look soon at the ordinance tracking.
And, Dr. Waters, I assume that you're talking about the variance the five feet and the ongoing. Okay, good. Yeah. I was just hearing from a concerned citizen via text wanting to know why that hasn't been put on an agenda. Harold, just out of curiosity, if this motion, I'm going to put it on anyway. So it doesn't matter. But we can we bring this back?
Oh, no. I need to get with Joanie. I know that was a no it was on their list. And they are moving through.
Because I know that the reason why it's urgent is there's two other, there's two other ad use going up in the downtown area. And I know that there are residents who are concerned about, you know, five feet from the property line, beginning to be the norm, and it could alter the feel of downtown, if everybody just starts jamming in at us. And so if there are people, if there's one there and more on the way, we should probably act before they start throwing them up. So it's it's urgent
jammies on so let me get with her tomorrow.
All right, great. I'm going to put it on but let's go and take the vote since this motion All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously.
I had a second. Go ahead. It's not an ordinance. But a year ago, we authorized the city manager to engage a customer Want to do an external evaluation of the rewind program? And as as we did that, what I expressed at the time was my interest. Ultimately, in knowing what we learned, I don't care about the report. I think the report is for staff. But I do think if there's something that we that we learned from the evaluation of rewrite, we rewind, that should inform us at a policy level, and help us understand dynamics of relationships between other programs like the community justice, partnership and restorative justice, it would be useful. So what I'd like to know if other council members share any curiosity in knowing what what we learned, not what not the recommendations and the findings or the details of the report, just what staff learned, and how we'll use what we learned to kind of continue to improve what we do with rewind and and the relationship with the community justice with restorative justice in the criminal justice partnership.
Fat emotion I'll second it.
Well, if there's other idiots Yes, it's it, I
think And plus, the other thing is I think, again, this is one that I was going to put on anyway. So but the other thing is I would actually not only we're going to vote on it when it comes back Herald I'd also like, I know that there's been I've gotten a lot of calls. People upset on some of the findings, believing that they got some things wrong, as well as some things right. So I'd like to I'd like to hear full report on the report. But there's motion on the table. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right. It passes unanimously. So just bring it back as soon as you can, Harold. I know you're busy. All right. Anything else? All right. See nothing. Let's go ahead, Darrell. Do COVID-19 report tonight.
We do. We're gonna start off with Susan Latika from Boulder County hell, and she'll and she'll Give a report then we're going to move to Roberta Luna. There's an item that you're voting on today, we wanted to talk a little bit about regarding our wastewater system, and then have a quick update on the restaurant token program. So Susan, take it away, Carol.
Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I am the strategic initiatives and Policy Director at Boulder County Public Health and Jeff sack, our director was sorry, he could not be here tonight. But asked me to share some facts with you about the COVID situation always evolving. So an update on the state mask order. As you may know, I'm sure you get feedback on this. The state mask order has been interpreted to require that people wear masks in cubicles, and this has generated a lot of feedback. So this is not outdoors indoors in offices that don't have closed doors. The state's mask order is due to excessive Fire on August 15. And our county attorney's office has advocated and asked the state for clarification and some modifications. So we'll see a assume this order gets extended. That's what we're thinking from Governor polis, and to see if there are any modifications that are going to make helpful to people, things like the plexiglass barriers that they've already installed and social distancing measures and things like that. So I would say look for an update from us early in the week we're expecting an answer on a before honor before August 15. And then perhaps some clarifying information shortly thereafter. So I wanted to let you know we've been doing our Sentinel survey. This is where we sent out a team of people to monitor masks all over the county. We go to sites all over the county. We actually observe 2603 people in July for mass squaring compliance. And these are at places like parks, stores, service places, and we're seeing 95% compliance in those places. And
however, the social distancing is significantly lower. And this is, you know, this is a bit of a concern for us. So the mask wearing is in a very strong position, but as you might expect, in the summer, some retraction on the compliance with social distancing
So another point that I update I wanted to make is the metro Denver partnership for health and I'm sure Jeff has reported on this before. This is a collection of the metro area, public health directors in the seven area counties, so they been collaborating with cdphp on interim guidance for schools, that's K through 12 handling outbreaks. So we know that bvsd and St. frane are going to be starting remote. And Jeff reaffirmed that for me today that that's still the plan with our school superintendents. But assuming things do go in person, again, having a plan for recommendations, Interim guidance for schools to handle those really inevitable outbreaks that are going to occur is important. So this will be something we can share in the next few days as well. I would think by early early next week, we'll have more information on that. I'm sorry, is that I'm sorry? council person who don't go.
Yes. I wasn't sure if I can interject in between. Please, please stand up. I
don't know. We'll figure it out.
Go ahead. Sorry, Mayor.
Just going to say I was just going to say let's let's wait till the end of the presentation and then we can go ahead. So just let's all write down whatever notes or comments wait till the end. And then we'll you'll be the first one that I
thank you are to outbreaks with, even though we're online. Okay.
I'm sorry, Mary, I should have asked you what your call was.
Yeah. Let's just go ahead. I prefer to get through the presentation. And then we'll then we'll have questions because we might, a lot of times we get those questions answered.
Okay. Fair enough. Okay, Susan, if you could go to the first slide,
The next slide, please.
Okay, so this is our cumulative cases and information about our cumulative cases. I want to call out a couple facts. At the end of yesterday, which was Monday we had 26 cases. Sunday we had eight Saturday 16th Friday 19th. So as I shared with Harold a few minutes ago, we are in general seeing higher case counts. And you're going to see this as I go through the presentation. And we need to keep a very, very close eye on that. So right now 14.2% of cases are in long term care facilities and we see 77% of deaths from long term care facilities. And that's as of yesterday.
Next slide, please.
This is that kind of confusing slide that is showing if you look at that upper right hand corner, it's showing that seven County area in the metro region
so in terms of raw numbers, you want to look at the red line because that's Boulder County. We are now lower than all but Broomfield and Douglas County. However, as I said, We are still seeing an uptick in cases. Next slide please. So this is our five day rolling average of new cases. So our five day rolling average of cases is about 13.6 cases per day.
Next slide please.
We have some good news on testing. Our current five day average percent positive of people who tested is two points who were tested is 2.4%. And our five day average percent positive is 3.3%. And I'm sorry for that typo. It says on seven one that it number 3.3 is current right now. Next slide please. So this is our five day rolling on covid tests. And again, we see that the percent on positivity has remained steady and is heading downwards. Next slide. The next slide looks at our positive cases per 100,000 by municipality, and you can see that Boulder City is now neck and neck with Longmont in a case rate per 100,000.
Next slide please.
This is a slide I'm sure you've seen a number of times, but it's the age breakdown, the presenting rate per 100,000. So you see a high spike in the 20 to 29 age group. And what we what we would think of is very predictable, the 80 plus category being high as well. Next slide, please. This is our sources of transmission. And we're continuing to see community transmission with limited person to person transmission. And that's typically people among the same household Were a clear source to be identified. And we're also starting to see some cases associated with travel. No surprise since that's the summer. We're in the summer
now. Next slide, please.
So this is showing our racial ethnic breakdown. And in the past 10 days, we're seeing 51% of our cases with a known race and ethnicity being Hispanic Latin x. So this is you know, in Boulder County represents four times the lat next proportion in the Boulder County population. We've been seeing that number go up and that is a great concern to us. So moving on to hospitalizations and deaths.
Next slide please.
You can see that the most significant source the orange is hospital is deaths. The blue is hospitalizations. You can see that and this has been a very thin finding that the most significant age groups are elders for hospitalizations and deaths.
Next slide please.
So current hospitalizations have been trending upward. We've got 15 people hospitalized as of yesterday. We had a higher higher count of people hospitalized last week, but we're continuing to watch that very closely.
Next slide. And just to remind folks that we are currently in safer at home following the governor's orders, stay at home is the most restrictive order and we are we are striving to get to The protect our neighbor, which as you know, is the governor's plan where counties actually have to satisfy and meet certain criteria in order to advance to protect our neighbors. So that criteria was that were tested on if you will, by the state includes or I should say that we have to, you know, submit these results to them include hospital capacity, case counts, testing, case investigation, and contact tracing.
Next slide please.
So out of these protect our neighbor metrics, we have four that are met for that are partially met, and one that is not met. So where we are strong includes sufficient hospital bed capacity, although we keep a very close eye on that sufficient PP supply, sufficient testing capacity and documented strategies to Offer testing to close contacts. So where have we partially met? This would be fewer new cases, the ability to implement case investigation and contract, contact tracing, documented surge capacity plan for case investigation and contact tracing and mitigation and containment plans developed and finalized. So I should say that we are in a very strong hiring phase of trying to get through and hire 10 case investigators right now, this is going to be extremely helpful along with the people we've previously hired. So you know, we're on our road to satisfying a number of those metrics. We have not met the stable or declining COVID hospitalizations to a sufficient percentage yet.
Next slide please.
So these are
Key COVID data resources that help direct you directly to our webpage to the exact pages and sources that are dealing with illness and recovery, the summary dashboard, hospital resource dashboard and the cdphp Cova data. So this can be very useful to bookmark for you.
So that is what I have for tonight.
All right, let's go ahead and tell us where we are referring to slot account question.
Yes. So the first one I had was when you had talked about schools and handling the outbreaks. Though we don't have students we're not doing the hybrid or it or mix in person online. It's full online. However, we do have daycare that is occurring in each of the buildings throughout You know, my biggest concern is and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm St. vrain Valley School District is the largest employer of Longmont residents. And so you know, it does have an impact for the community at large. All right now all teachers are required and I'm not sure of the case for boulder Valley School District, I think it is. The teachers are required to be in the building for to conduct online learning lessons. And we and they are allowed to bring their own children to the classroom. So we do have a mix of daycare students and staff children in the building, along with all staff. So is there anything in place right now how to mitigate or handle outbreaks?
In the event that does you know, God forbid that does happen. Have they explain that
to you when That plan is.
So you know, we have our regular
what, you know, we if we feel sick how we go in. I was just wondering from your you know, so we've been, we're still right now with we're going back and we're getting our training. I had some meetings today and we have more tomorrow and the day after. So I was just wondering what the county, okay. stipulated. All right. So I
think that the best thing I could say is providing that interim guidance just as soon as we get it, because it is going to address those issues. And it sounds like even though you don't have the kids coming back that you have other situations involving people's kids, the daycare, I'm listening to what you've said. So you're just wondering what the if there is a recommended protocol or guidance for that. So I will We'll find out and I will raise that question with our community mitigation folks that deal with education. And on the metro Denver partnership for health call, which is tomorrow.
Okay. Okay. And then the other piece is has there been any projections? So as we start opening up more and more facilities, has there been a projection on? Okay, we anticipate so many more cases or so many more hospitalizations? Has there been any dialogue or discussion around that?
Um, the biggest fact that I would have on that as the modeling from the Colorado School of Public Health, Colorado School of Public Health, just as a couple weeks ago, they found that our percentage of social distancing was in the like 41%. And they projected if we keep that up, we're going to be at a potential surge capacity by labor. De. And then just in the last few days, that number has improved to around 70 71%. And we think that, you know, no one has a crystal ball here. But that may have been predicated or encouraged by the state mask order, people got very serious about wearing masks, and we've heard that anecdotally, all over the state. But as the state epidemiologist said, she said, I can't get real excited about this 71% number, because as you can see, even from the data that Jeff and I have presented, things go up and down, and we have to keep monitoring on a very, very frequent basis. So the other thing I would say is no, we don't have like if this than that, if that then this, you know, some kind of, you know, very mathematical formula right now that's very specific to our community. But what I would say is, you know, we're very concerned about this confluence of factors, you know, the return have bvsd the return of st frame, eventually, cu is coming back next week. And then shortly after we've got the flu season starting. So Jeff and the team at public health are monitoring data and I presented a selection of slides for you. Not the whole we have other other slides and other data that we're monitoring on a daily basis. So we'll just be keeping in touch with you and we have a you know, a direct line to to Harold to talk about developments that both of us are saying,
Okay, thank you and then he is more towards Harold. Um, and you know, if you've already sent it to us, I'm I apologize, but the links that she had shared for the other data resources,
those are in the maracas lenses to make sure that she sends that in at it. Um, the other thing I would add to what Susan said, based on when you heard the Surgeon General say this yesterday, there's three things that really hitting on wearing masks socially distancing and washing your hands. And the data is now really starting to show that if we do those three things, those are really powerful. And so I think on the modeling question, at least my conversations that I've had with folks, it's really how well we do in terms of what the model will look like, and so hast is there but you want to really look at how well we adopt those three principles in terms of how that can adjust the model. Okay, that accuracy isn't.
Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up, Harold, because Jeff and I were just sharing that a couple of studies on masks have also indicated that where government is stepping in and saying, look, folks, you have to wear masks, that we are seeing better results, and we've seen better compliance in Colorado as a result of that. But we'll just we'll have to keep a very close eye on this. I'm sorry. There's another question
mark. Let's move on.
Thank you Mayor Bagley. This is my bad because I got interested in considering the areas of attainment and partial attainment and I completely missed what was our area of non attainment.
Oh, okay, hold on
our area of nonattainment I think was the Hang on.
It was the stable or declining
longing that you're seeing. It's the up and down.
Are there any other questions for Susan?
Okay, now, the next update that we wanted to give you all and Susan, you're free to go or you can listen to Roberta's because it's about the meeting. We're going To set up the camera, you can turn the camera on the next update, Roberta Luna, Roberto, you want to go and turn your camera on. So you've heard us talk about the work that we're doing in our wastewater system in what we've called the bio bot testing. And there's an item today in terms of the work that we're going to do with CSU. And I've asked for Berto to talk to council about this, because what's happening is we're actually now scheduling a meeting with Jeff and Susan in Boulder County Health staff, to then take our data and take Roberta's data and start seeing where we can see if there's connections because this data really is probably a true leading indicator. Roberta, take it away.
Can you mute yourself? There you go.
Thank you, Harold. Mayor Bagley, members of council Good evening from our water quality laboratory supervisor with the business environmental services in the public works and Natural Resources Department. I'll be presenting information on an ongoing project for monitoring the covid virus in wastewater.
Susan, can you start the presentation?
Back in March of this year, a company named bio bot sent out a invitation national invitation to wastewater treatment plants, asking them to participate in a program to monitor wastewater for the virus that causes COVID-19. This project was based upon research that had been done in Australia and the Netherlands. That indicated two things One was that you could find the presence of the virus or detect the presence of the virus in wastewater. And the second one, which I think was particularly interesting was the Netherlands. Research indicated that you could detect the virus days prior to the first clinically confirmed case of COVID-19. The city Aloma was not selected for the first round of testing. But we were selected for the second round of testing. That second round of testing started in May. And there were approximately 400 wastewater treatment plants throughout the United States that were participating in this study. Basically, it involved sampling the wastewater entering the wastewater treatment plant once a week and sending that sample to biobank for analysis of the covid 19 virus. Next slide, Susan. By obod really experienced a tremendous increase in its demand in the demand for its services. And it was over capacity. And this was really more clearly demonstrated by the fact that it was taking over a week for us to get results. The second incident that happened was bio body increase its price by tenfold. There are several Front Range wastewater utilities that were participating in this project with bio bought. They did, they did not think this was a viable path forward. So 17 front raids utilities, including the city, Aloma. And the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment collaborated and putting together a proposal for monitoring doing wastewater surveillance of the covid 19 virus monitoring for the COVID virus in wastewater. The 17 utilities represent over 3 million people in Colorado or approximately 60% of the population in Colorado. The proposal itself includes the services of a epidemiologist that is going to help with the interpretation of the data. Federal funding to the extent of $520,000 was approved. And the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is working on finalizing the work plan. And we believe it'll be completed in a couple of weeks.
Next slide, Susan.
The project with
the Front Range collaboration involves a sampling of the wastewater entering the wastewater treatment plant twice a week for one year. The analysis will be done by the Colorado State University laboratory with a three day turnaround which is fantastic are prize for this is in kind contribution, that in kind contribution is in the form of us doing the sampling and us shipping the sample to the Colorado State University laboratory. Our participation in this project is going to result in consistent generation and use of the data, consistent public messaging and provide comprehensive state wide information regarding the covid 19 virus. We'll, we'll be returning in a couple of weeks, a few weeks with an IGA for approval of an IGA
short presentation. If you thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer
but I don't see any thank you very much creative, very scientific based way of tracking The virus, appreciate your work.
So Roberto actually caught me I got my meetings mixed up, it is on the 25th. We're bringing this so good catch, Roberto. And I think the value is we're seeing the results now, but the delay in the testing, actually, it's hard for us to figure out what's going on. The real value in this is twice a week and the three day turnaround, which really when you then couple that with the case data, when you can start overlaying it, you can see, I hope, some really interesting perspectives, to be very clear, and many people will talk about this as being a way to determine how many cases you have in a community. The science isn't there for that, and Roberto has drilled that in my head, it's really good. Just look at the prevalence in the system to understand maybe what's coming at you in the future. And as we start entering into this and getting more data to his point, we'll have an epidemiologist working with this and we can share with you all, and it'll be more timely in terms of looking to the future. The next thing I wanted to update you all on and this is actually really good news. I've got to find the email on this. Make sure I get all my facts correct. But as you all know the council voted to to do the tokens for the future for the food program for the $25. We actually partnered with a number of groups to get this done. So the Chamber of Commerce operate, agreed to manage the program. We worked with the Tinker mill and they created 200 of those $25 tokens. We then gave those out to the folks that were in the free meal program. This is where I lost Sam these emails where she gave me all the specifics, but the groups that we work with on a normal basis that we assist in with providing food. And the good news is, we're also partnered with about 50 local restaurants and they're starting to report back that they're actually seeing those tokens come into the restaurant. They're really excited about participating in it, and getting really positive feedback from those individuals where we received them. But here's probably the best days. We recently were contacted by two apartment complex. And they indicated that they wanted to figure out how they could purchase those tokens so that they could give them to their residents. And I think that's really the positive side to this story is where you're actually seeing, you know, private businesses in our community saying we really liked this idea that the council developed and implemented and we want to be public Have it so I wanted to share that with you all. Because that's what you like to see when you when you do these types of things is really getting the public to be involved in supporting those, those projects. So that's a bit of good news as as we try some of these things out. That's my update for today. If you have any questions generally about the COVID world, I'll be happy to answer
all we appreciate your updates, so we don't see any hands. So thank you very much. Let's go ahead and move on to first call public invited to be heard.
Did you hear me I said, let's take a three minute break as we wait for people to call in here.
All right. Back Three
All right, everybody, let's go.
Right? How many? How many are in the queue?
If we could wait just another 30 seconds or so please.
Sure. How many are in the queue so far?
We don't have any one at this moment. We're just gonna let the slide come down from the live stream, which takes about another 30 seconds. Sounds good to me. Okay.
I can't remember a council meeting where we didn't have any at least one member of the public.
Speaking they're all happy with us.
All right, the slide just came down from the livestream you may begin.
All right, I mean again or Go on, go on. All right, great. Let's move on to the consent agenda and introduction and reading by title first reading an ordinance of ordinances. Can you go ahead and read that for us not?
I can Mayor I'll need lots of breath. It's a long one tonight. It is. ordinance item nine a is ordinance 2020 dash 30. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2020. public hearing and second reading scheduled for August 25 2029 V is ordinance 2020 dash 31. A bill for an ordinance amending titles 4.0 4.0 4.05 and 6.08 of the Longmont municipal code on sales and use tax largest tax and retail business licenses and creating a new code section 4.0 4.105 for the purpose of enacting the Colorado municipal League's model ordinance on economic Nexus and market Please facilitators for self collecting homeroom municipalities as part of a statewide sales tax simplification effort, public hearing and second readings scheduled for August 25 2029. It is ordinance 2020 dash 32 a bill for an ordinance amending title 6.08 of the Longmont municipal code, and retail business license. public hearing and second readings scheduled for August 25 2019 is ordinance 2020 dash 33. A bill for an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the city of Longmont, Colorado, at a special municipal election to be held on November 3 2020. And amendment to the city of Longmont Homeworld charter to allow for the lease of city property for up to 30 years. public hearing and second readings scheduled for August 25 2029 is resolution 2020 dash 69 a resolution of the Longmont city council calling a special municipal election to be held Tuesday November 3 2020. Concerning issuing bonds payable from the city's water utilities, enterprise revenues, to finance water capital projects and an amendment to the city along my home rule charter to allow leases of city property for up to 30 years. Nine F is resolution 2020 dash 70 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for the conduct and administration of the 2020 general election to be held. November 3 2029 G is resolution 2020 dash 71 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and weld county for the conduct and coordination of November 3 2020. election. Nine H's resolution 2020 dash 72 a resolution of the Longmont City Council's submitting a ballot question to the registered electors of the city of Longmont, Colorado, at a special municipal election be held November 3 2020. Concerning issuing bonds payable from the city's water utility enterprise revenues to finance water capital projects. Nine is resolution 2020 dash 73 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the amendment to an intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont, Colorado Department of Human Services Office of Behavioral Health for a grant to support the Longmont public safety LEAD program. Resolution 2020 dash 74 resolution of the Longmont city council approving the amendment to intergovernmental agreement between the city along mountain Colorado Department of Human Services. Office of Behavioral Health for a grant to support the Longmont public safety, crisis outreach response and engagement team core team. Nine K resolution 2075. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and the Colorado Department of Public Safety for the emergency management performance grant. Now is resolution 2020 dash 76. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the project partnership intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and Department of the Army for the st brain Creek flood risk management project under Section 2059 M is resolution 2020 dash 77 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the First Amendment to the fiber use license intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and Platte River Power Authority. Nine n is resolution 2020 day 78 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving a vinyl 30 alternative agreement for the spoke apartments as satisfaction of the city's inclusionary housing requirements, and nine oh is approved loan term extension request from the Longmont Housing Development Corporation on their overcrossing land purchase loan. Few
All right. Customer Martin.
I move the consent agenda.
I'll second it.
Mayor, I apologize in your script staff would like to remove nine in for the for a presentation.
Oh, okay. I'm okay, we can do that. That's fine. I'd like waters.
Can we remove item nine?
Oh, as well. I have a question about the length of that extension. I think there were a couple of options. So
I'm going to take the motion as being moving the motions to move the consent agenda less n and o and must as an Objection. All right, all in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously and we've got a I've got my my phone has kind of blown up at least by two people. Can we just can we double check? So there are two members of the public and they're both saying the same thing. They said
it says that
when they tried calling in for public invited, first call public invited to be heard, the system was telling them the meeting is not started yet. And they call back later, if that makes sense.
Councillor Christianson? Yeah, I just got an email with the same message. So there's something wrong. So could we could we look at that Susan, and then take a brief moment and I'd like to go back before we move on to the items on second reading and an item and an O I'd like to have that public first cosmere
Give me one minute.
Let me just double check that our meeting ideas correct. Okay.
May or so it does look like we displayed an incorrect meeting ID and that's why they weren't able to join us.
Okay, do that I'm going to go ahead let's go ahead and go back a minute. Open up, first call public invited to be heard. And we apologize to those members of the public looking to get in. So, so happy to know that people aren't all happy with the job we're doing. Let's go ahead and take another three minute break as people call and get in the queue. And if you can't get McHugh, those of you who texted me and those of you who texted or emailed Councilmember Christiansen if you could reach out to us if it's not working, we'll fix it. So. All right, great. Then we'll be back in three minutes.
I am being told it's working now so that's good.
The colors are coming in Mayor so looks like it's working
Alright, let's go ahead and
start then let's go ahead and close the colon line. How many do we have in the queue? At least three.
Merritt's telling me nine, but I'm gonna learn okay. All Cool, let's go for it.
Those of you who are in the queue all go ahead and you're gonna have three minutes to present at which time I'll have to cut you off no matter how awesome your your statement.
Our first caller to be unmuted your phone number ends in 353.
I'm going to ask you to unmute.
Color 353 can you
unmute I'm having a hard time unmuting you
let's go. Let's come back to them. Let's go on to the next one.
The next caller your phone number ends in 370. I'm going to ask you to unmute
I'm wondering if our system is still not failing, or something is not working.
Yeah, I'm not sure mayor, let's try again. Call it a 370.
Can you unmute yourself?
Hello, can you hear me?
Hello there. Oh my three. David. Yes, you may be getting fat Yeah. Okay.
My name is Pat Davis 1709 Harvard street Longmont, Mayor and members of the city council. I wish to seek to the bill amending chapter four dot 10 of the Longmont municipal code on special districts policies and procedures. I asked you to vote yes on this bill. I understand that a yes vote will reinstate the previous ordinance as amended in 2012. Thus rescinding the current ordinance approved in February. 90 that allowed for residential Metro districts. However, I am confused about one area that may be a part of tonight's bill. Did the council approve of changes in language to this bill changes that are now identified as amendments 12346 and 10. I went back over previous meetings and I could never find a time where you had actually voted approval of these amendments. I don't believe they're necessary and we'd like to see them eliminated. Regardless, this discussion has gone on way too long, almost a year and five months now. It is time to wrap it up and lock in the ordinance of 2012. There are many other important issues that have taken a backseat to this subject and it is past time to move forward. Thank you so much.
She was Davis right next.
The next caller we're going to try again is 370 I'm going to ask you to unmute.
Can you unmute your phone?
All right, let's, let's keep let's just keep if they don't answer immediately, let's just keep rotating to the end.
Okay? caller 470 I'm going to ask you to unmute
for 700 There you go.
Hello. Hello. I was connected.
Yes, we are, you may begin. Please state your name.
This is Michael belmond at 841 tenacity drive. Greetings all and thanks for the opportunity to address Council. I understand that. At the upcoming August 25 council meeting you will be deciding on whether or not to renew the contract with Detlev helmig. For air monitoring at Union and long lead airport. This monitoring is has been never really been more important. As you know, our air quality has been showing spikes in dangerous ozone levels triggered by pollutants such as vo CS as well as other compounds extremely destructive to human health. So please consider the following. We have consistently received an F rating from the American Lung Association for air quality in our area in recent years. In order to hope to correct this we must have a thorough understanding of the trends sources and causes of these unacceptable levels which can only be determined by persistent monitoring with the best available equipment and expertise. I believe you initially conducted several community presentations around monitoring and Detlev made a couple of presentations to Council, after which you recognize the community support as well as the importance and timeliness of air monitoring when this a year ago or so. It is my understanding that We now own the expensive equipment that is required to continue air monitoring. So it would not make sense to simply abandon that equipment at this most critical time. Now, some may say that we can save money by not properly and accurately monitoring our air. But I say that degrading air quality unchecked has been widely proven to trigger massive increases in the cost of health care from the devastating physical harm it wreaks upon local communities. And finally, if we cannot show that we care about failing air quality in our potentially failing air quality in our community, and that we are resolute about monitoring and improving it, how many desirable businesses that otherwise would consider locating in and around Longmont will decline to do so. Because of our negligence around one of the most important quality of life factors. plein air. I need to not reiterate what is now known Among us the extensive resume of Detlev helmet, expertise and experience as one of the country's finest, most respected scientists in Atmospheric Research. Thus, I urge you to vote to renew the contract with him at the August 25. Council meeting to continue the critical, important monitoring of our air quality. Thanks so much.
Our next guest, your phone number ends in 777. I'm going to ask you to unmute
caller 777 There you go.
Can you hear me? We sure can you maybe?
Yes. Good evening. My name is Amy Melendez. I'm a fifth 43 South Kaufman, and thank you for the opportunity for letting us speak. We are calling on the street that have been there since 1981. But, and there with
them making us now with the light going in, up on pace. and South coffin, we're sitting a lot seeing a lot of traffic that's coming through and it's just our community is, is now mostly there's families that have have children and we're starting to see a lot a lot of traffic, a lot of speeding a lot of vehicles. And we'd like to see if we can get that looked at and and see if we can do something to slow that down or not have that have the high speed. You know the amount of cars that go through there so
that that's what we're hoping we can get done. If the council will look at that for us, please.
Thank you very much.
Our next caller, your phone number ends in 795. I'm going to ask you to unmute
Hello, can you hear me? I sure can. You may be good. All right, this. This is Meghan Williams 1213 spruce Avenue. I'm here counsel and Karen Roni and Nancy curve to ask you to look at in increasing the access to the library, there is a very large sign that hangs on the outside of the library that states because access equals opportunity. I do not think that our library is currently providing that access, especially to our more vulnerable populations. Next week, parents will once again be forced to play Much more intensive role in the education of their children. All of this, while providing nearly no access to the public library for a working parent. Our library is currently open 10 to four Monday through Saturday for curbside and limited insight services, with the kids and teens section only open from 10 to one with a limit of only 10 people inside. This provides virtually no opportunity for a two parent working household to access materials for their kids. I'm an educator, my own two kids, sixth and ninth grade will be at home all day on their own doing online school while I am in the school building, teaching other kids trying to teach them keep them excited, engaged and motivated about learning proved to be very challenging in the spring, especially without the resources of our library. Thank goodness private entities in our communities like they used bookstores and little free libraries existed to help get material out done a search of the libraries in our surrounding communities like Loveland, Erie carbon Valley, Fort Collins, Boulder and Greeley, the Longmont library has the least access of any of the surrounding libraries. I feel as though everyone should have ample access to the library, especially given the fact that I'm still paying taxes for the services, perhaps at the library and their staff are in danger of losing their jobs and having to shut down like our local retailers and use bookstores where they would be in more of a hurry to increase usership and access. Please expand hours so that more people can access our awesome library. I think there are plenty of ways that our library can still prioritize safety and expand access for more people, just like our private retailers have had to do. Our kids are going to be asked to once again sit in front of screens for the majority of their days this fall. I would love for them to be able to engage in a written book, the only opportunity to get the materials currently for a work A daytime parent is on Saturday from 10 to one with 10 people at a time. If each person, let's say is in the library for 30 minutes, that only allows for approximately 60 people a week to access the kids and teens section outside of average working hours. Once again, please consider expanding the library hours to provide more access for our entire community, especially our families with children. Thank you so much for your time.
Our next caller, your phone number ends in 932. I'm going to ask you to unmute 932.
All right, I'm going to go on to the next caller. Your last three digits of your phone number ends in 616. I'm going to ask you to unmute 616
It's probably best that you stop the livestream.
Oh, okay, I will do that.
Okay. Yes, this is Linda schlocky. I'm at 2307 Sherry Mar Street. And I would like you to please bring to a vote to show that we would no longer have special residential Metro districts in our community. When I attended the Colorado real estate school my instructor was not was also a real estate attorney. And he set Fred for us to be aware of Special Metro residential districts because they could be a real financial problem for homeowners and homebuyers. And just recently I talked to a friend out of Firestone who lives in one of those districts. They sold her the house a couple years ago, emphasizing that there would be no homeowners association. However, after she purchased the house, she discovered realize that she was paying all these fees are taxes to the developer or owner of the metro district without having a vote on it and without having much say as to where it goes. Not so long ago, an investigative reporter for the Denver Post pointed out there are numerous problems with special Metro residential districts in the state of Colorado. My friend in Firestone and her neighbors are trying to find a way to change it. But unfortunately, it's going to be very difficult under Colorado law. For the most part, these special districts have not been an advantage to the homeowners, homebuyers, or the community at large. Thank you for your consideration of of that issue. I think our community would be better without special Metro districts. Thank you.
All right. Our next caller is 927927. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Can you hear me?
If you're listening to the live stream, it's probably best that you turn the live stream off and just listen Your phone looks like you're unmuted. Do you hear me?
Yes, I can. Can you hear me?
We sure can. You may begin.
Hi, my name is Laura Hinton I live at 1242 Jetson Street. I was going to speak to the Municipal District. But I asked for your yes vote and that's that. I won't go on with that. But during the meet during previous times, you said the statewide band and mass is due to expire. I would like the city to put in a city wide band on mask. I believe that is possible. I'm not sure but I believe it's possible. And you opened up Main Street And they are not the restaurants are not following the guidelines and keeping the table six feet apart. I have I'm old and I have COPD. I have been stuck in this damn house since March. And it just really annoys me. I am doing my part. And I do not think the console has gotten tough enough on gatherings and masking. excetera and I'm speaking to the woman who talked about the library. If I can I will give my telephone number and I would like her to call me there are ways you can access the catalog online and they will deliver the books to your car. I do not think we should put the librarian at risk because of children. I mean, they need to be educated. But there are other ways to get the books. If you have the title, you can go online and put a whole van and drive up to the library and they will bring the books to your car. And I really
took umbrage to her
saying things about the librarian. They work their tails off. And it's not the librarians that set the rules for the library. It's the council. Thank you. Stay well. Stay happy. And I'm sorry, I sounded like a crutch man.
All right, our next guest
we're gonna try 370 again, you should be able to unmute your phone Your phone number ends in 370. Can you hear me?
There you are Jim Gibson. Can you hear me?
We sure can. Thank you, you may begin.
Good evening, my name is Jim Denver. I'm with a group called citizens for Metropolitan District reform. It's a group of Metro district, homeowners and other concerned citizens around the state. Currently in most states until the 1980s. In Colorado, the cost of infrastructure for a new residential community has been paid for with the cost of the lot. The cost of the lot equals the cost of the land, the cost of the housing, the cost of the infrastructure and profit for the developer. And often the average cost of the infrastructure has been about $30,000 a lot including profit to the developer. In the 1980s, developers in Colorado persuaded the state legislature to enable them to create and run a separate government As you all well know about, it's called a metro district. Why? Because Metro districts allowed developers to shift the risk of their investment from themselves to the homeowners. The developer creates and runs what becomes in effect a private government. The developer eliminates the right of the residents to vote on future taxes and bond debt. The developer decides how much to tax the residents, the developer takes that tax and pays it to himself. All the while there's no accountability the residents for how the money is actually spent. The development community claims it needs the money to pay for infrastructure, but the cost of the lots is just as high as it was before Metro districts, and the developers refused to again, account for how the money is spent. The end result is disasters for homeowners. Metro district taxes are much higher than non metric district taxes for the same house and infrastructure. Homeowners lose control over their financial future because they're stripped of their rights to control their time. taxes and debt. In some cases, district residents have become like credit card holders who cannot make their minimum payments, not able to even keep up with the interest on their debt. The debt just continues to grow and grow over time. Homeowners must also pay for the additional costs of lawyers accountants engineers of management companies to run metric districts with no real added value to the community. Importantly, homeowner tolerance for other taxes becomes exhausted. After paying higher taxes and fees residents are unwilling to pay more taxes for other important priorities like police, roads, schools, mental health, etc. As we know there's only so much taxes taxpayers will pay. Finally, cities and counties have to pay for additional staffing costs if they're to responsibly oversee metric district financial governance. City Council members please restore long months ban on residential Metro districts. Thank you very much. much for your time this evening. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
All right, was that the last one?
No mare we have two more.
All right, let's keep going.
The next caller, I'm going to unmute your caller 932932 or the last three digits. Can you unmute yourself? There you go. Okay, can you hear me? We sure can. Okay.
I'm Carolyn towers. I live at 1534 South Kauffman Street. That evening there Begley and the councilmembers. I was speaking once again tonight regarding the traffic signal being placed at the intersection of pike road and South Kauffman Street. I along with many residents along coffee street have concerns about the placement of the signal. There are many questions for the staff are unwilling or unable to answer relating to how this decision made, as it is disregarding a number of local, state and federal guidelines, requiring many exceptions to the code. Indeed, it goes against much of the Envision Longmont growth plan in both retaining the roadway characteristics by functional classification, minimizing risks to the health and safety of residents and existing neighborhoods. And by protecting the distinct character and quality of life of existing community, there is not another traffic signal in the city at the intersection of a local residential street. After weeks of communicating with city staff and not receiving adequate answers, our street is now listed on the traffic mitigation website collector street prioritization list. The city staff told us several times that the signal would not change the functional classification of our level, our local residential street. The city made the changes to the pipe road improvement project without allowing the public and appropriate chance to comment. The changes were made because of a few local residents in the area without informing the residents that will be most affected by this change. In fact, there were meetings in which our neighborhood specifically were not invited to. We have residents that need to access their properties in which their driveways are just 20 yards from the future traffic signal. Just busy The street is a busy bicycle connector between the local trail and the st. Brain Greenway. We have 25 to 30 children growing up on the street, which most of which are under the age of 10. There are 28 households that will directly experience increase through traffic due to this traffic signal, which legitimising our street as a true Street and another 62 households living on the side streets whose children also utilize our street to travel to school and visit friends and neighbors. The street should not be a cut through for other neighborhood residents and people commuting into town. I am asking the council to please look into this matter and to help our neighborhood understand why so many codes were discarded, disregarded, and why we were left out of these discussions. Thank you for your time. And I'm also against the district. I don't like that idea at all, the metro district. So I just thought I'd throw that up here and have a good evening. Thank you.
Our last caller, your only identified as call in user. So I'm going to ask you to unmute. You're the last one. Go ahead and unmute yourself.
I see that you're unmuted. Can you hear us?
Can you say something?
All right, let's go ahead and wrap it up. Sounds like it's might be a fan of numbers. They pulled up.
They muted and then they unmuted one minute there. Can you hear me
Can you hear me? I? Sure.
Yes, we can hear you now in.
Perfect Thank you. This is Laurie Stanley at 1016 Long's peak Avenue. And I am calling regarding the issue of the five foot setback. And I think Councilman waters and Mayor Bagley for bringing back the issue of the five foot setback specifically related to the ad u which is an accessory dwelling unit. And specifically this neighborhood of Old Town and which is a single family neighborhood. And a few years ago, it was the rules or regulations were changed so that the sides that back in this neighborhood was five feet and didn't not require a variance. So any building, needing a five foot setback in our opinion should need a variance to allow neighborhood input prior to the permit being issued. The the regulation passed if A few years ago, making it so that a five foot setback was no longer needed, has caused hardship in this neighborhood, which is single family old houses with large trees and limited access from the street. And a very large ad was permitted five feet from our back fence and impacts five to six houses, not counting the kitty corner houses from their yard. So no neighborhood impact or input was allowed, even though I specifically called several times ahead of time, but when we saw that he was considering building something, so it's caused undue hardship for our neighborhood. There's two more potential ad use and the works within one block of here. And so I asked that you urgently consider to make a variance required for a five foot setback. And I know there's been concerned that there's not city staff to handle the number of variances that would need To be issued, but it really does impact our neighborhood. And if you would like to see a negative impact, you're welcome to come knock on my door and see through our backyard. I know the argument has also been made that we need more affordable housing. And I don't think in our it doesn't have anything to do with affordable housing when they're charging 1600 dollars, at least for a 900 square foot house. So if you would, please urgently consider this. I would appreciate it. Thank you for your time and for all your hard work.
All right. Was that it? Yes, Mayor.
All right, so we caught that mistake. Now. Let's move on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. Let's go ahead with or item 10 A ordinance 20 2011. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 4.10 the Longmont municipal code on special districts districts policies and procedures Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Rodriguez, we're gonna go with you.
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, thank you for the opportunity to speak real quick on what has unfortunately become somewhat of a wedge issue for city council. I don't know if that's so much the case for our residents of Longmont. Anyway, I would just at this time like to give a brief statement, and then followed by emotion. So just a quick history of the conversation. The November 2017 to November 2019. City Council changed city code to allow for residential Metro districts in a split vote, I believe at the time was four to three. Then an election happened in 2019. And the city council revisited the item with I believe, somewhat similar split vote, bringing a motion to I guess, bring us back in time to the 2012. ordinance, saying that residential Metro districts were only allowable in the case of a mixed use development. So as you can see, the council's both last Council and this council have had very different views on the subject.
as somebody who spent a decent amount of time calling all of the various council members and trying to see if there's any way we come to a consensus of compromise on the issue, I just am not convinced at this time that there's any but any way to move any of our council members, my fellow colleagues off of their particular viewpoints concerning Metro districts, and so it kind of brings me to the point that things can change the 2017 2019 Council changed the law. This Council is essentially probably set up to change it again. And my guess is that depending on how the election goes in 2021 next year, there's a possibility could change again. So I hope nobody feels that on whichever side of the argument you fall on that this is a permanent solution one way or another, which actually brings me to the statements made by Councilmember Martin in the media. From I believe the times column. At least, that was the one that I read, stating that these ordinances are likely outdated. I think Councilmember Martin is probably correct, that both the allowance for Metro districts as it stands as well as what we're about to likely vote on, are probably both outdated once we come to this point. pandemic, once we see what the actual challenges are facing long run, knowing that this is all going to change, it's very likely that numbers could change in many different ways. And so it's possible and likely that both ordinances will be outdated, at which point, I hope that whoever sitting on council makes the right insane choice to continue to address what I'm only assuming will not just be a long term problem, but a Colorado problem in general addressing affordable and attainable housing. I'm hoping that my fellow colleagues will recognize that we've pretty much discussed this ad nauseum for a couple years now. And we're probably all well aware of each other's points. And I I don't feel that any council member is being disingenuous or nefarious in their points of view, we all just have, in my opinion,
different best interests
at heart for what's best for long line. And I don't think that's a shortcoming in anybody's character.
I'm not here to castigate anybody's point of view on the issue. Rather, just to acknowledge that we're not going to agree, and that we should just come up with some closure on the issue until potentially another council decides to bring it back up again. With that I move to approve ordinance 20 2011. Thank you. Again.
I'm going to go ahead and call the question. So it's not debatable. We're going to vote on it. If five of us vote to vote on the motion without debate. We can do it. All in favor? It hasn't been seconded, so it doesn't really matter. Second.
Okay, so it's been moved by myself and seconded by Councilmember Rodriguez. All in favor of just voting without debate say aye. Aye.
Those opposed say nay.
All right, you're going to have to take it. I'm gonna have to take a hand in the airboat. Okay. Raise your hand if you call the question. I. Okay, the motion pattern name was Dr. Walters and Councilmember Martin. So the eyes have habit. It's a super majority. So debate ends. Let's go ahead and vote on the motion. All in favor of Councilmember Rodriguez. Go ahead. Councilman Rodriguez.
Now getting ready to vote.
Okay. All in favor the motion of passing ordinance 20 2020. ordinance. 2020 dash 11. say aye.
Opposed say nay.
Hey, I want to raise the point of order.
Okay, hold on one second. So I have it five to to do that in with counsel Dr. waters and counselor Martin opposing. Go ahead. Dr. Waters.
I I'm curious why we didn't have a public hearing on this
wasn't it's a public hearing.
You know what? You're absolutely right. Dr. Waters. I was so anxious to avoid the vitriol and the discontent that I forgot. So we're going to actually go ahead and open it up for public hearing at this time. And if there's no is there so we
have a vote that's already been taken
before? No, no, here. There's no there's no there. If there is a public hearing, we will revote. That is absolutely true. You're spot on. So how many people are in the queue for public hearing? Actually, let's go ahead and take a three minute break. And we'll come back. Thank you, Dr. Waters.
We're not back to break yet how many people are in
Marin Seeing no one at this moment and we're about a minute and a half in
All right, let's give it another 60 seconds so about
30 seconds on the delay will bring us at about four minutes
Man, we have two callers when you're ready.
All right, let's go. Let's go ahead and come back.
And we're going to go ahead, but we have to revote because Dr. Waters is correct. So with
that I can call the quit and call the question we can't do is skip the public hearing. So we'll have to go ahead and revoke that vote was out of order. So let's go ahead and start and open the public hearing at this time on ordinance 2020 dash 11. And can we just take it in the order that callers called in place?
Yes, ma'am. The first caller, timeout timeout.
Let's wait till Councilmember waters is back.
Mayor he appears to be ready.
Alright, let's go ahead.
First caller, I'm going to unmute your phone number ends in 353. I'm going to ask you to unmute
353. Can you unmute?
Can you hear me? I sure can you know this. You may be getting paid.
I'm not quite sure. But I would I'm just calling in to support the vote of council members Rodriguez. I'm sorry. This is Pat Davis. 1709 Harvard. I'm calling in to support the vote of council members, Rodriguez Peck, Hidalgo, fairing and Christiansen on this and I can't Whatever the number as you explained it on the agenda, but it relates to the 2012 ordinance going back to the 2012 ordinance, is that correct?
Okay. So I'm not sure Anyway, what else I can say except I support those members who voted. Yes. So thank you very much. Thank you.
All right, the next,
the next caller, your phone number ends in nine to seven. I'm going to ask you to unmute
nine to seven
I believe that Okay.
Yes, I received. Yes, you may.
This is morally Hinton again, and I support going back To the original ordinance, the 2017 I believe ordinance
Do I have to say more? Is that it?
That's all you got to say. That's all you got to say if that's all you want to say.
Oh, okay. Thank you, man.
Thank you. Thank you literally
that was the last one.
All right, so we're gonna have three vote counts for Martin.
We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this time. And then there's there was a we have to revote on the matter. But go ahead, Counselor Martin.
Well, can we how far back do we have to start I also would like to introduce a motion
All right. Well, there's a we we called the question and we voted on it. And so
No, I was there when that happened to me or Begley. But that was out of order. Because you hadn't had The public hearing we have to call on on Aaron and does he have to make a statement again? Or does he have to make his motion again? I think he does have to make his motion again.
No. We just can't vote on the motion until we have a public hearing. But go ahead, Counselor man.
Oh, if you're not going to let me introduce an emotion of my own, then it isn't worth my making the statement either. I have other outlets. Thank you. Okay. All right.
So let's go ahead and let's go ahead and vote the motion submitted by Tulsa airports. Mr. regas was a motion to pass ordinance 20 2011 has written a bill for an ordinance amending chapters 4.10 belong misc code on special districts policies and procedures on favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Nay. Hey, all right. So the motion carries five to two with council members Martin in waters against all right tough doubt that that was a easy vote for a very difficult lengthy discussion over the last year plus, so thank you. Alright, let's move on to ordinance 20 2029. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14.5 to Section 14.5 2.030 the llama municipal code on compensation for disposition of open space property. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing and do this one right this time. All right.
Let's go ahead and take three minute break as we open up the phones.
All right, how many of you got
are we gonna wait? Let's wait another 6060 seconds
Susan you have one that needs to be admitted you need to admit them.
I will admit them when the mayor is ready. I'm waiting for the slide to stop displaying on the live stream and then we can begin
All right. Do we have anybody on the line for the public hearing?
Yes, Mayor, we have one caller. I'm gonna.
And I'm ready to begin when you are. Let's go ahead and let's go ahead and start. Okay.
Call her nine to seven. I'm going to unmute you.
Do you hear me? There you go.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have called in. Because I have just a knee jerk opinion. And that shouldn't be how this goes. I'm sorry to have taken your time.
That was the only color mayor.
All right. Let's go ahead and close the public hearing.
Let's go ahead do we have a vote from cat or emotion from council?
Mr. Mayor, Uh huh.
Councilmember customer Rodriguez.
Thank you. I move approval of ordinance 20 2029.
All right. There's motion All in favor of passing ordinance. 20 2029. say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, motion passes unanimously. All right. Let's move on to item in on the consent agenda resolution along with City Council approving a voluntary alternative agreement for the spoke apartments and satisfaction the city's inclusionary housing requirements. city staff has presentation.
In evening mayor and council This is Kathy fetlar. With that housing a Community Investment division and
I will try and keep this as short as possible because it wouldn't
be nice if
we would get get to the point especially on these that it's a stays on consent.
So if you could start the slides, please
go to the next one. So this is for the spoke apartment which is on 518 Kaufman. It is the developers the Boulder County Housing Authority. And this is the voluntary alternative agreement in order to allow them to build affordable rental homes on site. If you remember per our ordinance develops developments of units for rental housing, have to use the alternative agreement under e6 because of the telluride decision in order to be able to move forward and volunteer to provide They're affordable housing, there'll be providing 73 total rental homes. Next slide, please. This just shows the the layout and the proposed look of the building from their site plan. It on the far left side, I guess you can't see my pointer over here. There is the apartments, which are to the north is the six Sixth Avenue Plaza. And then in the middle is in towards the end is the parking garage structure.
And the bottom
perspective shows what it would look like from the I guess you'd say the alley side where you can see that there's three really separate structures. Looking for that on the east. The top picture shows from the west on Coffman Street. Next slide please. This property is falls under the density cap. So only using the 1.17 acres of housing land, times the 20 dwelling units per acre shows that 24 units would have the inclusionary housing applicable to it. So it exempts 49 of the units because of the high level of density that they're achieving. When you apply the inclusionary housing requirement of 12% to the 24 units that are applicable, that's just under three total affordable housing. affordable homes would be required. And the developer is agreeing to provide all 73 of their homes as affordable which is a lot more than the minimum that's required. Excuse me. Next slide please. So again 73 affordable homes 23 of those homes are about 31% are affordable at or below 50% of their immediate income 50 homes or 68% are affordable at or below 60% of the area median income. The units will be half 59 one bedroom units 10 two bedroom units and four three bedroom units Next slide. As usual annual reporting will be required. The property will be deed restricted to provide the 73 affordable homes. This project is convenient to Main Street with access to transportation options. It is across from the st brain hub, which is a one stop place shop for human service needs of all kinds. And, just as reminder, the ltda the city and the county contributed land to this project. Next slide. Some of the unique public public private partnership that this is containing is the structure parking garage will be shared between Boulder County, the DDA, our lat, or properties and the tax credit partnership that we'll be building the housing and a common interest community is formed within the parking garage structure, allocating a certain number of parking spaces to the residential housing and to the non residential parking the commercial space and then at least back option
of the parking to the DDA and in the commercial structure.
So this does address council work plans go v 1.1. Having a diverse housing stock with higher densities, access to high quality public transportation, food and jobs, it exceeds the goal of 12% by providing 100% of the units as affordable. It is increasing our affordable homes by 130 a year, which is our goal by adding 73 affordable homes, and it does sustain our commitment to meeting our 2035 affordable housing goals. Next slide. So if there's any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them or I think Brian Schumacher is also available if you have questions that I cannot answer.
All right, let's go ahead and take it one at a time Councillor Christiansen?
Kevin, I don't really have any questions. I just think this is an excellent project by Boulder County housing services. Housing Authority, I'm sorry. It will give us more parking downtown. You know Give us a lot more affordable housing downtown. It's a it's everything that affordable housing should be. It's a broad range of affordable income levels, and it's on a bus line if we can ever get our transportation improved.
So, anyway, thank you very much.
Kathy, just a quick question in the in the breakdown of the percentage percentage of units, affordable it at 60% in the other levels of affordability. Uh, if we if in our ordinance, we were still at 60% of ami, being the being the requirement in the ordinance to comply with the 50% of ami to comply with our ordinance rather than 60% Would we have would we see these units in this project? Would we see a shift? Would we see 58 units available at 50% of ami, as opposed to 50 at 60% and eight at 50%?
I think what you're asking is that if we shifted our minimum requirement to 50% ami, to be considered affordable under our inclusionary housing ordinance, would we have seen more units available at 50%? ami? Thank you.
My pleasure, that correct?
Question. Um, I would suspect that we would see some more units at 50%. As long as the tax credit allows up to 60% it probably wouldn't have made it like 100% affordable at 50% ami. But I think it definitely would have probably increased A number of 50% units in order to to meet the minimum inclusionary housing requirement and to get the maximum fee waivers and fee offsets. Now, I think sometimes we discount how
that subsidy Khan's contribution is.
Yeah, I'm gonna probably it's too late tonight to ask for ordinances to come back. But that's, that's a change that we need to I advocated for the 60%. I think we've learned enough we ought to move that back to where it was. And, but we'll come back to that later. It's just it plays out pretty vividly in this plan, which I agree with Councilmember Christians and I think this is a great project. I'd like to see more available Is it 50% or below so thank you.
All right, seeing nothing else.
I'm going to go actually go ahead and move on. Resolution 20 2078 resolution along with City Council approving a voluntary alternative grid for the spoke apartments and satisfaction, the city's inclusionary housing requirements.
All right. See no further debate. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Dr. Waters turn the time over to you for the consent agenda. Thanks.
on the open the open up the item.
Kathy, are you the are you the staff member on this one? That is me. In the in the Count's communication, there was a reference to a one or three year extension in among the options or the recommendations. In the recommendation section. There were four possibilities for council action. One wants to extend for a year. One was to extend for three years in there not certain what we would have done it. We passed that on the on the consent agenda would that have been a one year extension or a three year extension?
So I would take it since the recommended option was a three year if you would have passed it on consented it would have been going with the recommended option, but
that's what I wanted to clarify. So I'll move item eight. Oh, with the three year extension.
I think it was nine. Oh,
is that what you meant? Sorry? No, no. Yeah. All right. All right. are the numbers Sorry? Yes. Nine. All
right, approve the loan term extension requests for Aloma housing department Corporation on their overcrossing land purchase loan for for three years specifically? Correct. And there was a second by Councilmember Martin. All right. See no further discussion. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously.
All right, let's move on to
general business housing Human Services Advisory Board recommendations for second quarter 2020, affordable housing funding. staff has a presentation, I believe.
It says me again. So thank you for grouping me all together. Can we pull up the slides, please? This is our second quarter, affordable housing funding application cycle that we went out for starting in Next slide, please. Attend. May I believe it was this is a little bit of background just to ground us again. We had about 2.2 million available for 2020, which was made up of 858,000 from 2019 carry forward a million that's added for the year 20 20 an estimated 137,000 from the marijuana tax for 2020 and an estimated 230,000 in program income for 2020 to make up that 2.25 figure Next slide, please. So what we've allocated so far and affordable housing funding is 1.4 to 5 million 100,000 was allocated for the element pre development cost project hundred thousand for the inbetween property acquisition Project 500,000 for long month family apartments new construction of rental housing 250,000 per senior housing options cinnamon perk, independent rental housing, new construction, and about 475,000 was set aside for fee off estimated fee offsets for the spoke apartments for long month family apartments and for cinnamon Park. This leaves us with a balance available of about 800 Thousand $800. Next slide, please.
On the CDBG funding available that was all allocated in 2020 or in early 2020.
I think it was in February or March, maybe as late as May I don't know. I came back we I know we came back several times on the CDBG funding with the COVID money that was added to it and everything. Anyway, we had about 460,000 available for 2020 competitive applications, and those were allocated to with 160,000 to the in between property acquisition, and 300,000 for Longmont, housing authorities, SM meadows, apartments, refinancing and rehab. And I'll just give a brief update the in between property acquisition they did find a property and are in the process of acquiring it. I think that's a total of 12 units. So that is moving along and the Aspen Meadows refinance project. We are are moving forward with too we expect to have a closing in mid to late September. Next slide please. On the home funding, if you remember we allocated our entire 2021 set aside for Longmont, that is the year that we would get the home consortium funding. So we set aside that for that the spoke apartments for the county's new construction project. And so that's already happened as well. Next slide, please. All right, so we did take applications for affordable housing funds in the April 20 to may 2020 22nd timeframe. We received two applications. One withdrew their application because they were looking for grant funding which isn't available until we get CDBG funds again. And the other one the was requesting home choto funding This is a new term. not new to me. But new to you guys probably we don't talk about it much because we didn't have a choto eligible agency until habitat met the requirements to become one. So a shadow is a Community Housing Development Organization. It is a special eligibility criteria under the Home program. And the benefit to becoming a shodo is that they're 15% of all home funds each year is set aside specifically for Chodos. So if you qualify is that you compete for the that funding in a much narrow or it's a smaller pot of money but it's also only a couple of organizations that are competing for that. So habitat requested $120,000 in total grant for their mountain Brook new construction project. Next slide please. I went through this already has to be proved as a choto 15% is set aside, and you can allocate it as part of your local share public funds. Next slide. So the funding recommendation from the housing and Human Services Advisory Board and the technical review group is to provide 127 $120,000 grant from the city's 2021 funding, it may come from out of the consortiums, 2020 funding the city of Boulder is working out exactly where it's coming from. It'd be considered part of our 2021 funding, and it will help create those eight housing units.
So next slide.
Okay, so this just catches us up on exactly where we stand with the current 2020 funding from all sources. So again, the CDBG funds have been allocated that we had available. There's a zero down at the bottom in that column. The affordable housing fund is showing what we have allocated to date for the project specifically, and then also what we are setting aside for estimated fee offsets, and the blue that goes across the towards the bottom is the new funding that would provide support the mountain Brook project habitats mountain project. So the 93,000 is the estimated amount of the offsets for this project. So we are going ahead and setting those aside. And that's why that is increasing the amount and lowering the amount that's available now. From the affordable housing fund for the rest of 2020. And then we did increase the home funding for 2021 to a total of 860. And we're done with the home funding. There's nothing else we can ring from that that stone. So right now we're looking at carrying in for the fourth quarter application cycle $707,800 in affordable housing funds. Next slide. So there was a lot of discussion, as the housing Advisory Board and the technical review group are considering this project. Whether or not the city should be further subsidizing a nonprofit who is providing the affordable housing on behalf of a for profit developer. So if a developer's fulfilling the inclusionary housing requirement, if the nonprofit still is a developer fulfilling the inclusionary housing requirement as required, if the nonprofit still needs additional city funding to provide the housing above and beyond the fee waivers and fee offsets that everyone is eligible for under the program, so there was discussion around that and Where they ended up was they felt that in this particular instance, without further direction from Council, that the habitat was intending to have the for sale housing prices hit about 55% ami instead of the required 60%. So it'd be an even lower sales price, if they if they can meet it, and they think they can. So that was the compelling reason why they went ahead and are recommending this for funding at this point in time. But what we would like to do is have a discussion around these questions with Council, probably not tonight. So you can think about it a little bit, but we are intending to bring back some proposed inclusionary housing code changes in September, likely the end of September. So we could include it for discussion at that point in time. Otherwise, I am more than happy to answer your questions about this.
All right, thank you very much for your presentation. We really appreciate it. All right, let's move on to final call public invited to be heard. Let's go ahead and take a two minute break, man while we go ahead.
Sorry. I do need a motion if you want to accept the recommendation for funding habitat,
I move that we accept I move that we accept the recommendation. Funding habitat. That's been seconded by Councilmember Duggal fairing, Kazmir Christiansen.
Are you opposed? Yeah, I definitely do want to have a discussion about that. This is
exactly why. Well, we'll have that discussion in the future. But I'm always going to be standing by Habitat for Humanity because they have a long and very good history, but I don't think that this is a particular This is a good project. It's just wrapped into other more difficult things that we need to have simpler things rather than more complicated and fragile things. So anyway, but I'll be voting for this because habitat does an excellent job of providing homes built with sweat equity and with the education of the people who will be living there and with community input, literally with hammers and so they're a great organization.
Alright, kills robeck
badly. Um, I would actually like to have the discussion before we vote on taking a position mainly because I want to know if we are setting a precedent for the for developers, and is the developer actually providing the Is this just land in lieu? This is what I don't quite get, or is it actually the developers affordable housing project? Because if it is the developers giving us that amount, then I think we need to discuss where where do we do going forward if this happens again. Because I, I was always under the assumption that if they gave land in lieu, then whoever built that was responsible for the for the development, so that Habitat for Humanity would be responsible for that. But if in fact, it is still part of the inclusionary housing requirement of the developer, then there's the question of why isn't the developer developing his own affordable housing so
I would like to have the discussion before the balance.
All right, well, there's only discussion if people have things to say either for or against the vote. Councillor Martin?
the question of whether the subsidy is being double dipped is separate, but I don't think there should be any rules against a developer outsourcing part of his obligation to a another developer who has more expertise in in the type of development that is fulfilling the
affordable housing requirement.
Right, Counselor Christiansen.
I don't want to have this kind of Situation come back again ever. We right now they donated some land but and they are going to put in some infrastructure. It's a very small piece of land that could not be really used anyway. And they'll be 24 veterans community project homes and eight
their duplexes I forget that the term now those are
good ideas but both of those entities are paying for that and that's why they need it. That's why habitat needs a subsidy from the city. I don't think that in either case that needs inclusionary housing, it's not a matter of outsourcing it. They're not paying for the cost of the construction or the materials or the labor. And so I don't really understand I've never understood how this mitzie affordable the include.
Alright, we've got a motion on the table and the motion was to accept the housing Human Services Advisory Board recommendation for second quarter of 2020 for housing funding. So let's go ahead and vote All in favor say aye.
All opposed say nay.
All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. All right. Now let's move on to a last call public invited be heard. If we could go ahead and throw up a number. Let's give it two minutes.
Ma'am, I'm gonna give it another 30 seconds so that slide can leave the livestream.
All right, great.
Nobody's in the queue yet, right? We have no one in the queue.
All right, that just cleared our live stream. There's still no one in the queue.
All right, let's go ahead and move on to Marin council comments. Okay, Councillor Christiansen.
I read in the paper today that Connie Stephen died Saturday in an accident in Greenland, but who did? Connie Stephen unmad. Stephen was a co professor, scientist and foremost international expert in the Arctic. Through research, writing, and photography, he probably did more than than anyone alive to inform us about the Arctic, and the damage we're doing to it, and to the rest of the natural world. I worked with him on one of my favorite projects, to publicize his cooperative Institute for Research in environmental studies. He was brilliant. He was funny, and he was utterly gracious. He was that rare human being who absolutely loved what he did is a family has suffered a terrible loss and so we have we I think any Else, whoever met him will also miss him enormously.
All right, Councilmember Rodriguez.
Thank you very badly. Just want to say real quick, I know that we all on occasion, let staff know how much we appreciate all the work that they do. And especially now during these very difficult times in the pandemic, and all the anxiety around social justice and all the, you know, upheaval that's kind of going on in our world these days. But I don't think there's enough that we look at each other and I say to all of you, that I respect you all tremendously. And I'm very proud to serve with all of you. And while we may disagree, and sometimes very emotionally with each other, that I think that we do all have the thing the best, you know, the best intentions for the city of Longmont, and I would hope that anybody's serving in these seats would also have that, I just want to let you all know that I very much appreciate serving with you. I respect you all tremendously. And regardless of disagreements, you know, I hope that we can continue with the next year and change to make really positive changes for the city. So that's all. Thank you.
All right. Anyone else?
Right kills her Martin.
Yes, well, since we are appreciating the staff, um, I just would like to say something about the traffic light at pike and Kaufmann, which is that the number of people who demanded that traffic light was not a vocal few. It was many people who lives in that neighborhood who came to public invited To be heard, for weeks on end, to try to defend the character of their neighborhood. And I will also say that the people of South Moore Park were invited to the same set of meetings, as the people have of prospect, Rainbow Ridge, and Renaissance. And one of the women who wrote to me about this, the stoplight this time around, even said she looked at that invitation and decided not to go. So I just want to remind the public that if you really have the expectation that nothing ever changes in your neighborhood, that you need to take the opportunity of public engagement that the city of Longmont offers you because we work really hard at it and Not everyone can always agree. But if we don't hear from you in time, you may not like the result.
So tell us more buck.
Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Um, just to piggyback on what Councilwoman Marsha Martin said we got an update in our email from jimang stead. And he said the city has no plans to change South Compton street from a local to a collector, the city's document that designates roadway classification, classification, and a change to a roadway classification requires council action. So we have not voted to make that account collector Street, nor has it come before us. So I hope that eases the pain I guess that some of the residents are assuming that will not and is not a collector Street. Thank you.
All right. See nobody else? City Mayor, city manager, Harold.
Anything? Yes. Mayor, do you have a couple of comments on the council members? Did you all have an email from Jim angstadt explaining the issue that came out? shortly after those comments. The other thing I wanted to talk about you also will receive an email from Nancy Carr regarding some of the questions concerning the library. What I can say is I, one of the things I do is I do weekly, WebEx with staff to tell them what's going on. And in that Nancy mentioned that they were evaluating how they look at the library hours in the future. And so they are specifically going to look at children, teen hours and some of the other you know, maybe expanding it more broadly. But the big issue there is and I want everyone to know, when we work with the opening plan on this, we had to work with Boulder County Public Health, in terms of those plans, and there was a tremendous amount of conversations back and forth on that issue in terms of what met the intent of the executive orders. Every library is different in many ways. And so there may be some that have longer hours and maybe have some that have shorter hours. There are a couple of things that come into play in that conversation. One is space and how they operate. And two is the number of staff you have in terms of meeting the requirements within that order. So for example, every one of the conference rooms is full of books because of the distance disinfecting protocol that you have to go through. We've had to move in love lot of staff into that arena to do it. So what I can tell you as she's evaluating that and they will be working with Boulder County Health, but There are many factors that come into play in terms of what we can and can't do. And you'll get a more detailed email on that tomorrow. there's any questions I can answer now I'd be happy to. Other than that, no comments.
All right. Great. Thanks, Eugene.
No comments, Mayor.
Great. Can we have a motion to adjourn? So moved.
All right. I'll second that. All in favor say
All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night.
Good night. We're adjourned.