City Council Regular Session 071420
4:27PM Jul 16, 2020
short term rental
We've just confirmed. Okay.
Mayor, we are ready whenever you are to begin.
Right. So where are we broadcasting?
Yes, we are.
Alright, great. Let's go ahead and call the
Tuesday July 14 2020. regular session to order. We go ahead and start with roll call.
Mayor Bagley here, Councilmember Christiansen
I'll come back to her Councilmember Doug ferry.
Councilmember Martin, here. Councilmember Peck. Oh,
you can't unmute. I see you there. Councilmember Rodriguez
and Councilmember Christiansen is in attendance. just stepped away to wash your face so she should
be right back. Great.
All right, well, council members offering my stories to the pledge, please.
Ready, begin. I pledge
to the flag. Do the recurring,
which for which it stands one nation
God, indivisible with
liberty and justice
I think that was probably the best pledge we've had on on zoom for a while. So
morning pledge with my class.
You, you might be our go to go to person. Alright, so let's go ahead and briefly remind people that anyone wishing to speak during first call public invited to be heard on a public hearing under item nine you will need to watch the live stream of the meeting. There will be these instructions for how to call in to provide comments They will be displayed again, just like they are being now at the appropriate time. Comments are limited to three minutes each. I will be timing and I'll cut you off of his three minute mark, no matter how awesome your comments are terrible. So let's go ahead and move on to item three. Do we have a motion to approve the June 30 2020? regular session?
All right, Councilmember Martin. I'm sorry, Councilmember. Martin, would have made the motion. Dr. Waters seconded it. Is there any debate or changes?
All right. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries six with six of us for and Councilmember Christiansen upset, therefore abstaining. All right, let's go on to Agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items there anything Councillor Peck?
Thank you, Mayor Bagley.
I know that we've been listening Through this before, but I want to revisit a motion we made earlier. And if we do not reconvene in July, in the council chambers, I want to move to direct staff to add the second reading of Metro districts to the first regular session in August.
I'll second that.
All right. It's been moved and seconded.
Any debate or discussion?
All right. Casper waters.
I'm gonna vote against the motion. I think it's a bad idea to get that out ahead of bring people back together again, Unless Unless I unless there's something in the queue. Something to come before us. That's an application for a metro district. And I guess what I wonder what the point is, before we create an opportunity for people to weigh in the second time around people in this case, the public I just don't think there's a need to rush it. So I'll vote against it.
All right, seeing the
I just like to address that council member waters. I don't feel that it's rushing it since it is the second reading. And we have had input since about October or November of 2018. on this issue, so from both sides, from every side, from professionals, from developers, from residents from staff, so that's why I'm making the motion. It is the second reading and I don't feel that we are rushing it. Thank you.
All right, let's go ahead and take the vote.
Or we can keep debating it.
But I would I would recommend Councilmember Martin, Councilmember waters count their votes, but we can keep discussing it. Councilman Martin,
I would just like to say that it seems premature to me because the economy will change And we already know the economy is changing, and it doesn't seem to be
appropriate to make it difficult to amend a situation where,
you know, we just don't know what the needs of the city are going to be in a year. That's all I'm gonna vote against it and I don't care whether it prevails or not. I'm still gonna
vote against it. I call the question.
Yeah, that's not what I meant. Councilmember Martin. I was saying what I was saying is that you had the winning votes for just a few seconds. Welcome back. Councilmember Christiansen I guess we're waters Do you want to say something else?
All right, let's go ahead and there's no further debate on the matter. So let's go ahead and vote All in favor say aye.
Aye. Timeout, timeout,
timeout point order point order calling on myself. All right, Counselor, Christian. Welcome back. While you were gone, there was a motion made by Councilmember pack to bring back the issue on on Metro districts to the first regular session that we're in council chambers. No. What was it again?
We are bringing it back. When according to staff, we should be able to go into council chambers in July, at what point the metro districts would come back. However, given a situation where we cannot because of the virus, I am asking that we bring it back in the first regular session in August.
in case Yeah, in case we can't bring it back in July, I would like us to not keep putting it off.
So, even even if we're on WebEx stellar zoom, exactly. Okay. Anyway, that was moved in second. Councilmember Christiansen
Okay. Yes, I'm in favor of this. We've we've been talking about this since November of last year. We've heard from everybody in the world. developers, we've had special sessions on this. And before that, we talked about it for the previous year. So I do think this is just an up down vote. We're on the second hearing, and it's one of the many, many things that we've been putting off. And I would really like to have a comeback, so I'll be voting for this.
Alright. Let's go and take a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Hey, all right. Motion carries five to two with Councilmember waters and Martin against.
I have another emotion.
Okay. Counselor Peck.
Thank you. I know that we discussed this. At council comments. I think Councilman waters brought it up. But I want to move it forward to direct staff to put the RV safe locks on the August 4 study session agenda.
I would second that.
What What did you just to hear about it gets much better.
Yes to see to ask staff if we can get input from them as to whether they can be ready to bring it back on a regular session. I know that we can't. I'm not sure we're ready to vote on it, but I would like to have an update on it at the study session and an update perhaps from hope who is doing this and see the end if we want to move forward on a regular session,
right. Yep, it does Kazmir waters.
Well, thanks for Begley. I did express concerns about the RV ordinates and, and it's been almost 11 months since we gave direction to staff to bring the the ordinance on RV parking back the council. And I and I said then, and I will say again, I understand why it's been delayed because of the safe flight discussions. But I just need some clarification. It's my understanding that the the homeless proposal did not include armies and the city, whatever, whatever conversation The city has been in, does not include RVs in terms of safe lot. So if I'm mistaken, then I'll then I'll stand corrected. But I think that's what I've heard when we heard these presentations a few months ago. So if, if, if there are no RB save lots in the queue for either hope, or the city, I wonder what we're going to do on a study session.
Councilman waters, thank you for bringing that up. The whole point of the study session from my perspective, is to actually discuss that with the with hope, what they need because they have been mentioning that this is an issue and that is actually why we have some of those special sessions. The Summer of 2018 I think it was and save lives both for Arby's and for cars came up. So I this would be nothing more than a presentation as to where we are from Jeff Sater with RVs because we've all had emails etc. that that that is becoming a big problem again and hope has expressed the need for RV safe loss. So for me it is. It is a presentation as to where are we do we need them? What are they etc.
Well, I would vote I would vote to support your your direction to staff if it was about more than safe locks if it's the ordinance as as part of the discussion where we are with the ordinance but to bring that since we gave direction once upon a time to bring the ordinance back. Certainly safe flights would be good would fold in or spin out have a discussion on the origins but but to discuss Got RBS or I have a presentation Arby's once have been given direction to staff to come back and review the ordinance. I'd rather use that time to read the ordinance and what relationship save lots or we might have in relationship to an ordinance person.
You want to amend the
if you'll accept a friendly amendment that I would amend, or I would move that we amend the motion to include the beginning review of the ordinance and the relationship of whatever we do with the ordinance to safe law or any other container.
Okay, sounds good to me.
I guess I'd second that to
Councilman waters. I I was a little confused about this too, because I believe that hope has been reconsidering this. What what they were doing originally safe lots was going to include some cars and a few Arby's and now They've sort of split off. It's my understanding. And they are opening a park a car only lot, but the safe lot would all would be, I believe for Arby's, which are, as we all know, a continuing problem and so I also was very confused about this and for the last few months
so, yeah, I would support this
Thank you Mayor Begley. Um, I have a question for assistant city manager Marsh, who I believe the last time we discussed this had an idea about leasing land
from the county at the fairgrounds.
Before we set a date for this, should we see what That's gone anywhere, just because you see here.
Mayor Begley and Councilmember Martin, you're correct. We did have that conversation around the opportunity for the Boulder County Fairgrounds RV campground. I think there are some pretty significant limitations on how many days that folks can actually use that facility. But certainly I could speak with Karen Roni and see if we could talk to the county about options for their RV lot over there. And I don't know if we have done that today.
Okay, it'd be great to
have that one. This comes back and if we can know that one way or the other than then that would certainly inform the debate. Okay,
Brian. You're muted. Are you ready? You have your Really
muted yourself. I know I but yeah, I'd said counselor Christiansen.
I liquid. So, Joanie, if we're going to talk to them about the fairgrounds, why don't we talk to them about Alaska as well? Because that's a possibility that somehow has gotten lost in the shuffle. And I'm very, we're very interested in making use of that facility, which is now being just wasted. Thank you. Alright, so
the question is, Harold, I guess my question is, would that be something that would push you guys off at all with your timeframe? If we did this on the fourth?
I know that they met and we and le Berto in the group met a couple of weeks ago
to continue this. So I think we can come back and provide
updates and go over timelines and what we have discussed so far. that's reasonable.
All right, then the question is we're asking for city staff is that the motion is to bring back the ordinance for discussion on the fourth of August. So all in favor say aye.
Now I say that's assuming the world didn't change office.
Correct. All opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Anything else counts from OPEC?
No, thank you very badly.
Alright. See nobody else let's go ahead and move on with me.
Yes, city manager's report. I tried to be fancy with my spacebar. It doesn't Yeah,
Yeah, I don't use it either. Um, so I'm going to share my screen with you all talk about a couple of things. And then turn it over to Jim to give a financial update.
Can you all see my screen
We can now put a lot of colors.
So generally, this is the john hopkins website that really talks about what's happening in terms of around the country. And to give you a sense, this is one of the sites that I want to show you what kind of data you can get off of this. I'm going to go to the county where my mom lives. And you can see they've had one death 108 cases, they were really for the longest time sitting at around 30 cases. This has really been something that they've seen an increase within the last few weeks. In terms of their location. I think the one thing that you really see that this map really highlights is really what you're starting to hear. In terms of what you're hearing out of the state of Texas in terms of hospital capacity, what you're hearing out of Florida, believably Louisiana and you can see where those increases are Come in. We've all heard about Arizona, in California in terms of what that's looking like in terms of those cases. I say this because when we say if the world doesn't change, one of the things that's really been interesting to me over the last few days, is when you look at some of the things that are happening in some of these states. So obviously in California, the governor has, and they're doing this by county, but there's only a few counties that didn't fall under this. And in California, we're basically have a limited number of services that were open and moved. Restaurant services to outdoor dining only eliminated some of the personal services that were going on. Until you see that in California. What's interesting is, if you said well, what state's probably the opposite of that, it is Texas. And the governor of texas recently came out, issued a masking order. And then in a lot of his interviews basically said, we've got to get these numbers under control. If we don't get these numbers under control, I'm gonna have to go back and issue another stay at home order. So there's a, there's a big thing occurring here in this location. Saul said he's Houston Dallas in that area, starting to say the same thing, again, seen it in Florida. And so I say this because, you know, I talked to you all last time about the numbers, and what impact the numbers really have in terms of how we continue to move forward. And there's some anxiousness from a long term perspective in terms of what happens in those those other jurisdictions what that means to the national economy, how that could potentially impact us, and what that means to really how we look at the 2021 budget. And so To go from here, I'm going to show you what's happening in the state. So on this slide, these are by reported date and by count, some people will say, Well, if you go to this website, this looks different. I toggled off of the three day moving average to say, what does it look like on a daily basis. And so what you can see, again is a peak, you can see the decline, you can see the secondary peaks that occurred, kind of hit this point here, where a low point there's about 100. This is a state of Colorado 115 cases reported on June 13. You slide over here to July 9 620 cases and you're seeing this drop. Again in this chart. If you want to see what the three day moving average looks like it will take a little bit to refresh the screen.
Sorry. Again, what you're seeing is this is a smoother curve. But you're seeing sort of the same thing occur. But the three day moving average, when you take this high point, it's drawing it up. So that's why I tend to, to look at the case counts. And those are the individual cases
that come into play.
my computer's freezing.
So the other chart back here. So again, this is what it looks like with the case gallons. The other chart that I wanted to go over and, and just I'll stop here, when you look at number of deaths, you can definitely see the decline, you can see that we've actually had some days where we haven't had any, or, you know, for the most part, it's been below five when you go to this chart, so this is the positivity And so what you really look at in this is when you go to this point here, you can see that the percent positive in the number of test was a 2.34%. When you look at this, it's risen to 4.84%. As we've had more tests being produced, and then it's at 4.25. So this is sort of these are the numbers that they're looking at when you see a lot of those executive orders and you hear the governor talk about this and like the transmission rate is going to look like what that looks like. So now I'll take you to Boulder County. When you look at Boulder County, again, attention, paint the scale here, you can see this this high point here, you can see this high point which we all talked about what occurred in Boulder on the Hill, you can see that the decrease, then you can see the case is starting to bounce again. And then we have another peak at about 25 cases and Boulder, Boulder County when you slide to this, this is a five day rolling average percentage of COVID-19 PCR test. Again, you can see the curve moving where we want. But I think, again, what you saw on the statewide data is you see this dip and then you see the move up. And then you start to see it move up again. You know, I've want to talk to Jeff to see how much of that is really a product of the fourth. And what we saw. Again, this is the total number of testing. So when you look at testing capacity, you do see that in Boulder County, we do have the ability to hit that 500 test capacity that they talked about in what we need to hit. We've obviously hit around 650 on a couple of occasions. In the most recent number we we went above 500.
So, you know, that's again a good sign.
This is the new cases on the five day average. So again, you see this peak that occurred that we talked about that occurred in Boulder. But again, you're seeing this this other peak occur as we were starting to move down in somewhat of a similar fashion as what we did before. But we've bounced back up. So those are the things that when we talk about moving into protect our neighbor that comes into play that we have to watch. This is again another interesting one. So I've been sort of showing you what's happening in these two communities in between boulder and Longmont. So if you remember we really hit that 500 number much earlier. And then we held it around 530. we've now moved to 568. boulder was catching up to us and now there Had this you know by by 20 individuals it's in this number. So you can you can see what we're starting to see in terms of the tracing and when they talk about the events that are occurring in other locations. The other piece that's really interesting too, is that we're starting to see and I want to dig into this a little bit more is if you remember, when we looked at the ethnicity component of this, this was actually closer to 40%. And so what we're seeing is those rising cases occur, it's actually dropping this percentage here for the Latin x Hispanic population. So we want to dig into that data a little bit more and see what's happening. As we continue to move forward, I think last week, it was almost at 38%. And so now it's at 37. So we're trying to recognize what that data looks like, and what that's going to mean for us. Again, you can see just To let you know, really heavily, you know, hit hard in the orange category, which is associated with long term care facilities. We didn't see it for a while now we're starting to see it again. So those are things that we really want to watch for in terms of the data. And then at the end, this really talks to you, this shows you what we're seeing in terms of the hospital piece. You know, again, this is in the red, this is probably a product of elective procedures that we have going on. And we saw that it was in the green prior to elective procedures being allowed to occur once they weren't moved. And then you can see the available ICU beds. I don't know on this chart, what that looks like in terms of COVID patients. What I can tell you is we've been working with the county on a day to day data set that we talked to you all about that is taking multiple sources of data. Then bringing it together, that could also be something that we can look at for a leading indicator. We had the meeting today in terms of bringing staff together and creating the governance structure, because that data gets pretty specific. And we have to be really careful with how to utilize. We're all bringing various individuals from throughout our organization together in a user group technical experts setting so they can help advise us in terms of how they would like to use this. But in what I saw today, and I'm going to look at it more tomorrow, there's some really good data in terms of what we're seeing that we can start layering that on top of this to get a better understanding of what's happening in the community. So obviously, if you remember a slide that Jesse showed you all Colorado is doing better than most places. I will tell you what's interesting is I was driving across the country for a funeral last week. There were literally locations that I went To where you would even think that it's occurring. And what's interesting is to see how people are now reacting to that and how the states are reacting to that. So I put a list on what I'm tracking in terms of data. This is sort of the data geek in me coming out to really see, what are we seeing in those communities now in terms of increases, so again, you know, what I said before, what we're now seeing is that all states are really anchoring in on the data. And there are a number of states that are starting to pull back, that have pulled back and some are threatening to pull back based on what they're seeing in terms of the data and what that's going to look like. So again, I just encourage everyone, as we're doing this to, you know, wear your mask and do what you can with social distancing, we all want to support our local businesses. We all want to continue to be able to enjoy the facilities, and that's going to be incredibly important. I say all of this Because that's now the lead into Jim. And how we're looking at the at the financial situation because
2020 we've got a good handle 2020 one's a completely different story. And we're going to have significant financial issues to deal with in the 2021 budget. So are there any questions for me in terms of the data before I turn it over to Jim?
That's where Cal SmartPak
Thank you. Mayor Bagley, here on ledges some of the charts that you showed us, it went out to 710 instead of 714. Was there not a significant increase between 710 and 714? that it wouldn't be on the graph?
No, that's the way the data comes in on some of these charts to some is more real time so they actually can take you out to the day work. on others it's not and it comes in a little bit later. So some of these charts will lag. And again, these are all charts that anyone can find on the CDP ag website or the Boulder County health department's website. So they're really in charge of the data, but there is a lack some of these.
Okay, thank you.
Got some memory jogger? fairing
up Harold, has there been any discussion on predictions of what would happen once we start opening schools, per se?
No, I think that's, you know, that's interesting piece right now, and it's all over the place and you're hearing any number of epidemiologist and others come in and weigh in on that conversation. I noticed that Dr. Fauci was one in a panel that talked about it. I haven't had a chance to read it. I think the one thing that I am consistently hearing in terms of that is Really the protocols that are in place, social distancing, mass squaring and those types of issues are going to be incredibly important. And I think what they're learning, they're learning new things daily. There was a recent study that was released, that talked about younger people, and how they're how they respond when they get it. And really talking about the connection between smoking and vaping. And so the younger people that smoke and vape actually can have a really serious case versus what was typically thought because of the impact on on your logs. There was an interesting story, and this is kind of why they're really hitting that younger demographic right now. There was a story, a doctor, I think, out of San Antonio, they had a COVID party were really they took someone who was positive, and they were, I guess it was to see who would get sick. There is a 30 year old that just passed away. He was one of those that got sick. I think, you know what they said an article was one of his last words was I should have taken this more seriously. And, and so that's where you're seeing nationally this sort of push on that younger demographic because that is if you I'll share my screen with you one more time to answer your question.
You look at this, this is in Boulder County.
And so when you look at the number of cases you have this traditional curve, Can you all see it or no? Now you can. So if you look at this by age group, you know you have this, this curve that looks like this. But then you can see that age group of 20 to 29. Get the state's numbers mean it? You know, again, you see this peakedness 2229. I don't know how much of the 10 to 19 isn't what you would call the 16 to 18 category, but I think that's what you're now starting to hear
more in the public conversations.
Okay. And then so I just I had an NDA meeting on workers rights, health and safety, as we're reopening schools. And the message over and over again, was the four DS, physical distancing, deterrence, disinfection detection, and it's not either or, but really, it has to be happening throughout who has interaction with the public. So I think if you're out there grocery shopping, think about the 40s. And that's, I mean, we all play a role in that in
Yeah, we do. And I have this question from earlier yesterday on the LDP meeting. I look at the numbers in our organization about it. You know, it's 1000 people that we've had somewhere at home. But you know, 30, around 36% of our organization never stopped working. And many of those are police and fire. I think the last number I had I've heard is we were below 15 cases as an organization. It really is about following those protocols and managing those safe practices to ensure not only the safety of your of our workforce, but also the residents of our community, you go in there, so it looks different. And I think those are the things that everyone needs to keep in mind.
And something I'm hearing from different outlets is sometimes three feet is okay, if you have a mask. You know, that in our conversations that we've had, I've always heard six feet, you know, unless I was asleep at the wheel somewhere and three feet was slipped in.
Where Where would that have come from?
I don't know. So the order for Boulder County is if you can't adequately social distance, which is Six feet, then you need to wear a mask. And that's the county order. So if you're inside of six feet, you need to wear a mask.
All right. Thanks, sir. Let's go on with Jim golden. Looks like he's ready.
Thank you, Mayor, Jim golden, the chief financial officer. Last week, late last week I sent counsel email actually, two emails hopefully get to see the correction. But I did give you an update on our may sales and use tax collections in my normal monthly email wanted to now update our our revenue shortfall projections. We haven't talked about these in two months. We didn't do any, any update after the April collections. So in general, we've, we've been since Kovac went into effect. We've gone through about four collection cycles. The first one was February, which sales already taken place but the collections were due on March 20. And those came in down 1.5% from the previous February, March was up 6%. April with is then down 12.7%. And then last week we saw that may was up 1.6% over may of 2019. So it's after five months now year to date. We are down point 6% for our total sales and use tax.
breaking down between sales and use taxes. It's a growth in sales tax and a large decrease in US tax we have 2.4% growth in sales tax and a 15 and a half percent drop in use tax and use taxes as been down and pretty much all of the major areas primary employers down the most vehicle sales that's that's out of town vehicle sales. So those in the There is a difference, I think that we see an out of town versus in town. And there's also a, there's also a delay in in receipt of those monies since they go through the county. As you know, it takes up to 60 days to register a vehicle. And sometimes that's when that money is paid versus sometimes right at the sale. So anyway, those are down 22%. That's pretty significant. And then building permits are down almost 9%. Our budget projections for 2020 or that would be up 3.46% over 2019 collections. So even though we're down just six tenths of a percent compared to the previous year, amount of our shortfall underneath budget for total sales and use tax is about $1.2 million after five months. Obviously a lot less than what we were talking about projections back in in April in May, but still is a significant decline. May was up 1.6%. But there were two major sales tax audit receipts that we received. And that had an impact and we don't receive those type of audits regularly. So it's hard to look at that and consider that and doing projections. So if I back that out, we are actually we're down 4.8% over the previous May, for our basically our typical sales and use tax collections. So it was a strong month, but at the same time, what we were projecting is that in that June would be down 28.7%. That's the projection that I made two months ago. And then the rest of the year we would be down 8% for the final six months of the year. So really, our projections certainly will Maybe too conservative we didn't couldn't, didn't know what exactly to to anticipate at that point in time. The other thing about is that we were probably optimistic about how long we would be going through this because we really thought that we would just be hitting the second half of the year and dealing with a recession that would put us down 6%. So obviously, we're already into the second half of the year and still feeling the impacts of COVID affecting our business sales. So my new projections at this point in June projecting will be down 7.9%. And then following that the final six months of the year down 6%. We did have some businesses reopen in May we've we've we will get the full impact of some businesses being opened in June that weren't open all of May. So that'll be a, that'll be a different set We'll see. Dropped our second half estimate from eight to six. percent, basically just on on the on the activity that we've seen over the past two months. If there's a resurgence of the virus, there's no guarantee 6% would probably be too optimistic at that point.
I want to jump in while he's moving through this. So when when, when you saw me show up when I showed what was happening in the rest of the United States, and you talk about things like use tags, and you know, that's really the money that a lot of these corporations invest if they start getting hit, where they have other locations and have financial challenges. I'm concerned. We're concerned that that takes that use tax piece and makes it bigger issue for us. that a fair statement, Jim?
Yeah, yep, there's a lot of equipment purchases and things that hadn't been taking place during the Cova. We were projecting two months ago, an $18 million shortfall across about a dozen funds. We're now reduced that to $11.33 million. If you do have the information that I that I sent to you this afternoon, you'll see that broken out by each of those funds. And the largest revenue shortfall is 5.8 million from reduced sales and use tax. That's five different funds that are impacted by that. And then also we have projections of a little over $4 million revenue shortfalls in the general fund for a variety of revenue sources, a good deal of that from recreation revenues to 2.85 million of it, but also a number of revenues and I've expanded this to be more than just COVID impacts. It's really since we're dealing with our budget and making our projections at this point in time. We are including in our estimates. Now, any revenue source that we don't think is meeting budget, whether it's because of COVID or not, and we have had declines in some other revenue sources that that probably aren't related to to COVID. But we've worked those into these projections as well. So, franchise revenues are impacted. We have investment revenues down some development, revenue down fines and forfeits, utility disconnects, Union reservoir fees, other licenses and fees as well. So this in the street fund, we are still projecting Will you lose about 475,000 from highway use tax largest fund we've kind of increased our projection that would be about $350,000 shortfall for the year. Then what, what we've done in now in looking at these these new projections, most of the funds are or have lower projections than they did. Two months ago, obviously all the sales and use tax to five sales and use tax funds are impacted by these projections and are down at a lower amount. In the golf fun, we actually have had a real surgeons in golf revenue since we opened up the courses. And it's really made an impact on our projection there. We were, had a $400,000 projection two months ago, but now we've got it down to about $130,000 shortfall. And then we have a couple of small community services based funds with the museum's senior center cap.
So though, you know, that's one that is we're going to have to spend a lot of time on trying to really figure that one out. And the other one that I think is really going to have to take a different look operationally is the lodgers tax fund. I think Jim, put this in in his information where they've made A number of adjustments. But when we talked about how long the impact of some of these things are really going to hit some of these funds, the lodgers tax fund to me, is going to be one, it's going to have one have potential issues for a longer period of time, simply because we know that businesses generally have began restricting not began, they've been restricting business travel, which is a big component of our large lodgers tax. We really think based on what we're seeing, that's probably going to continue for some time until the numbers start, even in themselves out or they get a some kind of vaccine, which if you've heard the data recently, there's even questions about how long immunity last. And so you take that then you take travel generally, and they're projecting that to be down. I think, operationally we're going to have some issues. So I say this to council because this is one I think we're going to have to dig in with with visit Longmont group and really had some conversations about what this is going to look like. Over time.
All right, great. Thank you Casper Christiansen Did you have your hand up?
First I wanted to thank you Jim. I said you worried that you'd made too conservative a projection but as we most of us learn from our 20s to 30s it's always a better idea to assume you're going to have a lot less money than to assume you're going to have a lot more money so I it's better to know you know, to assume that things will be worse and be pleasantly surprised that they're not quite as bad as we thought. I do have a question about the CO payment made payments for the for city buildings for twin peaks are we going to be able to make those payments
may badly cancel person. Christiansen Yeah. Yes, in fact that I did. I do give you an update on that every month in that email. And it's it's about the only good news I have, right? So I can assure you that that that's payment has no trouble being made when you look at them sales tax activity, the village at the peaks, it's up, it's been up in each of these months. And the three anchors up there are obviously having significant sales activity because they all fall into the categories I've identified as as being strong performers. So in addition, most of that's being paid by property tax anyhow, and, and I believe the assessment for that area went up for this year, so it's in great shape. I will go back to your first statement, though, because we are it's a struggle right now. Harold and I The staff are have to consider how to put together a budget without being too conservative because it's one thing to be conservative right now trying to get us through 2020. But when we got to give you a balanced budget, that means that we have to reduce expenses, if we're going to be too conservative, and there are implications of that. And and that's something that we're wrestling with now is we don't want to be too conservative. We prefer to be in a position where we can react to what happens, versus having a significant impact on services. And then if I'm too conservative, I've impacted our budgets dramatically in the services that we have available to provide. So that's a that's a struggle right now.
Yeah, I appreciate that. Because you don't want to prematurely cut things off. It makes for worse problems in the long run. And also it makes people You know, it's it doesn't help the spirit of positivity that we need all to have at this time. But I do appreciate what you're saying. And I'm, I know that you and Harold and all of the financial people must be having an extremely difficult time. Because once again, you're always predicting the future. But this is a future that none of us can predict. So I know you're doing the best you can. And I appreciate your monthly updates. Thank you.
To Jim's point, this is probably the hardest budget I think I've ever had to deal with. Because there's nothing about this that any of us know. It's not a typical recession. And in India, his point would be really clear. If we're too conservative. Then we're digging in and cutting. And then if we perform better then it's how do you retract out in what's the impact of those cuts? If you're too aggressive, and you set yourself up for another problem that you have to deal with, so that's what we're we're really going to spend a lot of time on. And at the same point, anything that we get in better performance, and I really wanted to hit this one hard for the community in our staff, the better we performed this year. And so it went from 18 to 11. And the more savings we have this year, that then helps us understand what the fund balances are going to look like next year. And allows us to take in where we may push things a little bit if we know we have enough fun balance, but if you don't have enough fun balance, then you have to move into that conservative realm. Jim again, Zen
Thanks for your badly just, you know, reflection, you know, just cheered. I think that would be code for where you damn mask with it. If we want to have a strong second half of the year, we need to do everything we can to keep our businesses as vibrant as possible.
With your head or your head shaking your head, yes,
yes. Yes. I mean, so
I just want to reiterate and reinforce the relationship between what you talked about a few minutes ago in terms of infection rates, and whether or not we're gonna have kids back in school and on and on and on, and what happens with our our local business, or commerce, but I do have I do have a specific question relative to I appreciate Jim, that report and I appreciate the detail both earlier in what you sent today. I just want to clarify, clarify in my mind that I'm understanding this. The 1.0 just under 1.5 billion in savings from freezing personnel. The only other place I see that is in the public safety fund. There's a $323,000 savings there. recombinations about 1.8 against the 11,000,011. Three, right that we're now projecting. Are there any is that does that account for all of the hiring freeze freezes? Because I didn't in the others? I know the others are generally projects and that we've got we reflected personnel savings from personnel and those two funds. Is that the way to interpret this?
council waters it is corrected. That is the two places where we have probably the most frozen positions identify all positions throughout the organization are being reviewed. If they go vacant as to whether or not they can be filled or not. A director will decide whether they even want to bring it forward to As city manager for approval, there's not as many in some of these other funds, probably that are being held back simply because like he said, most of them, most of the other funds are project based. And have we have the flexibility to hold back on projects that does not in these other sales tax funds. The street fund does have some certainly has some some positions in it. But it also has a lot of projects that they were able to have the flexibility to hold back on. We do have some other areas that that we are are holding back on positions, they're just probably not as significant as compared to the amount of savings that are needed in in those those two funds because it is the most significant significant areas of pain for us really are those two funds are going to have basically mostly salaries and benefits from them. That's why most of the of the freezing taking place in those two funds. So
I we heard David
David Bell last week. I think it was last week come in that we'd lost Jamie arranger up at button rock, which I didn't know which I OJ Well, but it seems to me I was a big loss based on what, you know what interactions I am and and I know that in a subsequent conversation with David learned that we that our senior Ranger out at Union had submitted his resignation or retirement letter and the reasons for that i think you know at some point would be my useful for people to know you know why we are losing season experience really good people especially, is it natural resources. But is it safe to assume that Jim that would David would come You know, make the proposal that those are key positions to fill in everything. We talked about last week, and what's happening in our parks and natural resources, or our parks and green spaces, and in the pressure under which our parks staff is working, that we would vacate those and then freeze those, those, those would be boosted likely positions that would be filled. Even as we're not filling up. Is that fair to assume?
I think the two of those if not three are open. So
after the post that I
posted, I was posted. I appreciate that, to answer that question. And I think that's a great question. We basically look at these in terms of the critical nature of this. And really, you know, you start health, safety, welfare, when you're evaluating these and then you look at the operational pressures on various departments to make that decision because we know we have to keep the savings example I will give you and how we do this public safety they had to open Call 911 con specialist positions. They said, well, we'll freeze those. Since then we've had a couple of lost a couple. Well, we didn't freeze those, because we need to really monitor minimum staffing. And those are some of the hardest positions to fill. So we went ahead and posted those. So they could go through the process. And we went through that evaluation with Rob and Mike, on all of those positions. And when do they have to go into Academy? When does the expense start? So we can get as much savings as we can but also manage that staffing level, and then look to 21. To go, what are we holding in case we have to have something that's vacant because the last thing you want to do is fill positions and then have to make a different decision. And
so just Well, I guess one more observation and I'll shut up. I'm in public safety as I look at this The projected savings from freezing positions. One could view that as, as a cobra induced defunding. Right? I mean, obviously you're you're, you're reallocating resources that would have gone to public safety in addition to the positions in public safety we, we chose not to fill with police officers, but we chose to fill with drug specialists in case workers etc. Right? We have given up a number of positions, get direct funds to service areas other than criminal justice. Is that fair?
Yeah. So when they went through in the budget last year, they repurpose some of those positions into that and those are conversations that they're continuing to have.
So just as we go forward with budget or you know, we see positions being filled, understand, all those are scrutinized very carefully, position by position based on health, safety, etc.
Yep, they all they all come to me. Thanks.
All right. Right. Okay, anything else here?
All right, let's move on into first class lectures. Let's move on to special presentation of water bond. Sorry,
my water bond ballot question.
Public Information presentation.
Marin, Mayor Bagley, members of council Dale Rademacher deputy city manager, I'm going to open up this this item for you tonight. You know, the issue before you tonight is really a presentation and to provide information to the city council in alignment with and following the direction that you gave us back on March 3, to take steps to prepare for a potential ballot issue on the November 2020 ballot, regarding the issuance of debt in our water utility, to fund critical infrastructure improvements that are needed to again to continue to ensure our ability to reliably provide clean and safe drinking water for the entire community. I think the other thing that we're all aware of we're acutely aware of is during the pandemic in the in the downturn, both economically as well as socially and what we're able to do. You know, it's a difficult time and we understand it's a difficult time for many in our community. However, similar to efforts that the the country undertook, even during the Great Depression, it's times like these where communities come together to really focus on those key critical aspects of their infrastructure into ensure the future them. So with that, Becky Skol, who was our communications and marketing manager in public works and natural resources. I'm going to turn it over to Becky she's going to take you through a very brief presentation and a a short video that we have prepared in order to begin that effort of sharing information with the public. So Becky, I'll turn it over to you.
Hi everyone. I'm Becky skull as Dale mentioned, and good evening to Mayor Begley and members of the city council. I'm here as he said to talk to you about public information plans to inform the community about this potential ballot question this fall. And as he said, You've directed staff to prepare that resolution and next month staff will be back with that for your review and your decision about placing that item on the ballot this fall. Meanwhile, in the public information arena, we've been busy developing a plan to get the word out to the community about this potential ballot question and also to provide answers to them about questions that they might have regarding rates, the funding process and exactly what system improvements would be occurring. These would be improvements to deal with aging infrastructure, it would be maintenance requirements that we have to continue to have the reliability and the quality of the water, we're providing this community. And finally, any kind of capacity expansion that's needed to continue to serve the community. Now, Dale mentioned the COVID-19 pandemic and you're all well aware of how we've had to change the way that we communicate with one another in the community. And we're we're also considering that as we're looking at our plan. And so part of the reason that we have this video that we're going to share with you this evening is because we are finding that we will be doing a lot of the work we typically would do in person with large groups or groups of any size in the community through a virtual format and we find that video is is a really effective way to keep people informed and to clearly and simply get the word out. And so we have already sent an email to organizations within the community just to let them know about this possible ballot item, and to make an offer to have staff attend to any meetings that they have virtually, or to find other ways to share factual information with them, now and in the months ahead. Likewise, of course, we're following the traditional communications plans that we always use to inform the community and these are going to be done in both English and in Spanish. And these are anything from a news release to a social media post. It's also things where we'll be reaching out through the city line, and other targeted newsletters, using social media, doing things through the cable access channels, neighborhood group outreach. You name it, we've tried to make sure we've got everything possible to make sure this is being communicated as broadly and effectively as possible. If we've missed anything, we'd love to hear from you. To let us know who else we don't have on that list so that we just are as thorough as we can be. Let's get back to the video that we have to share with you this evening. And it's kind of a soup to nuts video. It's got information about the source of our water, it's clean, safe and reliable drinking water. So it explains where it comes from. Then it talks about how we collect, treat and distribute that water. We also include some information specifically about some of the needs that we have within the system to either renew or replacing some of these aging, whether it's the infrastructure, the pipes, the buildings, the equipment, and also how we need to explain and expand our capacity excuse me to expand the capacity. Finally, include some information about this potential ballot question and it includes some reasons that people might be in favor or not in favor of approving this ballot question. Now when you see the video, I want to make sure you know that we're working right now to get some closed captioning in place so that this video will be available both in English and in Spanish and it will be ADA compliant. And we'll have that completed in the next day or two days. We're going to share the video with you now runs about four and a half minutes. And when it's finished, then we'll come back and talk to you about ways that the city council members can be involved in this public information process. And we want to ask how you'd like to participate. I also want to mention we've got some staff on hand. So if you have any questions after the video, technical funding communications, we're here to answer those questions. So I want to thank you very much for your time this evening. And I'd like to ask Susan, will you please start the video
the city council may submit a question to voters on the November ballot, asking for approval to issue $80 million in water bonds to finance the renewal of aging water infrastructure and maintain system reliability and quality.
These are critical citywide system improvements that benefit water customers today and into the future.
A clean, safe and reliable drinking water supply is always critical. It's Of particular importance during times of emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
long lines water is clean primarily because it comes from a very pristine source within Rocky Mountain National Park. That clean water is then stored in Ralph Pryce reservoir which is surrounded by the 3500 acre button rock preserved in the mountains west of Longmont to be ready for the communities use throughout the year. After the water leaves are off the price reservoir it is delivered to our two treatment facilities. Nelson Flanders treatment plant which is the primary treatment plant for the city, as well as the way Ghana's treatment plan, which is really used in an emergency basis, and for backups when necessary. The city's wave gas water treatment plant was placed in service in 1983. That plant now is reaching the end of its lifecycle and the capacity that it currently provides will have to be replaced. The city recently conducted some engineering studies to determine what's the best way to replace that capacity. We had the choice of either replacing Wade Gaddis or expanding our Nelson Flanders water treatment plant. And the the best option, at least cost for us is to expand the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant which was placed in service in about 2005. Fortunately, that plant was actually constructed with expansion in mind. So that makes it really inefficient. option for us. In addition to expanding the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant, there are other planned upgrades in the potable water treatment system over the next couple of years. This includes potable water tanks that are aging now and have reached their lifecycle and miles of pipe that will also need to be replaced.
In 2019, the City Council approved a five year rate schedule that contemplated selling bonds to spread out the costs to upgrade long months aging water infrastructure over several years, that rate schedule supports issuing up to $80 million dollars in water bonds. Without voter approval to issue the water bonds needed projects could be delayed and system reliability affected. Think of water bonds like taking out a mortgage on a house. Paying for improvements with water bonds helps acquire needed assets and infrastructure repairs. Now. We're spreading out the cost of those improvements over time to avoid rate spikes. This keeps rates more predictable for users using water bonds to finance infrastructure improvements also results in user rates that are initially lower than if cash were used to fund the improvements. The spreads out the cost of these upgrades more equitably across both current and future water customers. These are all considerations to keep in mind when voting. Here are some reasons why a voter might be in favor of this funding request.
And here are some reasons why a voter might be against this funding request.
Uh, yes vote would allow the city of Longmont to issue $80 million in water bonds to be used, along with existing fund balances and adopted rate increases toward renewing aging water infrastructure and maintaining system reliability and quality. a no vote would mean bonds would not be issued, adopted rate increases would still take place. Those rate increases. Plus existing cash balances could be used toward renewal projects, but other funding sources would need to be found.
The safety and reliability of long monster drinking water is essential to our community.
We asked you to spend some time researching the issues, ask questions if you have them
and most importantly,
come out and vote. Vote.
vote. Learn more about the water bond issue at Longmont, Colorado. gov slash water hyphen bonds. Election Day is Tuesday November 3.
Well, counsel I hope the video played a little better for you than it did for me out here in the in the the the sticks as they say I really appreciate the staff that worked on that. And I think they've done a great job. And I think it does tell a both a factual and an accurate story of what's needed and why it's important. I do want to emphasize as well, and counsel many of you are aware of this is, you know, the decisions to reach the point of beginning the financing is really way down the line. This this, this, this whole effort starts with master planning and engineering analysis years ago. And it takes many, many years to get us to the point where we're actually ready to now move forward with some of these critical infrastructure projects. As Becky said, you know, staff are always interested in city council, how you would like to be involved in the process. And again, this is all still predicated on you're making a decision. In August as to whether or not to place this issue formally on the ballot, what staff will be working on is that valid language along with the resolution to effectuate that placement on the ballot in November. We'll be presenting that to you in August for your consideration at regular meeting. Likewise, Council has historically also passed a resolution of support on issues that they are bringing forward for the public to consider. And likewise, if that is of council interest staff would also get that resolution prepared for your consideration and action, likely early in September. The last thing I also need to mention is on the legal side of things, both local and state fair cam praying practice laws restrict the use of public funds to advocate for Or the passage of any particular valid issue or information coming forward. And there are exceptions to that law. For example, work that we do ahead of the ballot issue being placed on the ballot is is we have greater leeway on what we can and can't do. Once the ballot issue is set, again, by action at the Council, then we're quite restricted on what we can do. The video that you just saw had has been reviewed by our legal staff. We all do find it to be factual and equally based with regards to the pro and con, comments in there. And importantly, city council you as individual members. You do have greater latitude on what you can say and do. And so again, staff is interested in how we might Be able to support actions or efforts that that you might be interested in undertaking. Now this is the first time we've tried a valid issue in in this type of a situation. And so we're all in a little bit of uncharted territory right now. But I'll leave it at that. If counsel has any questions, we will try to feel those.
I guess my only question is Dale, so do you need an Harold, do you guys need us to do anything take emotion about whatever regarding given Do we need to direct you to go ahead and take necessary steps in order to promote this prior to going on the ballot and then in fact, prepare the ballot?
Is that what you're doing and members of council I think at this point this evening, again, unless you otherwise directors, you gave us that direction back in March. We're continuing to follow that direction until In the lesson change that course. And so yes, the the the video that we prepared, we're ready to begin with the effort of sharing some of this information with the public, we wanted you to see it first, before it is out in the public arena. And then importantly, just to let you know that we are working to repair the resolution and the ballot language, as well as a resolution of general support. Those are the two items again, so tonight, if you don't want us to do that, it'd be good to know we will stop doing it. Otherwise, we're sort of in auto mode moving towards that action that we will have in front of you in August.
All right, so so rather than opening up for questions, etc. Is there anyone here who does not want staff to proceed with the direction that we just heard?
Alright, so that said, Is there anything else that's
okay? Councillor Peck?
Thank you, Mayor bakley. So, Gail, correct me if I'm wrong, but both in the packet as well as on the video, one of the main questions that are going to come up with a, what is it going to cost the individual? So that's going to be the main question we're all going to get. And I want to make sure that in our marketing technique, what we as counsel people with all these hundreds of emails, we're going to get that we give the correct answer. So when you bring that back in August, can you explain the REIT structure, how long it's going to take to pay off these bonds? So that I find that people want hard solid facts so they know what they're voting for. So thank you for that.
And Councilmember Peck will be sure to do that. And and and to answer it briefly tonight. rates that you have already adopted for the next five years are sufficient to cover the debt service for the $80 million bond issuance.
That's what I thought a Dale
we all have very short memories. So I would like to be able to say that in a in a very succinct manner. Thank you. All right,
cows were Christiansen.
I also, I just think people need to understand what you just said Dale, that what because the question we will get, no doubt is, but you're already raising the water rates. And now you want us to pay for more stuff. So please try to explain that in the video. So people don't go Wait a minute. What are they trying to pull now? Because we're not trying to pull anything. We're just trying to repair stuff that has to be repaired. So but people you know, all of us need to be reminded exactly what was decided a year ago, things like that. Thanks.
Alright, is there anything else from counsel? All right. Thank you, Harold. Thank you, Dale. Good luck and keep pushing. Alright, let's go ahead and take a five minute break. Actually let's take a three minute bait break while we go ahead and open up the first call public invited to be heard line
Mayor we're ready for you and you are ready. We have several people who have called in today
All right, we are back.
I believe we are missing Polly. I'm sorry. Councilwoman Christensen.
All right. Well, let's go ahead and start. Here she is I see her. All right. Let's go ahead and start with the first couple of you might have heard how many people in the queue?
I'll start with the first color, Mayor. That color your phone number ends in three to eight. I'm going to unmute you.
And you tell us Don, how many are in the queue real quick.
There were eight mayor.
All right, perfect.
Color 328. Do you hear us?
Yes. Can you hear me?
Yes, if you could state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
My name is Chris Bostic, I live at 1609 19th Avenue. I Just wanted to put in my two cents for the dismount zone that you're going to vote on later tonight. With the parking cut down for the non restaurant businesses in the downtown area, I was hoping that you guys would not put the dismount. ordinance in effect, so that we could get more people that are not driving cars down to the downtown area and not have those non restaurant businesses suffer further. Thank you very much.
All right, the next caller, your phone number ends in 4524 or five to
ordinate. Yes, I'm ready for that. For people that
are not driving cars down.
Can you mute your live stream for us? Because we're hearing that and you're doing it?
Yeah, yeah, I'm doing that. Okay.
All right. Thank you. You may begin.
Okay. Good evening, Mayor Bagley and city council members, Sherry. My 2113 range view lane, I'm calling in to speak to LDC updates concerning the protection of riparian air data areas and habitat and species protection. A bit of historical context on August 14 2018, council gave final approval to the first set of updates to the LDC in 17 years, a year later on September 1 2019. These new standards became effective when the updates were approved in Fall 2018. Council also directed staff to include riparian protection amendments, and to develop a sustainability evaluation team tool to be used for assessing development applications. As a result, this section of the updates was not included in the 2019 standards. This made sense because the wildlife management plan w MP was also due for an update and would better inform this section of the LDC. The public process for the wildlife plan began in March 2019 and was coming Did last fall 2019? Well, we're finally here. After comprehensive public participation, the consultants constructed a plan that has been thoroughly deliberated within city staff from with city staff from planning natural resources in sustainability. Legal has also reviewed it. Is it perfect? No. Is it good? Yes. Is it better than the current w MP? Absolutely. Voltaire said perfect is the enemy of the good. The results of long runs 2018 customer satisfaction surveys, survey found 74% of residents rated promoting natural areas from development. It's very important, clearly long that residents highly value protecting nature. This Council has listened. All of you have stated your commitment to respect and protect our natural public amenities. And for that many are sincerely grateful. Tonight, it's finally time to do just that and codified safeguards for habitats and species by moving Agenda Items forward for first reading ASAP. Doing so will not only protect our precious natural environment, it will provide property owners, developers and staff with clear and comprehensive guidelines. Finally, I know you're all aware of how tax and Natural Resources Department has been the last few years and how they have been multiplied significantly with COVID. Button Mac Mac Macintosh both core Creek corridor sandstone union and more have exploded in use and abuse. Therefore, it is extremely important to proceed with the plan of hiring an environmental planner. also vital is fulfilling the point five position for a volunteer coordinator who could help train and supervise citizen scientists Junior Rangers and other volunteers to help address the ever growing needs. The impact COVID has had on the city's revenue is real, but so are the human impacts on our natural areas. Just as we wouldn't put a freeze on hiring for police for the vital safety protection they provided. This same mindset must also apply to our natural environment. Thank you.
All right, the next guest your phone number ends in 637.
I'm going to unmute you. Do you hear me? Yes.
Great, Gary. Yes, we
can. Great. Good evening City Council. I'm calling again about short term rental regulations in the city of lamarque. I want to start by saying thank you for having it on the agenda and discussing it tonight. I hope that you can enact change that will protect homes and owners, their investments and the quality of neighborhoods. Just this morning, the Airbnb behind us had guests that were playing loud music at 9am in person to the extent that we had to bring our children indoors. I hope discussions tonight prevent this and other nuisances from happening in other neighborhoods in Longmont. Thank you so much.
Our next guest is eight to your phone number ends in 882. You've been unmuted. Can you hear me?
Scott Conlon 1014 Fifth Avenue and bicycle Longmont, board member, Mayor, city council and staff tonight proposed dismount zone ordinance goes before you for first reading as agenda item eight a, but wanted to highlight three components of the proposed ordinance. There are concerns first uncovered first after Long's peak on the back in May when this was open, and it was really discussed between third in line speak. It first and third doesn't have improved alleyways in some sections have no alleyways at all. The sidewalk between first and second Avenue on the west side of me is currently a bite in pedestrian detour used by the city. And then third, there are no controls to cross cosmin at second or First Avenue as well the ordinance doesn't dress Avenue sidewalks. It's kind of interesting that that doesn't exist, but it seems reasonable that it should include the avenue sidewalks on them in the ordinance but they're not addressed. And the ordinance as written proposes a fine of up to $300 in Fort Collins. This mount zone fine is only up to $75 after a written warning in Longmont. The second offense for resisting arrest is $150 $150. So you really don't think that this is equitable to say that biking in the dispatch zone downtown should be twice as much as resisting arrest your second time around. In addition, those who currently violate that the voluntary dismount zone are also those who are least likely to be able to pay for fine. Addressing and educating those in this population is really key. So it's really like to hear from the council how they're going to determine how LD da is going about taking care of this with this population. Let's go along. Mike conducted his own survey in May June 2020. As many of the same questions are asked in that little DBAs 2012 dismantle them survey, overwhelming Lee. The respondents were mostly cyclists were for an enforced dismount zone. However, they clearly wanted a downtown to be more bicycle friendly. We wanted the city to address Main Street motor vehicle traffic concerns. The LD da to encourage not discouraged cycling downtown is revived positive bike friendly route signage and Wayfinding especially in the alleyways. Its main street is for cars and trucks. sidewalks to pedestrians and where the cyclists are to go. Please provide clear and safe route for cyclists to take the alleyways for local travel to restaurants and businesses downtown. We ask that you restrict the alley alleys to service vehicles and owners only and prohibit general motor vehicle traffic. While we applied the plans for coffee street improvements, it is currently not alone. Street now is the diagonal parking in kinberg Street is worse. It has been referred referenced several times by staff is not being bike friendly. I strongly encourage you to have staff meet and work with these and other issues with the bicycle community before we get this ordinance in place. Thank you.
Our next guest your phone number ends in 949
yes, you've been unmuted. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Hear Bagley. Before you begin, please state your name and address for the record.
My name is My name is Ruby Bowman 1512 left hand drive Longmont, Mayor Bagley, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and councilmembers. I sent you my comments for the riparian code update and I hope you had a chance to read them. Briefly restate them again, one, select the fort, Fort Collins review criteria went through eight, but a men item for to include key use areas for migrant songbirds and key nesting areas for grassland birds to require the inclusion of the content criteria for the species habitat conservation plan in the development handbook and the land development code. The criteria should remain in The code three include the code revisions that are on page 13 has a redline draft version in the land development code. They concern noise impacts, limitations on redevelopment, building height restrictions, window designed to minimize bird strikes and the use of native plant species. For for definitions under important plant and wildlife species, please include cpW list of species of greatest conservation need, which is contained in the state wildlife action plan. And finally, hire the planning departments environmental planner, please fill this position as soon as possible. Thank you for listening. Goodbye.
Our next caller, your number ends in eight to zero. You've been unmuted. Do you hear me? Yes, I do. Great. Please state your name and address.
Thank you. My name is Katherine Balog and I live at 1920 spruce Avenue. I have been calling in about short term rentals since we since we have one in our backyard. This house has caused us to feel like we have no privacy or security. Just this morning, my children and I were in the backyard and heard the F bomb being thrown around for about 15 minutes straight from the new guests that are staying there. Every week. It's someone new that we don't know. And they don't care about the neighbors that surrounds them. They're on vacation. Thank you for bringing up the short term rentals into your conversation this week. Thanks for listening and helping us out. I hope you take into account property owners that have to deal with new guests and short term rentals every week. And please try and adopt something like other cities around the country has like New York, LA Miami Beach by banning short term rentals under three or six months. So we don't have people in our backyards that don't care about us that are new every single week vacationing and partying. Thank you very much for listening.
Our next guest your phone number ends in three to three. You've been unmuted.
Jamie female 525 East 16th Avenue. Thank you, mayor and city council for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm here to comment on item 11. d on tonight's agenda, the amendments to the land development code. First off, thank you so much to city staff and consultants for getting us to this point. It's been a long haul but we're in the final stretch. As we've come to realize even more strongly during this pandemic. Our open spaces and natural areas are critical to public health, including mental health, and so we must protect them and the wildlife that called And home. Therefore, I asked that council direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the land development code. city staff has asked for direction from Council on seven questions in the event that council asked staff to prepare an ordinance. I'm in agreement with city staff recommendations on these seven questions. While the revised land development code protections for riparian and streams, creeks and wetlands, habitats and species are not perfect. Specifically, I would prefer if the additional riparian setback protections of height restrictions, bird friendly windows and native landscaping recommended in the wildlife management plan were incorporated into the code. Perfect is the enemy of good. These revised requirements are miles above the protections in the previous version of the code, and there's no better time than now to begin implementing them. Thank you.
All right, our last guest your phone number ends in 034 you've been unmuted. Can you hear me?
can you hear me
Yes, we can go ahead and state your name and for the records.
My name is Timothy Ray Burton, and I'm actually a property owner in Longmont. I'm not a resident.
I hope that's okay.
So I feel like even though I'm not technically a resident, that doesn't mean that you know, that I don't care about the city, because I very much do, the better the city does, the better my business does. And so, you know, therefore, I'm very much for for the city there and for downtown and the development and all that, because I think that's good for everyone. So I just had a couple of quick points. One of them might be slightly long winded and I apologize in advance. First, I'll preface I've had out and I didn't tell you my address to 40 Main Street, Longmont that's actually an apartment building right there on Main Street. So I've had an Airbnb in Denver for three years. And I know Airbnb gets a really bad rap sometimes. But I I'd like to differentiate, make a conscience, conscious differentiation between irresponsible property owners and responsible and like I said, I've had an Airbnb for three years. I have very strict rules and I have zero tolerance for guests who don't respect my neighbors and dusts. I get no complaints. One of the rules that and I also live in Denver, by the way, one of the rules in Denver that I think is a really great rule is if you get complaints from your neighbors, then that tells you a your Airbnb is bad for the neighborhood. Be you're not a responsible property owner or and or business owner and people need to treat that as a business. So I would say that rather than a band aid six of restricting time periods, three, six months, restricting people based on if they live in the city or own a business in the city, etc, etc. To me, that's a really good rule that kind of covers the spectrum because just because someone is restricted to three or six months doesn't mean that their guests are going to be respectful of the neighbors. I think in for if an Airbnb or short term rental, whatever the platform may be, if they enforce good behavior, then I think they'll get good behavior. And if they don't enforce it, then they won't get it. And so therefore, it could be potentially bad for the neighborhood and They need to lose their license. One other thing that I had is I noticed my building right in front, between Second and Third Avenue. There are the loudest cars that race up and down that little one block strip. I assume they slow down as they get further up Main Street, because there's like the pedestrian crosswalks. I'm wondering if there's any way to restrict the speed limits and enforce the speed limits, right outside my building because I'm trying to promote an enjoyable living space that's quiet and peaceful. And sometimes it's very difficult with the extreme. Like drag racing basically, is what it sounds like. Whether that's actually true or not.
It's Mayor Bagley, I'm going to I'm going to your pasture. Three minutes. I'm gonna have to cut you off, but I do appreciate it. I do appreciate your speaking. Welcome. Welcome. always welcome. All right, thank you. Thank you.
All right. Believe that was our last. last person,
correct. That is correct, Mayor.
Great and that will close first called public invited be heard. Let's move on with the consent agenda and introduction to reading my title first ordinances.
Mayor Bagley it is ordinance 2020 dash 28. A bill for an ordinance amending title 10 chapter 10.20, creating a new section 065 of the Lamont municipal code, creating dismount zones, public hearing and second reading scheduled for July 28 2020. This item did have a revision published 24 hours prior to the meeting. Because that title was wrong. Item eight B is resolution 2020 dash 61. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont the town of birth in the city of Brookfield at the city of Fort left in the city of Fort Morgan of Hudson little Thompson Water District central weld County Water District, the city of Lewisville Morgan County quality water district, Platte River Power Authority, superior Metropolitan Water District, tri state generation and transmission Association and the southern water supply project water activity enterprise owned by Northern Colorado water Conservancy district. Four parties consent to terms of conveyance for a certain right of way to the town of Erie and the city of Brookfield at resolution 2020 dash 62 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving an intergovernmental agreement between the city in the United States of America for a debt National Endowment for the Humanities grant. A D is resolution 2020 dash 63. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for a voter service and polling center use agreement for the 2020 election. It is resolution 2020 dash 64. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the city of Loma and the Colorado Department of Transportation for state funding for the state green Greenway trail, Eastern extension, and eight F is except the city of long lost 20 2022 water supply and drought
All right, who wants to pull anything anything? customer pack.
Thank you. I would like to pull a discount John's.
Right. Anybody else? See, okay, customer already logged in. I will fire me.
I'd like to pull eight see and it's really just for comment.
All right. You want to make a motion? Tell us member level for me.
Sure. I move the consent agenda items a through or I'm sorry, B
B minus C. So no a no C.
Also I'll suck at that. All right, all in favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
All opposed say nay. All right, the consent agenda passes unanimously. Without A and C. All right, let's move on to ordinances. There are no ordinances on second reading. So let's go ahead and start with the easy one first Councilmember De Gaulle, Iago fairing. Do you want to go ahead and make your comment and offer emotion?
Sure, so I serve as the liaison, the council liaison for the Longmont museum. And over the time, I got to see how this the application progressed. You know that they're doing really good work. And I think now more than ever, we need to realize that or take to heart that our arts community our museums are free. Performing Arts, visual arts, they play a role in our understanding of history and historical context. So, you know, these are I'm really excited that they've received this grant. I don't know if someone from the museum is here to speak on, on behalf of, you know, the work that they've done or if they want if they want to, I think Kim was on I'm not sure. But if she wanted to speak a little bit on, on what the grant would be utilized for, and some of those key things that I think needs needs to be brought out to the public, but in the public eye.
I am here. Hi. Hello. So the grant was actually a joint application. Hello, good evening, Mayor Bagley and council members. This is Kim manager, a director of the law museum. It was a joint application with the library which I think actually made it a Really strong application. We were one of very few organizations in Colorado who got this NIH grant. And so we're kind of the the, everybody is giving us accolades up and down the front range for receiving this. And basically what we applied for and received is to be able to bring a lot of the programming that we normally do and translate it to an online context, which of course a lot of people are doing. And we've been doing for quite some time now since our doors have been closed. And the library actually is going to be purchasing hotspots that they're going to be able to check out for people who aren't able to get access to the internet. So that's going to be an accessibility issue that we were able to address. They also are offering some staff that will be able to do things like start people on how to do zoom meetings and things like that how to adapt in this climate. The museum is doing a lot of programming where we are taking our early childhood education online. We are taking our school tours online. And then we're also doing, we're expanding our downtown tours. So we've started an app. So it's a mobile website that you can access on your phone, that you can take a tour downtown. And so the initial pilot project for that was a tour that Eric Mason does on a regular basis. And he actually did some in person tours this past summer. And so we adapted that for an online program. And then we've also are going to be developing additional tours for that application. So we really are trying to make what we already do well applicable to this online environment. And we're we're very excited to be able to do that. And we're very excited to be able to get that funding because it like I said it was
only 13% of applicants got so we're very, very pleased.
All right, great. So let's go. Let's go ahead. Do you have a comment you'd like to make Councilmember dog a fairy?
I do, actually. And in the work that I've been, you know, just coming in and see their website, something I am going to request of city staff is to allow art museum to have autonomy over their, their website. So, you know, I look on there and I, you know, my background was visual and performing arts I majored in in that. And you know, it is for the artist realm to have that autonomy over the presentation of their work and their, their accomplishments and their, you know, the museum as a whole. I would really encourage staff to consider allowing the museum to have autonomy over their website to really branch out and reach and know how to connect with the public. So that is all Thank you.
All right. Thank you for member. All right. Would you like to make a motion Suzy?
Yeah, I move item eight.
I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right, Councillor Peck, would you like to address your questions, concerns, etc. regarding a?
Yes, I'm actually I am going to call on Phil to once again lead our cycling community and the residents know a couple of things about these drops, not drop zones cycling. So, my question is, when you went out to get feedback, did you engage the cycling community on this?
On the cycling zones,
everybody Begley and Councilmember Peck My name is Phil be all transportation planning manager with the city Give online and answer a question we did. We have been talking to them. We have a bicycle issues committee that we have that does outreach to the bicycling community and we've appreciated the comment I think we've heard loud and clear that the bicycle bicycling community really wants to see a more bicycle friendly and pedestrian friendly downtown. And, you know, a couple years ago, we did work with the LD da de la la downtown Development Authority, and Kimberly McKee, and we worked on walking with members of the bicycle community members of the disability a members of the community with disabilities and members of the community that were very much wanting to see pedestrian improvements as well downtown and, and we all walked around with the consultant and did a lot of work to try to figure out how to make the downtown better. And I think you'll see that in the incredible amount of dollars that we've invested in the alleyways that are just between Main Street and Kaufmann Main Street and Kim bark, a lot of time a lot of effort, a lot of resources were spent on putting those together and making them an alternative for bicycling and walking, quite frankly, it's a it's a very safe for both. And I think there's been, there's been some other things where we've done some bicycle lanes as well. And and we've really tried to improve the walking access. And you'll see that in the lane closures as well that we've worked tirelessly, tirelessly on over the last couple of years, or over the last month actually has been very fast and furious, but we're doing what we can to try to improve that. And I think you'll see in the next release, we're actually we just released a request for proposals today at 1:30pm. Today for a consulting firm to begin design work on the Kaufman street project, which is one block West Main Street, and that's going to have dedicated separated bicycle ways as well as far And widen sidewalks.
Great. Great. And then one other question that I've had some emails on I'm sure everybody else has as well is that how did you come up with the fine of $300? And are there warnings before that? And if so, how many warnings
vary. Councilmember Peck, I will probably have to defer to Eugene may on this for some of those answers. But it was something that was an up to limit as far as an up to $300 limit. And so our assumption is that they're you know, the fines would start small but that they're that they were kept at that $300 limit and I invite Eugene to make any other comments on that if he if he is able.
Bayern council Eugene Bay City Attorney corrected his fines up to I do I would want to correct a comment that we heard in public invited be heard About the fine for resisting arrest, it is a minimum fine of $100 and the up to the general penalty, which is $999. You know, I think there's no magic. I think that $300 make sure that it's not up to our maximum penalty of 999. Yet it leaves discretion for the court to impose a fine commitment commensurate with a violation. You know, if we see repeat offenders, perhaps you get to the higher range of a $300. But then again, you know, the up to $300 language gives the court discretion to see impose a fine that he sees
fit, unless you're fine, if that is the case.
Thank you very much. And with that, I am going to move to
what was it I move
I'll second that tell us where Krishna said
several things. Thank you for clarifying the fine because I was surprised. I didn't read it carefully enough to and I thought that was like the first time somebody messes up they get a $300 fine. And I do want to thank you, Phil, for I was on one of those walking tours to with Aaron. And it gave me a whole lot of different perspectives on what somebody who's blind experiences. And I can tell you somebody who's deaf also cannot hear that there's somebody in back with them flying along at 30 miles an hour on the sidewalk. That's why it's called a side walk. That's why it's called pedestrian meaning on foot. And so it's not just the bike community. It's also the walking community and the elderly community and the disabled community in the community with small children. Random. You know, we all have to get along together. We can't. And now that we've got people eating out on the sidewalks, I don't understand how the bicycle, people think they're going to be flying along in the sidewalk in the middle of the tables. We just can't have people riding their bicycles in a crowded space. And those sidewalks are crowded and we're using them now and the businesses need to use them. I would like to amend the
there's motion, which is that we have now extended that up to ninth Avenue. And I know some businesses ask for that. But really, there's very little going on between. I know, I'm not denigrating those businesses. I'm just saying it is not very busy from sixth pass sixth, up to ninth
put on hold on. Hold on one second. Let's just Phil Phil's gonna clarify what it is what it says real quick, Phil.
I just want to read the it's really from First Avenue to long speak Avenue is the extents of the dismount zone on the on the sidewalks only.
but it seems to me if we if we just cut it off after sixth, it would make the bicycle people a lot happier. And it would make it a little more logical because there just isn't there aren't that many businesses that are crowded that have a lot of foot traffic there that would warrant people not having the possibility of riding on the sidewalks. That's all I'm suggesting.
All right, john, would you like to make a motion?
All right. Well, then, did we did we did you make a move for motion? Did you move them Ha, ha,
Also, I remember this I get it, but I'll second it. Let's go ahead and vote All in favor Bade eight say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, eight eight passes unanimously. Let's move on to a 11. General Business item 11 eight lgi D resolution. I'd like to move that we recess as the last city council and convene as the board of directors along with general Improvement District number one. That can I can. All right. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Let's go ahead with 11 a resolution LGD 20 2004. Resolution the board of directors the one my general Improvement District number one, approving the conveyance of property the Boulder County housing authority for construction of parking garage in association with an affordable housing project 518518 Kaufman Street, we have a motion.
I'll move approval of the resolution.
All right, was Moved by Councillor waters. Seconded by Councilmember Peck. Councilmember Christiansen is giving a hearty endorsement. So let's go ahead if there's no further discussion, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. 11 a two or resolution LG ID 2020 dash oh four passes unanimously. I move that we adjourn as alone. Magento Improvement District number one board of directors and reconvene as the Longmont City Council. So moved. All right. I moved it tells where Christus is seconded. Let's go ahead and vote All in favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye.
Those opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Let's go on to 11 be discussion on an upcoming bill for an ordinance amending one municipal code on compensation for disposition of open space property. I would hope that we have a presentation from staff and asking specific questions rather than just a general discussion. But David Bell Guide us lead us please
Bagley House members, they've developed record parks and natural resources. We have this coming up as a first reading. And we know when counsel sees disposition of open space, it can cause people to ask them questions about why we wanted to dispose of open space. So this really was just a quick opportunity to provide some context for this, and maybe a couple examples of why we might want to carry this forward. And then Billy to ask some questions about that. So this really came on to the desire of the open space program to carve off a couple of slots in the newbie property, sell those back and recoup those dollars with the open space program. When our attorneys looked at the language in our existing ordinance, they didn't feel like we had that flexibility. So really, what we're trying to do is the city attorney's office and the open space department are looking to come in alignment so that we have that flexibility so there's opportunity to dispose of certain aspects of open space. It really from the negotiation piece we may not want to have to purchase but the family member was that came as part of the package. So really what we're trying to do and achieve this language is do it we really thought we had the ability to do all the time which is dispose of certain aspects of open space property through our ordinance and this language is clarifies that we have that flexibility, it makes a little clearer. So with that said, a couple of examples of that would be like that would be property where we have a property that we approach the family say this is a great property we'd love to own this property we'd love to include in our open space portfolio. However, we really don't want all the houses Would you mind carving those off and putting that out so instead of paying 5 million as an example, we pay only 4.5 the family could say we really don't want to go to that used by the farmer nothing. The ordinance language and allows us to buy the farmer that 5 million car bought those lots, sell them at fair market value, return that profit back the open space. programs so that we're not having to manage houses and we actually get to keep those dollars again what we'd really like to see in the first scenario anyways Another example is conservation easements, we may approach a family and say we would really like to maintain this farm in perpetuity. We don't really need to purchase a whole farm, you're doing a great job of farming it, we'd like to buy a conservation easement. Again, the family says we really have no desire to continue farming, we just want to say to purchase the farm as a whole. So we purchased that farm for $5 million. And we now own a farm Do we have to rent out and we have a neighboring farm like to buy the farming rights on that property? And again, it's our objective of maintaining that farm in perpetuity. Having someone who is does a good job farming farm it keep it in the family, and the city owns those development rights. But the farm family owns those underlying theories so they can continue to farm in perpetuity. So that's really what this is about. We just want to give you a chance to maybe ask some questions because when we start saying dispose of open space People do get concerned and this really is again I think coming in alignment with our legal team to make sure that the ordinance meets our our needs to dispose those certain aspects that really don't always meet the goals of this program and can provide additional revenue to the
customer calcifer Christiansen
Yes, David, you're right. When I looked at this, I thought
it was race.
But I do understand what you're talking about because a lot of times you have many outbuildings or farm equipment that
the other a new
farm farmer won't need that because they have their own equipment or whatever things that need to be gotten rid of. So this makes sense but I just want to be sure that every one of these would also come before council just as everything whenever we abandon a right away it comes before council whenever we lease out. space at the airport it comes before council it's public property. It needs to come before Council. Is that correct?
Your Bagley Council for Christmas it nothing else changes in the whole process. It goes to proud first it has public process there it comes to Council for them to approve it. So it still is going through the whole disposition process. But this allows us to get dispose of a portion of at its fair market value rather than the whole property. So yes, to affirm is exactly what you're asking us. That's where we're waters.
Thanks very badly. David, I like the process of the prep. Review and coming to counsel idea of a cure in the paragraph or two below. Where that's eat tail or new breed. In Section whatever here under process for
AI era move for a
refers to no eventual the sales price be or transfer be less than the original purchase price. In the in the example like the newbie property, right? When you if it's $5 million for the, you know, for the parcel with whatever assets around it, how do you determine what the what the theorem I just thought you could do a fair market price which would be an appraisal, but that would be less than the purchase price for the property. Right?
Here Begley, customer waters, that's exactly what I'm trying to kind of clarify here. So again, on the newbie property, we have a housing lot which if we as open space program, they do not have a desire to own a house and rent a house and we could, at the beginning go shake that off, we can get a comp on what a one acre lot with a single family home and that area comes with so we can get a pretty good value for the housing lots and for the open space itself. So you're right, that price for that lot would not be the price of the whole property. So that's what we were allowing what this new language allows us to do, it really makes it pretty clear that we're trying to keep the open space program whole by allowing us to carve off that housing lot, sell it at that whole market value, and return those dollars back to the open space program. So the that original purchase price is then reduced by what the fair market value of that lot was after the purchase as opposed to taking it off and beginning of the purchase.
Okay, so that first sentence in seconds, it took a little conflicted. I see the reference to fair market value. And then I see the reference to no sale price, or transfer less than the original purchase price, but
that's not that's not conflicted. I
there's two documents should be attached. There's the 2011 dash 10 and there's the new to the 2020 dash Nothing, which is the new language and that new one has struck out. That however, shall not pay less than that. Okay, so I'm looking at no portion and I think the new language, Dr. Waters is for the fair market of the property or the interest conveyed, so then we can take that interest conveyed, which is the house lot or
the wrong resolution, and conservation.
So exactly what you saw is what the attorneys got. Appreciate you saying that because you really did just clarify what the attorney's office really saw as well. And I think people in this business for a while have, you know, interpret the way we thought it was meant to be interpreted and as we work with our attorneys, is that that doesn't make a lot of sense. So they've adjusted that language, I think you've looked at new language allows us exactly what you're saying.
Okay. Thank you. It should have been read the right one.
All right. Great. Thank you very much, David. We appreciate your update. All right. You All right, let's go on to a discussion on update on short term rental regulations. Harold, is there a presentation?
Yes, there is. Johnny, who's doing though
on our channel.
Mayor Bagley, members of council on virtue planning manager, I do have just a really brief presentation. And I also want to make sure that I introduce some of the staff that are also on tonight so that if there are specific questions that I can't answer, hopefully we'll have the right people here to be able to do that. And I don't know if the presentation is started, or re comes so we can go to the next slide. with me tonight. We have Shannon Statler, the code enforcement manager, as well as Dane harmsen, Senior code enforcement officer Bryan Schumacher, the principal planner for the city. We are here tonight to just provide a quick update on some of the str items that have been going on here in the city, then to also see if Council has any direction that they would like us to act upon. And so we are specifically here tonight to make sure that if counsel would like us to proceed with any code amendments or changes, that we get that information from counsel so that we can start working on that with our legal staff. Next slide. On the screen right now are some program highlights for the short term rentals. The program began in January of 2019. We currently have 80 active permits in the city of Longmont. The map that's in the on the right hand side of the screen shows the boundaries of the city of Longmont, as well as the dots indicate the location of the short term rental that we currently have licensed in the city of Longmont During the last 18 months, we have had nine code enforcement complaints that have come in related to those 80 permits. And then we have had 54 calls for service to our police department for 30 of those short term rental property addresses. But I want to point out that while we got the call for service information from the police department, we cannot tell you that all of those calls for service were related to somebody using the property or that address as a short term rental. We just asked for the calls for service related to the addresses that are licensed for short term rental. And then finally, we wanted to note that in 2019, the lodgers tax generated was had generated for just over $14,000 from the short term rentals that were licensed in 2019. Next slide. As you've heard, tonight under public invited to be heard as well as at past city council meetings, we've had a number of people speak with some concerns related to the short term rental program. Those have been of two, two sides, I would say one has been people who have felt that the regulations have not been strict enough. The other have been related to people who feel the regulations are overly burdensome. And so we've tried to identify kind of the common concerns that we've heard over the over the last 18 months that the program has been in effect. For example, we have had issues where people have been operating without licensing and a permit. We've also had people concerned about the residency requirements both for and against the residency requirements. We've also had people that have talked about that own property similar to the gentleman that spoke earlier tonight in the city but that are not a resident or an actual person. To be able to meet the requirements for being able to operate a short term rental here in the city of Longmont. And then finally, we've had the neighborhood complaints about the, you know, noises and what we've termed party houses where we've had complaints with marijuana, loud music, things of that nature, and just really not being good neighbors. And so those have been some of the concerns that we've heard for both sides of people that are interested in short term rentals. Next slide. In our communication, we did make a recommendation for a change to the residency requirement based on some of the problems that we've had trying to enforce to be able to enforce that. And then finally, this is a policy decision for the City Council. We will proceed with whatever direction the city council provides us tonight on what changes if any you would like us to bring back to you, we would just want to make sure that we get specific directions so that we can do that correctly and quickly to get that back to the council for consideration.
Don, can I just ask quickly, just what is your specific recommendation pertaining to the residency requirement?
Certainly, Mayor, let me grab my communication. So it's on page 220 of the packet. And staff made a recommendation to amend section 15.04030 D 23. A governing residency requirements for short term rental operators. We would allow property owners who live outside the city or who have a home in the name of an LLC to obtain a permit to operate one short term rental. We could also in the regulation could require property owners to list a local contact or a property manager. That would be a requirement for issuing the permit for that unit. That we think that would do two things. One, it would allow the people who own rental properties within the city. But for example, we have someone who lives up north of town in Boulder County just outside just north of 66 that owns a rental property on the south side of 66. And they have had short term rentals in the past, this would allow them to be able to have that unit. The other concern that we've heard from some of the neighbors has been the inability to get property owners to handle those complaints by having maybe a property manager or a company that is listed even for those people who don't live within the city limits. Hopefully that would be a way to try to get someone to from the ownership to take responsibility and address the concerns that are coming from a house that maybe isn't being a good neighbor. Those were some ideas that we have.
And that is all that we have for a presentation there. So with that, again, we're here to answer questions and take direction.
Cuz we're Calvin Martin.
I'm wondering and I probably should know that this about the existing ordinance but I don't
the what kind of teeth does this thing have? You know, if if a property owner is advertising their short term rental as a party house so that your it's going to result in a stream of of code enforcement complaints and desperation on the part of the surrounding residents which we've seen that we have in a couple of cases. Are there any any teeth into this into the into the law, the new law where, you know, if there are if the number of of violation reports gets to be too high than that, then that house can lose its short term rental license. And obviously we wouldn't want you know, there'd have to be cause right when somebody responded to a complaint, there would have to actually be something going on as opposed to, you know, just so many calls happening. But are there any teeth that would that would prevent a tenant who are a land lord that is not managing the property responsibly to lose their short term rental license?
lt member Martin, I'm gonna ask Dane who is on the phone to also speak to this, but there is a section in our code where we have the ability to renew a license every year. I think that we might want to look at that to make sure that there is an ability For us to not renew a license that comes up for renewal every year to make sure that we are legally sound and making that determination and protected as city. But I would also ask if Danes on the line still if he could speak to kind of the the violations or the any of the the teeth that are there in the current license or in the current code for enforcement. Dane,
I think he just dropped off. Oh,
excuse me. His hand is raised.
He's raising his hand.
Oh, there he is.
Thank you console woman mark. Martin.
Can you hear us?
Dane? I can hear you guys. Can you hear me? There you are. Go ahead.
Okay. Mayor Bagley council members so as of right now Now there are any means we have to monitor party houses or how many violations someone would have. And all we can do is really advise people to call the police if people are violent.
That's certainly something we could try to look at.
But as Councilmember was pointing out, it really has to be based on the belief actually find a violation be based on people calling in every little thing they say here that they don't. Yeah. Right.
Okay. We've been
doing this now for 18 months. And if you go on
vrbo or Airbnb there, at least 400 Airbnb is listed for a long month, and yet we only have 80 registered. And of those we have no way to know whether they actually live here whether this is their primary residence.
Now we want to in
the recommendation is to increase this by allowing people who don't even live here and LLCs to enter Longmont and continue to displace citizens who actually need to be able to buy housing, or rent housing full time. Why are we favoring people who don't live here over people who live here? This doesn't make sense to me. This is a problem all over the country. I went to an NLC conference. And that Councilman Councilman Rodriguez also came to with a that had to do with Airbnb s. And all of us thought that this would help us cope with the problem of short term rentals, but actually, it was delivered by Experian, and a company that works for them doing data to prove that this doesn't cause problems. And the mayor of Seattle who's got had a huge problem with this, telling us how to cope with it. Well, the way to cope with that is not to let it keep continuing to grow. And I would suggest we need to double down on regulations because right now what we have is all over the country. There are hedge fund managers and commercial real estate companies buying up little properties in like long month. And locally. We also have realtors buying up properties. I know there's one realtor on the east side of town, who owns eight Airbnb is in my neighborhood. So they're not even listed on this map.
These people have the ability to completely displace, or to largely displace
properties that people could buy and live in and build some equity for their lives and do better than they're doing now. Or they could rent them. But now they're not going to be able to do that because people from outside who live in Boulder or Denver or Texas or wherever, want to be able to buy up houses here and turn them into one night 230 night hotels, and that I don't want my neighborhood commercialized. I don't want anybody's neighborhood commercialized in Longmont. I want us to be able to live in a neighborhood, not something that's rented out by the number. That's not a neighborhood anymore. And people all over this country are really angry about it and fed up and it causes problems with the taxes, it cause problems with displacing children who could be living here and going to the schools. So I will not vote for us to be
allowing people from outside here to
buy up land in Boulder and rent it out and commercialize our neighborhoods. I want us to double down on regulating them. Thank you.
We're gonna we're gonna call I'm going to start calling on people. I would just encourage people to maybe make a motion if we're going to do it because we can all share our thoughts. But again, we're we're seven different people with seven different opinions and unless there's some direction to staff that is coherent that four of us agree with. All we're doing is having discussion. Okay, we're gonna
make that motion that we do not approve this suggestion by staff to allow LLCs from outside to
purchase property in Longmont. Do I have a second?
Yeah, well, second no LLCs. Absolutely. I have some discussion though.
All right. So let's go ahead and let's deal with that motion first. Okay. So is there anybody who would like to comment on that specific motion before we take a vote, Dr. Waters.
Thanks for your Begley is this going to limit this LLC or any non residential owner of a property? Because Because it seems to me that we ought to we ought to be more explicit LLC or any non owner occupied to meet the criteria in the in the ordinance would be would not be permitted. or something like that. So I'll be quiet if somebody wants to amend that, but I think we ought to broaden it from just LLC to anything that's non owner occupied.
All right, Councilmember Martin.
Yeah, I was really happy with the
idea of limiting it to well, LLC and other corporations. And the reason is that I have a couple of constituents who are property owners in Longmont sort of one, one family are snowbirds and they have a disabled resident that travels with them and they want to be able to rent the property when they are out of the city. And that seems like you know that they should not be able to do that is is a hardship on that family. The other one is Some people who are older residents bought a house in Longmont for their aging parents to live in. And the aging parents aren't all that aging and wanted to be the property managers and rent out a portion of the house while they live in it. But because their name is not on the title, they can't get a permit, even though they would be the ideal situation in terms of having a resident property manager, and it's a it's, you know, a nitpick of the title because it's it's all people in the same family. So I would, I would be happy to exclude property speculators from this but I'm not sure that I want to exclude familial situations that are just not quite conventional
Thanks for your beggary just personally I just just an observation and then I'm going to speak specifically to Councilmember Martin's comment. I was an observer when the council crafted this ordinance. And, and as I sat in the audience and and watched and listened, I thought, I thought that I thought that many of you were on the council, not everybody, but you did a really good job, I thought with threading the needle in trying to number one respect, what what local homeowners might want to do with their property to generate some income and protect neighborhoods by limiting numbers. And with the residency requirement that it was only going to be an Airbnb or short term rental, if it was owner occupied at least six months of the year, and the stipulations you laid into this ordinance, that that limits what they can do when they're not in residence. So in terms of sympathies here, you know, I do have sympathies for first of all for residents who live in Longmont, number one, number two, if somebody is going to be gone six months a year, I have no concerns about they're renting your property. But there's a big difference between having a rental and an str where people could be there. Those are just very different scenarios. So I have no qualms about somebody renting to their family or renting to somebody, they're going to be gone periods a year, but I do have concerns about non property non resident using their homes or whatever the apartments for short term rentals. I just I'm wondering, in the in the list of calls, we got a police report, how many of those calls were to to read to short term rentals where there was an owner occupied where it was owner occupied, which is the stipulation in the ordinance. Is it Can anybody answer that do we know?
We do not know but People are allowed to have investment properties and long but they don't have to be owner occupied. If you are a resident, you can have one investment property solely as
I have no qualms about it and investment. There's a big difference between leasing a house for a year in a short term rental, and I am not sympathetic, who would invest so I'm gonna use something in the neighborhood. You know, on a short term, I guess I'm in the same place that Councilmember Christiansen is on Yeah, I just think we ought to, if we're gonna, if we're going to do something with this we ought to be if we're gonna
non owner occupied residence from being else being served to rule it out to be more than just those that are just owned by an LLC. And I'd be any property used that's not owner occupied or rented on a longer term basis.
Helps remember back
Thank you Amir Bagley so I'm Councilwoman Christiansen if you will take a friendly amendment to your motion, I would like to incorporate what council member water said that they we will not rent to anyone who is not was now we will not rent to an LLC or someone who is not. Not rent to I'm sorry, we will not permit an str to an LLC or owner occupied something that is not an owner, long not resident owner occupied home. Does that make sense?
Just for Christiansen
You're still muted boy,
I know that's the spacebar isn't working. The ordinance already says that exactly what Tim said, and I appreciate his support. And we're on the same page here. It already says that you cannot do that. The what we're not really having a discussion about SDRs. Right now, what we're having a discussion is, is about staffs idea that we should open this up to LLCs. And in my opinion, that would make it worse. My, so I don't know that. We need to do that. But if that's your opinion, that we need to clarify it that way, then we should say that, in addition to Well, I mean, right now, we simply don't allow outside entities. What Whether they are LLCs, or whether they are non residents of Longmont to own anything that does not as Councilman waters said, that does not mean you can't have a property in Longmont and rent it out. You can but you can't rent it out for 30 days or less. That's a short term rental. And we don't allow that. And so I not sure I would happily include that as a friendly amendment. But I don't think it's necessary. I just don't want us to go forward with what has been suggested by the planning department, which is that we allow el make the situation worse by adding LLCs and basically opening the door to people who are already behaving illegally, giving them consent to behave illegally.
Okay, I take back my amendment
So, so essentially the motions on the table right now. Thank you. Councilmember Christiansen is we're basically going to keep the status quo, we're not going to adopt staffs recommendations, we're going to keep the ordinance as it is no LLCs and we're also not allowing anyone who lives outside of Longmont to start doing short term rentals with properties they purchased around Dr. Waters. Kazmir Christiansen,
So, when I saw this, I thought we were going to have a discussion about short term rentals and the problems that they're causing. Instead, what we've been presented with is a suggestion by staff that we increase the number of s t R's by allowing anybody who wants to to buy a property at Longmont and turn it into a short term rental. So that's the first issue that we're voting on. I do want to have a discussion of short term rentals because as
we do that, we will do we will do that, but right now I'm just I just pointing out that we're not doing anything to change the organs. You're just saying.
correct. Alright, so Councillor Martin, for that I was sorry, Dr. Waters. Yes, you were sorry. You're just not. You're just you're just you're just not as like predominant my screen Go ahead, you're up in the right hand corner. Okay.
So, if we're gonna if we're going to do something, ultimately we're giving direction to staff. I'm not ready to make a motion on that direction, but I guess I need a better understanding of what of how it is that that it a unit, a home or department that where there is no owner occupancy that's not complying with the ordinance now. And once we know that, why there is why that property owner continues to have a license or a permit. Maybe they don't, and they're doing it illegally. And if we know that what's what's keeping us from enforcing the ordinance with whatever penalties go along with somebody who who is inconsistent or not honoring what what we've stipulated in the, in the ordinance as it exists right
now. Joanie, do you want to say
something? Your Mayor Begley, members of council, Jodie marsh. So I think a couple of things when it comes to our current code around short term rentals and the enforcement issues that Councilmember waters brings up. So we have found that if you look at the section about who can actually have a short term rental, and we talked about the property owners primary dwelling where the owner lives six months out of the year, I think that you have to recognize that folks may turn in a permit sign and say they're complying with the rules but for code enforcement, or any staff to know whether or not someone is actually living in that home 180 days and renting it. 180 days is somewhat of a a difficult situation from an enforcement standpoint. You'll probably recall, we have, you know, five code enforcement folks and Dane is really our only housing inspector who does the majority of these inspections, along with some of our building, folks. And I think what we've run into is, you know, as we do with many things, when it comes to enforcement, his folks tell us that they're meeting the rules. However, it takes an enormous amount of energy to figure out whether or not they really are meeting the rules. I think staff was simply making a suggestion about a change because we've had a number of people get very upset with staff in permitting when they've said, Hey, we have an LLC, and I think Marsha's example was one of those where those folks lived in town. They had an LLC, we've also had some instances where folks have had long term short term rentals in the city. I live in Boulder County and I think some of them have probably contacted members of council hoping to get this changed, which I don't think that we've provided them with any avenue of support for that. But we certainly kind of struggle with folks who have either been in business or want to be in business and what when they come in to get permitted? The answer is no. And so I think we're what staff would really like to hear from counsel is, in addition to some of the issues with the nuisances, we found, particularly I know, you've heard from the Arapaho Avenue neighbors met every council meeting, what could we strengthen so that we could do some additional enforcement around party houses, which to Dan's point becomes very difficult because you actually have to have a written police report and take something to prosecution. So I think our 18 months of experience I would say with short term rentals is is proven challenging not just for residents and folks who want to have them but also for staff. We would welcome Any suggestions on how to help us do a better job of keeping the character of the neighborhood's intact. And I think one thing that we're doing that hopefully will help us with this is we've hired host compliance who started in January, which wasn't great timing to go into people's homes, they share. They monitor weekly, all of the short term rentals on the website to let us know who's not in compliance in our efforts. Once we get a little further out of the COVID cycle we're in right now would be to start doing enforcement and letting those folks know, hey, we see you've got a short term rental, you might want to get that licensed and and get your sales tax and start remitting that so we kind of have a bunch of things. staff is certainly open to any changes to this code at this point. But also keep in mind that for Dane to actually enforce some of this, it has to have the teeth and maybe that is where we're missing some pieces.
Last my comment I'll be quiet in yield to Marsha. If, if we're going to air at this point, I'd rather err on the side of being more conservative, not more expansive, or more permissive, and make it easier for the staff to enforce and and take another 18 months to learn our way forward on on doing less not more damage to neighborhoods and in work with residents Longmont residents who want to use their property in the way that the ordinance was intended.
Here badly Do I have the floor?
so yeah, I will say I did have
either three or four families contact me in the last six months or the last six months before the pandemic began. All About familial status. Or inherited property where they felt that they had this property and they needed to be able to take care of it. I don't remember there being an LLC involved in any of them, although it is perfectly possible that there was an LLC that wasn't disclosed to me, but was disclosed to the permitting department once we got down to cases, so I won't rule that out. But I was advocating for some relaxations in the policy, not because I wanted corporations to be able to come and exploit long lat or change the character of neighborhoods because I absolutely don't. I was advocating for the ability to make an exception for what amounted to ownership by an extended family instead of by a nuclear family. You know, Because we were in into eldercare situations or super you know, well, the one that the one that really kind of broke my heart was a family in Boulder who bought this house for their parents and the parents wanted to rent out the spare room and give them something to do and get a little extra income and I didn't see anything wrong with that just because the name on the title was the children and not the parents. And maybe that's too weird a case you know, to exceptional a case for us to do anything about and they're just going to have to deal with going through probate and put the house in the parents name and that would solve the whole problem except their eventual problem.
that was the that was my only purpose in in advocating for a little Little more flexibility in these rules. And I definitely agree that, you know, extending this to LLCs and maybe even other corporations is not, you know, is not the right response. And the other question that I wanted to ask I think Joanie has already answered, which is, you know, if Polly can go online and find out who's advertising and Airbnb, then so can somebody else and I think the answer we heard there was that the city has contracted with somebody who will do that, but they haven't gotten started good yet. And I think they should have to do that. And maybe we could even come up with some reporting requirements for when residents are out of town or in town.
yeah, I don't I don't want in general to to broaden this. Maybe There should be some process to apply for an exceptional permit. That would take care of my couple of my family situations too.
All right, cows, we're back.
First of all, Mr. Bagley, we have a motion on the floor, I would like a question. And I think that it would be a good idea to just not go with a recommendation of LLCs. And let's try it and see how that works, and come back and revisit it. So I would like to call the question on that motion.
So if you're going to call the question requires a second then we have to have a vote that passes with a super majority. Does anybody can we just but can we just vote on it?
I'm wondering if we need to vote on it. If we just don't follow the recommendation, do we need to vote on it?
There is motion on the table. So
let's go ahead and try Since I put it on the
table, you could.
Okay, that would mean that we just would not broaden this law. Correct? There's no,
there's no motion to okay.
Okay, then I withdraw this because that will simplify things. All right. So I would like to have a discussion on what we can do about the problems that we already have.
We can do that. So I guess my point is that, yeah, so again, let's hear from staff on so here's what here's my frustration. I've talked to a couple of council members about this. Staff, I would like you to tell us what you think we should do. And give us a map ahead that would allow us to say we like it or we don't like it, but having seven people at 10 o'clock at night start giving you random ideas on what we should do, I think is a 9:43pm. Well, I'm just saying that I don't have a problem having a discussion. What I want to do is have some guidance Because what we do with the pattern I've been doing this nine years now. And what happens is that they, they give us an idea. And then we spend an hour talking about our different ideas. And we all get frustrated because there's no cohesive direction, at which point we look at staff who say, Hey, what do you guys think? So I bought it, I want to just jump to the end and say staff, what do you think we should do? And then we'll give input.
So Joanie, what do you think we should do?
There Begley members of council. So I know this item was of a concern to several council members who asked that I bring this forward so that you could have a discussion about where you'd like to head with this. One thing I would note in your council communication is that staff particularly could enforcement staff who are doing the permitting and the inspections and the enforcement have really had a limited number of code violations called into us we've only had I think eight were listed in here. And as Don mentioned earlier, the calls for service from the police. We don't really know, specifically how if we could try to figure that out, I don't know that we have enough information to do that, whether they're directly related to the homeowner, the home, you know, something happening in the neighborhood. When I look at that list, there's a lot of things that seemed fairly subjective, like they aren't specifically tied to a short term rental or home. So I think that we could continue to use the rules that we currently have in place, do the additional additional enforcement that we're contracting with to try to do and, you know, continue to enforce where we've told people you can't have a short term rental if you don't live in the city. And if you don't have you don't meet the requirements has currently laid out. I think that some of the issues, particularly on the Arapaho Avenue home was a short term rental for a year and we got I don't think we got any complaints with the previous owner who was also had a short term rental, the new owner purchased that and that's really when those complaints started. So I think as with many things in our community, we get a few homeowners or bad actors who cause a lot of neighborhood issues. So perhaps there's an avenue for us to go back to the city attorney's office and talk about how we might do some better nuisance enforcement or how we could change the codes so that I are or someone could take the permit away, basically, based on a number of permit permits. You know, typically, we have to have cause for that. So it's not as simple as someone calling me and telling me that's happened. I think we'd actually need to substantiate that. But we could certainly look at that as an avenue as well. Right now, I don't think staff has any specific recommendations because again, we haven't seen that many code complaints. And we have only had a few folks who haven't been able to do what they want them and that's the nature of the permit and the rules we've issued.
Remember, Christian said then we'll go with Councilmember Peck.
okay. So I think that what you're saying is,
as Councilman water said, we need to put some teeth in it. So
when you have have a
we also need more than one code enforcement guy, he must be so tired.
So when you hand out information to them hand out information, that's gives them the law and they gives a list of fines if they do not comply. And you know if we can, if we can find somebody for not dismounting up to $300 we can certainly find people for not complying with having a license, having it be their primary residence, if we need to make List of fines associated with violations and that's what we need to do. And the code enforcement officer needs to give them those list of fines and tell them they need to comply. Don't be nice to them don't say, you know, you're really no license. Still them. You need to have a license. You're way too nice, Joanie.
so I would suggest that we have some fines and that we have some code some way that we can also if we have at CR is listed. How about if we give that list to the police, and anytime the police get a complaint that is on that list, they inform you so that way we can keep track of it because as you're right there's no way of knowing whether what the police mean there's no connection between the police and in your department, so are in planning department. So how about if we give the police list and if we develop some as Councilman waters said teeth in this so that people will not take you know, so that they will understand that they do have a community obligation to be licensed to be inspected to meet certain criteria for a safe community and also to preserve our neighborhoods.
So, Mayor Bagley I finally
Yep, you me.
So I'm having a chat going with my code enforcement staff are also on the on the call tonight. But, you know, currently we can do admin fees, or fines like we do for other code cases and we do interact with PD daily. Actually in code enforcement. They are one of our best allies. Because we do not have the same enforcement capabilities, and they certainly are partners. So perhaps we will, what we should do is go back and speak to the city attorney's office and the prosecutor's office about the admin fines section in the code and how maybe we can start using that, obviously, we're still going to need proof. And so we would still need a ticket or a police call with a citation, or at least the documentation that it happened to kind of make a record, if you will, to issue some of those funds. That's certainly I won't lie. That's certainly some work on everybody's part. But perhaps we can have some conversations about how we might be able to do that and we could come back and let you know what we think is feasible with regard to that.
council member, I think pet cat it was go Peck Martin waters.
Thank you. I am actually going to make some motions because I want to see parts of this ordinance change
It says in the ordinance, that rental of a second or in this investment dwelling unit is a short term rental is limited to one per Longmont resident. So I would like to move make a motion, I moved at a rented a rental of a second or investment dwelling unit may not be used as a short term rental, it can only be used as a long term rental
to one limited to one per Longmont resident.
So just to be clear as the motion to get rid of short term rentals all together in Longmont.
No, no. The short term rental is your primary residence. You can rent it when you are not living there. According to New York. You have to live there six months out of the year.
Do we allow short term rentals Other than that, Harold?
Yes, we do. It says right in the ordinance
Yeah. So what you would do is take away Second, write on residential location
until they can have so long they can have investment properties long term rental, but I want to remove it a second or investment dwelling as a short term rental. I want to remove that.
So do it again.
So say that again. Dr. Waters.
I said I'll second that motion.
Okay. customer. All right. So do we have anybody for or against the motion currently? Right, because we're Christians.
Yes, I think this would
eliminate many of the, the issues that Councilman waters was talking about and a lot of the, the secondary kind of problems that we have if and and it would still allow, if, for instance, Councilwoman Martin's elderly couple, you know, if you're buying it for your parents, buy it for your parents and sign it over to them. And this wouldn't be a problem, but then they could still rent it out. They could still rent out things. They just have to, you know, live there. But anyway, so I'm I second
guess I'm pretty sure I'm in the lone lone voice on the other side on this one. I just think that so for some of the conversation, and I think that the an LLC, whether it's a corporation or an LLC, or a partnership, or whatever it is, it's just a legal format for one or more people to essentially just put a property into a, a, something that will protect it in the event that you're face to face financial calamity. So all my properties are owned by LLCs. But I'm the sole owner of the LLC. And so I'm by that's number one. Number two. I don't have a problem with people. If they if they want a home. There are plenty of people That that aren't rich that might have chosen this to, to what this might be their way of retiring if they were a schoolteacher or if they were a firefighter, or not all just because you own property does not mean that you're rich or your developer or your these. I mean, we're making decisions tonight, I think without without having data. You know, we've heard people we've heard of one group of of one neighborhoods coming in and they obviously do not like the owner of their short term rental. We've heard that again and again and again. But I've had I've had neighbors that say the F bomb all the time I've had neighbors that throw their cigarette butts in my yard. I currently have great neighbors. I don't have time to pick up dog poop or watch my dogs. They bark too much and the dogs eat all the trees. I mean, my neighbors could say oh my gosh, we don't want politicians living next door because single men who who have children and dogs just shouldn't be living in Longmont. The point is I just think that if people own property in general we have laws that basically say you cannot disturb the peace and if they break the law call the cops, but I think that by micromanaging property owners i think that's that's just bad public policy. So I'll be voting against this. But Councillor Martin
Well, first of all, Mayor Bagley, I'm going to tell all my friends in prospect that you don't pick up your dog poop. And they're going to get you because,
as a homeowner, everyone should pick up their damn dog poop.
I mean, if there isn't my backyard, I pick up my dog poop outside. I'm talking about in my backyard. I only I pick it up once a week and
yeah, okay. Well, that's still pretty nasty, but okay. Um,
I actually agree that LLC isn't a magic word. And that if a person lives in longer And owns a house in Longmont. It doesn't matter whether they put it in a nail they have it owned by an LLC or own that directly, but they should have to live in Longmont and let the staff take care of that. You know, it's the fact is that the owner of record has to live in long
line order. point of order.
Yes. We're not talking about the motion at all.
About this motion, you're talking about LLCs now and I thought we already decided that we're not going to change
the motion currently on
the motion Mayor did bring the look LLC thing.
Yes, the motion currently on the table is to make it so that you cannot rent investment property as far as short term rentals go. Meaning you give your you have to own it, you have to be an owner occupier, then will allow short term Other than that, nobody else would be allowed to have a short term rental.
You have to let the ordinance contradict itself and that we've already said that your short term rental has to be owner occupied for six months. If you want another investment property, it can be an investment property. But I wanted the motion is to not make a short term rental.
Right and I'm against that.
Fine. Can we vote on that then? Because we LLC
right. Well, right now I get that but Councilmember Martin is sharing her opinion on this. And we'll we'll go ahead and hear what she has to say. And we'll vote after everybody's had a chance to talk. Trust me, I want a vote right now, but we're not gonna remember Martin here.
So we really have three cases. We have somebody who who leaves town and rents the whole house, either short term or long term while they're gone. We have the case where somebody lives in the house and has a spare room or a bear suite or an auxiliary dwelling unit. And they can rent that as short term or long term. And then we have the whole extra house. That's just an investment property. And that I think, is what Councilmember Peck wants to eliminate, if you say whole house investment properties that you never live in, can't be short term rentals. So that's that's what she's saying. Can we confirm that? Nod your head Councilmember pic? Yeah. Okay. All right. Because I think there's some confusion about what the cases have been. Okay. Now, as it happens, I think you should be able to have a short term rental if you have one property and you live here and manage it. I think what we need is enforcement. I think that you know, and it's a separate motion so I should talk about it later but but I just I don't think that the ownership arrangements are the problem. I think that it is the management by the owner. That is the problem.
Nobody cares. Let's go ahead and vote on this. Okay. I like Councilmember Peck suggestion. All right. Let's go ahead and vote All in favor the motion which basically says that we will not allow short term rentals for for secondary investment property. say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay nay. Nay. All right. The motion carries five to two with Mayor Bagley and Councillor Martin. dissenting. All right, great. That might solve a lot of our problems tell you the truth. All right. Duck waters.
So Joanie, what you made reference to? Having to chill cause? To to rescind or or to cancel? I don't know what the right terminology is a license or permit. Is it a license or a permit?
It is technically a license that says this license.
So what would be the give me some example or some examples of what what for you would be cause? And what is it in the in the ordinance that's lacking that would allow, in short order a Dane or the planning department to withdraw or cancel a license? Because someone is not
somebody's property is not owner occupied.
Or they're not following the rules. What do we what do you need this not the ordinance when it gets to that
So when I look at the current ordinance, and if you look at, you know, the the section three, which is really the conditions of approval, and it's, it kind of lists out that you're complying and to some extent, you know, everyone is by affidavit basically saying yes, I comply with these and i agree i only live here six months out of the year, we're relying on people to be truthful, frankly, about what their endeavors are. But when I look at the conditions of approval, the conditions of approval allow some control of nuisance occupancy limits, which are related to the building code, parking restrictions, and we can make those the list on there. I think that perhaps what we're missing is the permit duration is one year. So when it comes up for renewal, we could certainly say, take a look in and say, Hey, we're not going to renew your permit for next year because we've received X number of complaints but I don't think to be honest that the worst ordinances currently written gives a good legal standing to make that finding for me to either revoke a permit in particular, I think requires the proof I talked about earlier, and some way to basically find someone and revoke them. And I think that we need to sit down with deputy city attorney take and talk a little bit about that in the next week. But I think we're just missing some specific requirements that would give specific permission to revoke.
So in the spirit of what the mayor was suggesting, in terms of what you would bring back to us, I would request that you bring back that specific criteria for that would establish that whatever cause you need to make to cancel or withdraw a license. Let me just ask one more question. Then I'll mute. If I if I'm going to go to the recycle facility. The dump you know, grass clippings, which I don't do anymore, I compost but big brown inches or something like that. I have to show you my utility bill. I mean, how difficult it is. If somebody if there is a complaint that say we need evidence, it's on the homeowners part, to provide the evidence that they were living in the home for six months. Why would we have to chase that or or sleuth around that question? It's it's on them to affirmatively demonstrate that they're complying with the ordinance. Don't we have each whether it's a utility bill or some other basis for establishing it?
Councilmember waters, we can certainly ask for for paperwork. And people can provide that but it's very easy for them to just change their address under the utility account, to say they live there but to not actually be there. The fact is, we can't account for where they are 180 days out of the year. That's where we're running into trouble because people will absolutely lie and they will change their paperwork to get around the
Well, if we had a lie detector test in your office, that that'd be. That's I think, obviously, I'm being facetious. But so it's out that what is it? Because it seems to me that we ought not to be chasing that's somebody wants a license. It's on them to convince us that they're they're legit. It seems to me.
Well counts my brothers. I agree. And I think that we probably won't have Jim be able to fund us a lie detector machine I'll be at that might be interesting. I think that certainly the other thing that Shannon Dana and I can do is check in with some of our other counterparts around the front range and, and in the mountain communities who have more extensive short term rental experience than we do and maybe see what some of their regulations look like and how they are doing some self certifications from owners and how they can then take that and if they need to elevate that to revocation. Or to find
to bear badly, we don't need to turn that into emotion or do we don't think so.
I think where I also, I think what I also hear is really tight now the restrictions in terms of when we have limits in terms of people in parking and those types of issues, but making that a little more robust, so Johnny can use that, in terms of so we can actually deal with the situation versus it being
obscure. I'm actually going to make a motion I move that we direct staff to come up with a list of suggestions to fix the ordinance that would resolve a lot of the concerns that we're hearing from our constituents. I think that's what we should do, and have staff come back. And then we can we can have a discussion if it's needed. But they're the experts. They deal with this stuff. They hear it all the time. And I think if something needs to be fixed, we should ask those guys to come back and tell us what needs to be fixed.
I will see Second that Mayor but I want to say that I think that the six months occupancy is a complete red herring. And that, instead we should be looking, we should be directing as part of your general direction to make the list, we should be looking at the list of police policies. If there is a complete list, which you're in the process of putting together of what is a short term rental, then the police could have checklist of if there is a nuisance call, then they find out what's going on and they and they, they tag that issue or citation or whatever it is, with the information that this goes into the short term rental history of the property. Because then we have what we need to give this ordinance TIF
How about using the term primary residence? That means that is where you vote. You're where you're registered to vote. That means that is where you pay your property taxes. Those things are fine double my, our staff. Does that make it? That's exactly and that's what Marsha is talking about to instead of sick, make it a little make it a legal term, make it something that's legally finable by us. And I think that's what Councilman water well, what all of us are looking for is something that enabled something you can find without relying upon their good nature. I lived in San Francisco and believe me, the rent ordinance was a joke. Because there were a million ways around it. And that's except that's what always happens. So, if we use the term Yeah, I, when you talk to Teresa, ask her what would enable us to find to put teeth in it and also that is finable by our staff without
onerous efforts. Thank God. That is exactly why I made the motion. Harold, you feel comfortable. We're about ready to vote. You feel comfortable bringing back something to us. All right. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Thanks, guys, Counselor Peck.
It's we are giving since Johnny's going to
bring back a list I would like you to look at time limits on short term limits, short term rentals. For example, a minimum of a 30 day rentals so that we don't end up with hotels. In in residence, you have to rent it for a minimum of 30 days.
Because we're Christiansen
a short term rental is a maximum of 30 days. So what you mean? You can't? It's not a short term rental if you're renting for more than 30 days. Yeah.
I guess my, my my only conclusion here is that my only concluding comment, I don't care if I'm the mayor, Mayor Pro Tem or city council member, without four of us voting. It's not policy. So the motion was to have staff bring back their suggestions on how to make this ordinance better. So, right now let's move on to 11 D land development code updates section 104 15.05 point O two o two o three o concerning the protection of streams, creeks, wetlands and riparian areas.
Donbass shut again planning manager we do not have any A special presentation or PowerPoint.
As the council has heard
previously, we've been working on a number of items for council related to the FCS to the wildlife management plan update and land development code that started changes that we made back in 2018. As a result of the wildlife management plan update, and then in going through the sections of code staff has proposed changes to the ordinance. We've included a redline version of our proposed code changes. That was a pet that was attachment one, a clean version, which had all of the red line strike throughs everything removed so that you could read it to see what it would look like if it was adopted as its proposed by staff. And then the third attachment was the appendix A from the wildlife management plan, just so that you could see some of the changes that we made compared to what was in that document that you had recommended, be approved by or that you approved for, for the wallet management plan. So, in our counsel communication on page 232, is where it starts, we had seven questions and recommendations that we were hoping to get direction from Council on. And I don't know the best way, if you want to go through those one at a time, I'm happy to offer a brief explanation of what they were meant to do. Or if you just want to see if someone will want to make a motion related to each one. And if there's questions, I can answer those at that time. But I think due to the, the time of night that we're at, I don't think you really want me to spend a lot of time trying to explain everything.
Is there any so what do you I guess the real question, I'm going to call on you, Dr. waters in just a second. I guess the real question is, what is staff need to do? To move forward with this particular land development code update. Well, I just I get the impression that in general counsel is happy with it. As we heard from Sherry Malloy, it's it's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Right? So what what do you what do you want from us?
One, I would like a motion for us to go ahead and create an ordinance to bring it back to you for first reading.
so moved. Okay.
All right. I would have seconded it for you,
but I will I appreciate I appreciate that. Okay. What else do you need?
Did you want to vote on that?
We could, but Dr. Walters has something to say and then we'll go from there. And then council Christiansen and Councillor Peck,
they'll counselor I think we all have some they'll I see lots of hands. Well, sir. Dr. Waters.
Well, my question was going to be given the staff recommendation three options. In the SEC, number two was direct staff to prepare an ordinance which is what it was second. My I was then going to ask done. Do we need to answer these questions individually or with the motion include the acceptance of staff recommendations is there's an affirmative recommendation in each of those seven areas to attach or to include in the motion if that if that's the case, I think we will accomplish almost everything that staff wanted to accomplish with this item. Is that if you
if you would, if you would make a friendly amendment to the motion to take staffs recommendations for those seven items, we would proceed in that manner with the ordinances, as we've explained them in the council calm Yes, you're correct.
Would you accept that amendment?
Oh, absolutely. Then I move that and then. Alright,
a council member. So based on the motion on the table to direct staff to bring back an ordinance with the amendment that it be in compliance with staff suggestions. Is there any buddy in opposition to that? All right, let's go ahead and vote on it. And then this chasm, okay, hold on one second. Councilmember toggle fairing. Actually, I'm sorry, sorry. I'm going to call on Susie only because she rarely talks. And then we'll go to the other council members, toggle fairing.
Ah, so I wanted to add an amendment to this as well, to make a motion to direct staff to require all current and future development proposals. enlisting to that once it goes through the first and second reading that will be done by the end of August. I feel you know, in the meantime, you know, we still need to protect these areas. So if we're passing this tonight, I would like to start and as of tomorrow, have all future current and future proposals be under this new LDC requirement, you have a second.
the only the only problem is that in order for a lot to be created by this council, we need a first reading and then a second reading both the regular session and then after that second reading the law becomes effect 10 days later. So I'm not opposed your idea. I just don't see how there's a we I don't see how it's gonna be possible to retro actively do it. But Councillor Martin, so the sooner we pass it the better is the moral council remark.
I I would like to point out that a version that is substantially similar to this is already in effect. So it's not like our riparian Borderlands are entirely unprotected at at this point, this is as is adding in some of the wildlife management plan that wasn't ready. But it's it's going to be okay if we follow The normal process. That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you, Mayor bakley. I'm in I tried to go through this plan really fast. And it was number three, did you was the council recommendation to include the Fort Collins criteria? If not, that's that's what I would want. So I'm not sure I want to.
I can't find it really fast on the
questions. And I my question to you is, was your
was what staff wanted us to accept was including the Fort Collins criteria.
There's a revised version of the Fort Collins criteria.
And that was the staff recommendation. Yes. I just wanted clarification on that. Thank you. Did I did I go for it?
Alright, there's motion on the table. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Mr. Chet, thank you very much. Well, my friend,
yes, Counselor Beck? No, um, this is for either Eugene OR Harold are Donner. What is the timeline? I know we're in a horrible budget year. But do we have a timeline for hiring the environmental planner and volunteer coordinator? Or is that going to be put on hold until we get to a better is that one of the things that were
sidelined? those positions are frozen right now. And as we're moving through the financials, we're evaluating it, I think to talk about just so everyone understands the decision making process. We've talked about needing staff to support operational staff here Rangers, we've talked about the need for code enforcement officers and all of these things have to be weighed against each other That's one piece. The other piece is we don't want to fill positions and then realize six months down the road. We've got a different problem.
Right. Okay. Thank you for that answer.
Thank you, counsel. Have a great night.
Great. Let's go ahead and take a three minute break as we open it up for final call. A public invited to be heard.
Right Do we have anybody by any chance on the final call?
No mayor, no one has called in.
All right, let's go ahead and move on to mayor and council comments.
All right, tell us more reliable faring.
So um, I just want to remind everyone to wear a mask. I just received word tonight that a dear friend has been tested positive for COVID. And, yeah, it's it's very unnerving. And, you know, I had been in contact with them. So I'm kind of now I'm going Do a little self isolation here to make sure that symptoms don't show up on on my face, my family and myself. But yeah, just, you know, be careful, be safe, be kind to one another. I know with the occurring rallies and protesting something that was I got an email that was really upsetting, and just how people are interacting with them with each other, because I've seen a lot of, you know, just some postings about some of the rallies occurring that they're carrying assault rifles. You know, really, you know, what is the intent so really look at, you know, impacts that we create when we are interacting with each other and just, you know, be kind and be forgiving, and be patient. That's all I have to say.
I guess I just the only thing I'd like to say is our community on Monday lost, lost an asset somebody who I consider A good friend, Alan Ginsberg. I'm not going to blame his death on anything other than obviously a feeling of despair and hopelessness. And he. It's rare I think that men and women in, in business, you can point to somebody and say they always kept their word or they were just they were just on the up and up. In all the years I'd work with Alan is a city council member then as mayor, I was also his neighbor commercially. I was on the third floor. He was on the first floor. He kept his word. You might not have liked this projects or the or the industry he was in. But he was he was honorable and he was smart. He was a good family, man, and he gave a lot to this community and he'll be sorely missed. So my, my heart goes out to his his widow and his children and City City Council and the city of Longmont just want to extend our condolences and our appreciation to the man who was in his alley gets bored. So
All right, Harold, do you have anything?
No comments, Mayor Council. All right, Eugene.
No comments, Mayor.
All right. Then with that, we have a motion to adjourn. Councillor Christiansen? Okay. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, it passes six to six to the nothing with Councilmember Peck absent looks like she fell asleep. All right. We'll see you guys next time. We're done. Bye.