city council study session 8-4 - 04 August 2020 - 07-00-09 PM - 00000-converted
10:31PM Aug 5, 2020
short term rental
Mayor you are good to go.
Alright, I'd like to call to order the 2020 Longmont City Council study session order.
Let me start with roll call.
council member Christiansen
Councilmember Hidalgo fairing here. Councilmember Martin. Here. Councilmember Peck? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez
here. Councilmember waters. Mayor, you have a quorum.
All right, Aaron, if you let us in pledge yet you have right. Marcia has no Joan has. Polly has Tim has? I guess Suzy Have you have what they were back to me. So all right, let's do the pledge. I pledge allegiance to
and then to
All right. Okay. Just a quick reminder anyone wishing to provide public comment during public invited to be heard must watch the livestream of the meeting for instructions. When the call and information is displayed like this, please call the number displayed. Enter the meeting ID and then When asked your participation ID press pound colors reveal caught here confirmation they have ended the meeting and be told how many people already participating in the meeting. Colors are then placed on hold and muted until they are called on you'll be called on by the last three digits of your phone number. Please remember to meet the livestream, when you are called upon to speak comments are limited to three minutes and I will unfortunately have to cut you off no matter how awesome your comments. Alright, we have a motion to direct the city manager to add any agenda items to future agendas or any other issues. Dr. Waters.
Yeah, it's not the direction to staff. So I'm just clarifying. One a part of our conversation in emotion or in an action in our discussion, the study session on
short term rentals.
So much of that discussion that evening focused on non residential property owners and what they can and can't do consistent or inconsistent with the ordinance Late in the meeting, Councilmember Peck offered a motion that I seconded and voted for. And I just want to clarify what my what my my thoughts were in intent. I was concerned the next morning that that motion would would change. The current ordinance that allows a Longmont resident property owner to own a another property that they could use as a short term rental, which the ordinance currently allows. And I, when I went back and listen to the meeting and the motion, I it sounded like that the intent was to take that out or eliminate that from the organs, which wasn't my intent. And I did check with Don Chet the next day to say, to ask them what what he heard. And I think Don told me that my impression was that that wasn't going to come back as a change in the ordinance. But just I want to clarify, and I don't mean I don't want to debate it. I just clarify with Councilmember pack the intent of that motion. And, and just be clear, what I don't want to do is have staff working on something that comes back and I'm going to vote in a way then that might be different than I voted voted the other night because of some confusion, my confusion about what the intent of that motion was.
Um, so Councilmember waters, you're correct that it would be. I think, if I recall correctly, then the motion was to make the second residents a maximum, no, a minimum, a maximum of 30 days as a short term rental. What's the maximum or minimum I can't remember exactly what the
Yeah, that's the maximum of 30 days. That that goes.
So just to I can clarify. a property owner, somebody who lives a resident Yeah, living in their home. If they have a second home could be an ad or another home in town. The ordinance currently allows for them to use that as a short term rental. And the intent would be to continue to allow them does that.
Yes, but not have it be a hotel where they're running people in every weekend and
Well, that would be a short term rental, that would be a match that would be them. A short term rental would be the maximum 30 days. Right. Um,
well, for me,
I just want to clarify for the staff as people are working on that ordinance. That's I don't want to personally I would rather not see that come out. I think I voted for a motion that might cause that to come out of your ordinance and I just want to clarify what my confusion was in my what my intent is.
So hold on, timeout. Don, can you pull up the minutes from last meeting and read back what we voted for
It was the June was July 14.
Yeah, just one moment.
for doing that there's a second issue
that I just want to be clear on. I heard Councilmember Martin raise a concern about a very unique circumstance where you've got residents in a property owned by a Boulder County along mine, but a Boulder County resident in which they place their parents that are living there full time and want to use rooms in that home as a short term rental, which doesn't doesn't comply with the ordinance. But I want to say that's a circumstance that seems to me that we ought to figure out how to make an exception for that in such a unique circumstance. You know, I'll be quiet I don't want to rehash the whole thing. I just I don't think I was clear in my in my thinking or in my in my vote that evening, and I just want to I just want to be straight with the record in with other council members.
But the other confusion I don't remember any of that in the motion, which is why I'm asking for clarification what we voted on.
Oh, Mayor, if I might, Councilmember waters, which motion were you trying to clarify?
It was an emotion late in the meeting.
A council member pack moved. And I seconded and I would I was focused on was non residential property owners, which had been most of the discussion that night as I went back and listen if what triggered it was the article in the paper the next day that we, as it reported, I thought, cash that's not that's not reflect what my intent was. So that's what I called done. And then I went back and listen to it. And now I'm interested why the report the paper reported the way it did. So I just want to I just want to clarify, I understand there. It's too late to do a reconsideration and those kinds of things.
I just don't want to I don't want to confuse
whatever that is. emotion. Yeah,
Yeah, sorry. Here's the motion. Councilmember Peck move seconded by Councilmember waters to take away the ability to permit a second term second short term rental that is not owner occupied and clarified that a property owner could have a second investment as a long term rental.
So essentially what we did so what when we're gonna have to cancel to come back on first and second reading, is we are prohibiting anyone from hat from from having a short term rental or an Airbnb, if that is there a second home or a second residence in Longmont. And we're only going to allow them to own a second residence and rent it out so long is they're renting it out for over 30 days. That's how I understood that which which means that anybody who has a second home so if the I can live in Longmont. If I have a home, I am no second home. I'm no longer allowed to rent that out except for long term over 30 days.
What was our vote on that done?
five to two, I believe
it was five to two with Mayor Bagley and Councilmember Martin dissenting. All right.
All right. Then, Harold, you know, and that's coming back.
Joanie on here.
Mayor Bagley, members of council. So we are currently reviewing drafts of ordinances from some other communities that have recently changed their regulations to assist us in bringing back something that addresses some of the enforcement issues we talked about. And so I do not have a date certain at this point. However, we'd like to try to get that on the agenda in September possible.
Thank you. Mayor Begley, I just wanted to say for were the information of the staff was that the reason that I voted against this was two reasons. One is it makes someone local with a second property the same as an someone who's not local with a second property because anybody can have an investment property that they rent out locker. And second, um, I think that all of the problems that our constituents are concerned about are matters of enforcement and not a matter of code. So in other words, if, if both code enforcement and the police understood who was who was a short term tenant,
they would be able to gather enough data that persons read up landlords who are not seeing that their tenants are well behaved. could lose their license right now we don't have enough enforceability to allow that to happen. So I think we totally focused on the wrong thing. And that was why I voted against it.
So we're back. So again, as we start, I'm going to pick you then Councillor Christiansen, we're not just counsel. Dr. Waters only asked for clarification. There is currently no motion, no decision to be made. just reminding everybody that this is just talk at this point. We have a we have things to get through. But Councilmember Peck,
actually, that's exactly what I was gonna say. This discussion happened on the first reading. Can we get back to our agenda, please,
or would agree with you? Councillor Christiansen? Do you agree?
Yeah, let's wait until we
wait until it comes up to rehash it again. I I disagree that we focused on the wrong thing. Anyway, let's get back to whatever I do have something I would like to say. Go ahead. Tonight. We're talking about RVs and I want us to just stay on that. However, there are several parts of that code that I would like to bring back for discussion. One of which is that I've lived in a lot of places, and I've never lived in a place where you couldn't park for more than 48 hours on the street without risking getting towed without even a warning. And I think that needs to be fixed. So I would like to bring back that part of the code. Also, I've never lived in a place where you could have your car towed out of your driveway for having an expired without warning without having for having a an expired sticker, which is a very easy thing to have happen. I just think we need to look at other areas of that code and I would like to have a discussion. You know, on The next six months. Okay.
All right. Well, before I
would move that we bring it back for I would direct staff to bring it back in the next six months so we can discuss other aspects of that vehicle ordinance.
I'll second that.
All right, it's been moved and seconded. We can vote on that. It's been there is a motion has been seconded, but my understanding is parallel if you could just maybe shoot us an email or have Eugene shoot us in the eugenol if you're on here, but if you could just shoot us an email what the current state of the lie is because I do believe that junk vehicles already I mean, unregistered vehicles or junk vehicles aren't removed from private property but only to be removed from city streets and city property. If it's happening, then I need to get an attorney and point out Harold do we remove citizens private property in the form of vehicles if
on dance dzone to get in, but I think it depends on the name Have the code case that we're dealing with. I'm probably
gonna shoot us again.
We got to get you the details on that. But most of the cars they they tag are actually on public roadways.
Then the other thing is also the other question is the 48 hours of what the process is for giving warning and then removing Arby's and other vehicles from the street if they've been there for longer than 48 hours.
Yeah, Johnny was nodding so it is a tag when they're on the public driveway.
Yeah. So if you can just we can vote on it though. Councillor Christiansen?
I had my son's car towed or in front of our house without any notice because he's his ticket is a plate was expired by a month or a month, six weeks. And I cost a whole lot of money there was no notice given, simply disappeared and when I called report that this was a number of years ago when I called them to report the stolen vehicle. They said, Oh, no, we towed it. But it was a Friday, so I had to pay for the entire weekend. I don't think we this is the kind of city we need to be. So if that's still going on, we need to change that. And I know people got their cars towed from their property for having an expired plate. So
yeah, let's get you the details. Cuz now I think they should Jeff's on I think, Jeff, they should post a sticker, right?
Yes, especially on private property, but on public property or a public street, we would tag it and give the owner a chance to remedy it. And then we would put hardly unless it's a junk to completely junk vehicle we we generally give people a opportunity to move the vehicle especially if it was parked in front of somebody's home and It registered to that home.
go ahead finish. You just you just skipped out on me. Deputy Commander Souter Go ahead, please finish.
Oh, we would take and give people notice if it was parked in front of somebody's home, we would probably even knock at the door and let them know they need to update their tags or move the car onto the property. We generally don't remove cars from private property, unless it's an under some other circumstance. But it's not for expired plates.
As per pack.
Um, basically, I think that the motion was that we want to see this in the code, not to discuss it and I think, Mary, you are correct in asking you Jean to bring back the code. And let's see if that's actually what it states Is that correct? Holly?
Yeah, because in the in the code there is no mention made of a notice and in fact, I got no notice my son got no notice the other people that I know have had their cars towed without, from their private property that were not junk cars. They were perfectly good. But as I said, this was a while ago, but I'm talking about what the ordinance actually says it doesn't say that there will be a notice given. It doesn't say any of that. It says 48 hours and your car can be towed. If you don't have current plates, your car can be towed. It needs to be more explicit in the code.
Look, I will get back to you.
Thank you. It is one of a vote on that. Or do you want to just wait till we get the information first.
Or Councilwoman Christensen?
I would like to have it come back. Okay.
Okay, I'm not seeing anybody I'm gonna duck waters. Just
I'm just looking at my notes. I thought what I thought tonight was it was the follow up to a motion that I made on August 6 of 2019. To Richard bring back the RV ordinance. And in that discussion, Broughton paperbag will you indicated that you would work with the city manager to get this on an agenda? I thought this I thought what tonight was that?
so look at all aspects of the ordinance correctly dig into
so I guess
I'm just I think tonight tonight it comes from a Christian said that
the dig into these things.
That's right, Christiansen.
The reason I brought this up is I don't want to discuss this tonight. It's really we have a lot To discuss with the RV ordinance and i i don't think this this has nothing to do with the RV ordinance, although it is part of the same ordinance, but it's complicated. And what we need to talk about is Arby's tonight, as we all know, that's enough of a mess.
All right, I guess the see nobody else I guess I'm gonna vote against it only because my understanding is that the law already does what I think that you're trying to do. You cannot have a 40 unless they can get they can't prove the 40 hours, at which point they don't have a legal case. So it's already happening just naturally. And if you've got the definition of junk vehicle isn't your vehicle doesn't work. It means it's not registered, and so on. And so I think by public policy, we should continue to require people to register their vehicles. So anyway, let's go ahead and vote. I still stand I was like, Harold, even if this fails, I would like you to I think that we all want to see it in email, just what the current status is. I'm wrong. Let's bring it back. All right, all in favor of the motion say aye.
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay nay. Hey,
all right. Raise your hand if I heard no, a lot of them. Raise your hand if you're voting for the ordinance or the motion. Okay, the motion passes four to three. Please bring it back for the next six months. Harold, if you can shoot us an email to save us time. That'd be awesome.
I work with Eugene on that. Thank you.
All right, let's go ahead
and uh, see nothing else.
Let's go ahead and move on to special reports and presentation. Actually, let's don't let's go to public invited to be heard. Let's take a three minute break because we allow people to get in the queue and then we'll cut it off. All right,
back in three
All right, let's go ahead and get back to public invited to be heard how many of you have in the queue done?
Sorry, Mayor just the moment. We have six people at the moment perfect
Are you ready to hear those speakers? there? We are. Okay. And you got the timer.
Ready. I do very good.
colors. We're going to unmute you by after we call your the last three numbers of your phone. So color 348 I'm going to unmute you. Can you hear us now? Again, would you please state your name for the record and address and you are ready to begin.
So my name is Patrick McClintock my mailing address is 1100 East 17th Avenue C 105. The reason the mailing address is because I live in an RV. I'm calling to represent as someone who doesn't fit the stereotypical Walter White Breaking Bad residents of an RV calling especially because of the article from the Longmont leader. I'd like to specify Ma Long taxpaying resident of Longmont I've been living here since I've been four since I was four. And I'm not a vagrant. I decided to live in an RV a little over a year ago, to allow me to stride towards career goals as well as to get out of being devoured by debt. Prior to COVID, I actually had a flipping business that was gaining momentum. And then when COVID occurred that kind of put a damper on that but now I'm on the path for another career. Because obviously, I do not want to live in an RV forever. I'm not a trashy person. My RV is old, but it's in good shape and the tags are legal and up to date. And on top of that, I have a good relationship with my neighbors. I have permission from the resident I'm in front of to park in front of their house. I even help them with house projects, and I've actually become really good friends with them. I dog sit on regular basis for another one of the neighbors on nearby. I just want to point out I don't leave trash around, I go to properly dump waste at Boulder County Fairgrounds. And when Boulder County Fairgrounds was closed during the first part of COVID, I even went to St brain State Park to dump. So if the city decides to ban RVs, I literally don't know what I'm going to do. And that's not only about where I'm going to live, but also what to do with my personal belongings. Even though I do have a career started on May will be a little while till I get a consistent income. So at this point, I'll have no choice but to pitch a tent at Roosevelt Park, which I really don't want to do. With that said, I asked the city council to consider and even show mercy to those of us who aren't causing the problems with the RVs and when The city does decide on what to do. I ask that you please don't punish me for the actions of a few. And thank you for your consideration.
All right, thank you very much. next
caller with the phone number ending in 410 I'm gonna unmute you please state your name and address for the record.
Can you hear us? Hello?
I can hear you. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can go ahead.
My name is Ed towers and I live at 1534 South Kauffman Street.
I'm calling this evening to voice my concern and frustration over the decision to make some coffee and shoot the collective street from being a local residential street without allowing the residents of our streets Kaufmann Any public comment? My concern with this project is that the city has misrepresented their intentions from the start. The city wants to make stuff happen between pipe in Quebec attune Street. But the street goes through a residential development with all of our driveways facing street
over the last week, we've been in this house for 20 years. And over the last couple decades since the development of prospects rainbow Ridge Creekside, we've seen increased your traffic from pike to Quebec on South Kaufman. And that's because it allows drivers to bypass traffic lights on Main Street, and also offers quick access to Parkway.
There's several problems with having a few traffic. It not only increases the volume of traffic coming through, but the typical speeds are well above the posts of 25 miles an hour. This endangers pedestrians, bicyclists, children playing and people that have been pulling into or out of their property. So I would, I would like the city council to state why it is acceptable to have a non local sophomore pack, sophomore Park traffic, cutting through our residential development, essentially using our street as an arterial Street. And that's my comments. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
All right, next.
All right caller with phone number ending in 618. I'm going to unmute you please state your name and address for the record.
Let's go ahead and read it again. Done.
Well, that color seems to have hung up and disappeared. I will try another one. Caller phone number ending in 932. I'm going to unmute you. Please state your name and address for the record. Go ahead. Can you hear us? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
Okay, this is Tara towers at 1534 South cost ministry. I was wondering if the city council is aware of all the exceptions and judgments the Department of Public Works had to make in order to place the traffic signal at the intersection of South Coffman Street and pike road. The traffic signal goes against city standard ordinances and the Envision Longmont plan as well as a new TCD and f h w a guideline making the decision to stay at this location based on engineering judgment and Department of Public Works modification or exceptions. When we received the letter stay in the scope of like road improvement project I had no disagreement with the fact that we needed crosswalks or turn lanes at that intersection. Therefore, I did not take the time off from work to attend either the five o'clock Wednesday meetings in February of 2019. While talking with the traffic engineers in June it was brought to my attention that a traffic signal have been installed and during my research to find out why it was being installed at this location. The answer I received from the city traffic department is because of public comment and the warrant is met. There has been at least 25 years of public comment regarding pike road requesting that safety and environmental concerns of the existing roads. bids are taken into account while developing this area of Longmont. According to the Federal Highway Administration, which has incorporated any tpds or standards, just because a warrant isn't that does not necessitate a light being installed, engineering judgment must be exercised to take into consideration the adjacent land uses. This light is being placed on a local residential street which is defined by the city's traffic mitigation program manual as intended to provide access to property. These streets are not intended for through traffic movements and quote, the Envision logmar plan defines the functional priority of a local residential street as excess only and limited mobility. There is not another local residential street in the city that has a traffic signal installed on it. The city has repeatedly told the residents on our streets that the functional classification will not be changed with the installation of this traffic signal. However, last week, we noticed that our street is on the collector street prioritization list that the traffic mitigation website has posted. A stretch of South cross the street between pike road in Quebec has already been started. The practice of working with the city's chest If mitigation engineers to address the fact that the through traffic has gotten out of control, this light will be legitimized in our street as a thoroughfare giving all this town traffic that gets stuck at that like the idea to cut through our neighborhoods to reach their destination engineering endangering our children as they are going to school and the many residents and bicyclists that utilize our street. After city council meetings last May councilmen are met with residence long pipe road further discuss the improvement project. I never received an invitation to any meetings to discuss this other than the one for the public meeting held in February 2019. The voices of the many residents on the north side of pipe road have not been heard on this decision. And those that have voiced their concerns have been brushed aside. Our 81 year old neighbor that lives on the northwest corner this intersection has attended nearly all city council meetings regarding pike road Jenna her 47 years of residents in the neighborhood. Her yard has been torn up the road is encroaching on the very small easement she has between the road and her yard and she is just beaten down because the city has never taken her concerns into consideration. This whole process has more than disrupted the convenience of our lives. This is in danger. During the neighborhood safety and reducing our property values, and it's not okay.
Thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you. All right. Next
caller with phone number ending in 119. I will unmute you now please state your name and address for the record. Can you hear us?
Yes, I can. Okay, go ahead. This is Karen. This is Karen dike. I'm at 708, Hayden cork, mr. mayor and council members. I want to begin by thanking this council for contracting with Dr. Helmut to conduct air monitoring at Union reservoir and at Longmont airport. Adding this data to the research conducted on conducted on air pollution from fracking is very important. I follow this data closely. However, Dr. Detlef helminths presentation on the benzene spike and the direction from which the spending must have originated is somewhat stunning. As an RN, I'm extremely concerned about the health effects from this benzene pollution that occurred. Based on this presentation I'm asking that this council take several steps. The first is to renew Dr. Helmets contract this month. When we have this type of alarming health data, we must continue to have this information. I realized that Cobra would like to shut down Dr. helmink monitoring, but please don't fall into the negative information they spread. Second, benzene levels seeing we're at dangerous levels, please set up a real time warning system so that people in the path of this pollution know to close windows and keep children inside. And lastly, it is time to connect with neighboring cities and counties to pressure co GCC aq cc weld county and our governor to stop this pollution. Sb 181. needs to be inactive now. taken years to write regular Before protecting residents is not okay. All permitting must be stopped until this law is fully implemented. Please see if you can add your voice to the CO GCC website. Drilling will soon begin on the large night Well, this well is on the north side of union reservoir to those who live on the east side of Longmont. I urge you to begin following the data found at bold air. That's Bo u LD air. Make sure the air is clean enough for your children to breathe before they go out to play, especially if they have asthma. Thank you very much.
Thank you mistake.
All right, last but not least, we have one more.
One more. Caller with phone number ending an 811 I will unmute you please state your name and address for the record.
Hi, my name is Deb McClintock. I live at 1100 Eastern 17th Avenue. Good evening, Mayor Begley and council members are looking for the meeting tonight I found the vision for Longmont in the next 20 years written on May 18 2018. People in 20 years my mind will be the world's greatest village where children are the most fortunate to be born and raised. elders are supported through their entire life's journey for people will have access to food and shelter, and everyone has the opportunity to thrive and feel they belong to monitor status. One of his goals for long money is to become the most compassionate community in Colorado. These are all admirable visions and goals. The city wants to ban all recreation vehicles from public streets. Where can these people go? Are the RV dwellers going to feel an opportunity to thrive and feel like they belong? My first thought was we're in the middle of a pandemic, a health crisis. We have been in lockdown closing our businesses, stores, restaurants, etc. People have lost their jobs. mental issues are at their all time high suicides, abuse, violence, and on and on all time. They're all time recruits. Food Banks are having trouble keeping up. So I ask is this a good time to ban crvs? Is this showing compassion? People are living in what they can't afford? Do we want to cause more homeless people? journal generalization or maybe in the report? Number one, people don't have a proper way to dispose of human waste. And true. The County Fairgrounds has its own station. It was closed in March and now open since June. people leaving trust maybe a few but not most. You can see the same thing in residential housing to trash, weed, high grass, etc. Number three, can you safely assume that all RV dwellers don't want to improve their life? I sign along later on this article was negative generalized statements without solutions. long run is better than this is the city council to consider the season we are in a condemned pandemic, or health crisis with economic consequences. Maybe a tapering of a decision for more time to work on a solution that would be available put to help these people. Don't let a few bad apples ruin it for the rest. Let's find solutions to allow for these therapies to say rv sustanon streets, most of which are parked in industrial or out of the way places. Some are parked where people allowed them to stay. I ask that we show compassion. continue to work on providing affordable housing as Polly Christensen has promoted, see if I can find a solution for all the homeless and RV lawyers instead of a complete ban. Thank you so much.
All right, good timing. Thank you very much for your comments. All right. That concludes today's public invite To be heard, let's go on to special reports and presentations Herald an update on COVID-19. They have one for us.
If I'm going to share my screen and go pretty quick, I also have David Bell here to really do the bulk of the presentation in terms of a continued update in what we're seeing in some of our parks related to the COVID-19. Or what we're seeing now.
Can you all see my screen?
You see charts?
Yeah. So this is the same chart that I've been showing you before in terms of the accounts that we've seen in, in Colorado and you can again, see the shape of the curve a bit of a peak here. We're not sure exactly what that is. But generally, over the last week or so, it's been trending in the right direction but for that day,
Don't know why it does this and try it out.
Again, you're seeing the the chart, this one on the number of deaths. It has been a lot lower than we've seen early on in this you can see some spikes but you're also seeing some days where there's there hasn't been a death reported. The big number here is really looking at this chart with the positivity data. So you can see that it was at 3.53% on August 2 August 3 4.34%. So the state number is still down below 5% which is really, you know, they wanted to see that continuing trend moving down where the Boulder County data, I can tell you that we're seeing again, you can see the same trend. We We've had some spikes within the caseload in what we're seeing as as a community. Again, looking at this overall percent positive test for PCR 5%, current five day average 3.2%. I've actually had some questions that say, What are you focusing on the current five day average percent and positivity rate is because that's what really tells us what's happening now, with the cases versus the the 5% is really bringing in the positivity rate that you see on this chart. And so what we're really looking at is what's happening today based on that positivity rate, and what those cases are trending to do. So, at least in Boulder County, you can see that we've really been below that 4% range for some time and so that that's really good for us and seeing what's going on in our community. Again, when you see the growth in case It is, you know, I keep harping on this. But what we're really seeing is in this 20 to 29 year group in terms of where the majority of the cases that we're seeing are coming in. And that's important because when you see the five day average of new cases, you can see where we hit this peak, we were trending down, and now we're just ping pong in in terms of those cases, we look like we're doing pretty good. And then we started moving up again. When you look at what's happening in the community, we haven't had some growth. I think the last time I talked to Council, we were at around 630 cases. 638 cases in Longmont, we moved up to 666 747 in Boulder. And then so we have had some growth in cases in the last week in our community. Again, just sort of seeing what we're tracking in terms of race, ethnicity, In those issues, this number here was actually down to 36.2. So we're seeing some, you know, fluctuations upward recently in our Latin x community, and so we're trying to understand what that looks like. But that's really what's happening with the cases in our community. Obviously, we see a lot of the news in terms of what's happening. The good news for us is we're not seeing the same impact within our long term care facilities. And people go, obviously, it's good news for any number of reasons, but it's really also the strain that it places on the medical system. We're not seeing that as much as we saw early on in the event, but it is, you can see that it is in different areas of the community. In terms of our hospital status, everything seems to still be in the same range that we We're in, when you look at med search beds, it has moved a little bit into the red. But again, you have to keep in mind that that is based on elective procedure still being done. And when you see an ICU beds, it's really kind of remained in this area and when we get the updates, and we're not seeing as many cases of COVID in hospitals being reported,
as we were early on, so that's also a good bit of information, but we're still seeing case growth in our our community. And again, I think it's just really important to focus on social distancing, wearing the mask, and then just good hygiene practices in general. There's been some recent studies have come out that really said, if we can just do those things, it'll help us really get ahold of the numbers. We're still watching everything pretty close. Just so you know. We got an email From interphone notification from the school district today. I don't know if you've all heard this. I think it's going to be online classes until I'm going to look at Councilmember Hidalgo fairing to make sure but it's going to be online classes until the end of September, and they're going to keep monitoring as they're moving forward. What that really says for us is, you know, we're really having to look at our plans and how we manage our operations, because we haven't we know we haven't a number of staff members who have kids, and how is that going to impact it and ensuring that they can be online and learning? Many of the conversations that that came up that I heard earlier about childcare that is a major or that is a focus for us as we're looking at what the world is going to be. For us moving forward in childcare is is a big component of that. We conducted a survey where we sent that out to early child care providers to see who's still continuing to provide childcare, who's not providing what are the limitations? What are your struggles financially, because we're trying to get a sense of what that world really looks like. Because as we look at our cares funding, that's an opportunity to help stabilize that world a little bit. And it's all encompassing when we talk about the childcare piece to this, because it's not only about childcare for teachers, but it's also those parents that have to work. And how do we assure that there's enough spots, and we're definitely seeing issues. Anecdotally, and hopefully, the survey will clarify some of this, the friends and family network has been something that we've been concerned about because most of that's in people's homes, and they don't want to do that because of obvious reasons. So there's a lot of issues. We're trying to wrap our hands around at the moment. And as we look at the carousel, That we received, hopefully within a week or so we'll be able to have a sense of what that's going to look like and how we're going to at least make recommendations to Council in terms of applying that to our community and our operations. So that's a that's a piece that's going to be coming coming to you all, hopefully in the very near future. I mentioned cares funding. What we're also looking at is in terms of some of the expenses that we've absorbed as an organization that were not planned. pp purchases, equipment purchases to sanitize vehicles, I mean, we had a lot of things that we had to bring in. So we have we are really fortunate in our organization have two outstanding individuals that do this work Peter Gibbons and I always forget Charlie's name, but I call him FEMA Charlie. To work is through all of the FEMA processes. And, and and all of these funding mechanisms that are coming to play in addition to Kathy and her team and the CDBG CV funding to really look at how do we apply it? How are we covering gaps? How are we working through some of the issues that were that we're seeing as a community. And I will say though, the thing that I said on a number of occasions is childcare is it has the potential to have an economic development impact on our community. And so those are the things that, you know, we're going to be looking at, hopefully have something to you in the near future on that piece, and what that's going to look like to our organization at the same time, we're preparing the budget based on this. And again, I will remind you, we're looking at this on a month to month basis because of how fast things changes and the impact of certain decisions. So we're continuing to dig into that so we can have that ready by the time that our charter requires it. Well, we will have it to you on September 1, but it's um you know, just taking it off. To time from Jim and his staff, and trying to reconcile that versus what the world of COVID is going to look like and how it's going to impact our operations next year. And that's the big piece. It's, you know, there we're having to make really educated guesses in terms of what do we think next year is going to look like as we're putting this budget together?
That's my update. If you all have any questions, I can answer those. CUSTOMER PICK.
Thank you very badly. Harold. Just as a point of clarification, you may have already said this, and I forgotten when you do the five day What did you call it just five day look at the cases and you come up with a percentage. For example, it was about 3% is that based on on our population,
it's based on the number of tests and so we don't do that the health department does it. So they take the number of Test they're performed. And then how many of those tests are positive, and that gets you to that percentage. And what that does is it really starts giving you a sense of, of how fast it's moving in, within communities, within counties and within states. And so what you're hearing and some of the other cases, and this is why I say we have to really watch the y axis. If you watch certain national news, you'll see Colorado where it says significant increase, well, that's a percentage point. And but we have much lower cases. So we may not see a case growth at some of the other states are having that. So this is a percentage of that. And that's what we watch, which then goes into how they calculate the R naught, which is how infectious It is, in addition to how well people are wearing a mask and following all of the orders to develop their other models.
Yeah, I'm sorry, I broke in there. I'm just out curiosity. I how many people were actually tested within that timeframe in Longmont so that we can see how many negative cases negative tests came out of that? I'd be curious to see. See what that looked like. I mean, 3% of how many cases were tested, which would tell us how many were actually negative
entropy, we can try to get that information. Let me share the screen with you right now.
Okay, cuz I don't know what's 3% of why.
So, in this case,
so in this case, they had about, let's say 450 tests performed. So then he had about 460. Then he had 500. And you can see you can see that then they dropped and then they went up to 520 on this date. So generally It's in that range of out of 500 test.
So that's how the 500 tests
that's the 3%. And I'm doing percentage that was positive.
So they so right here on this chart, they've they've conducted 30,967 tests,
in what time?
This is over the course of the entire okay? event. Overall, it's 5%. But the current five day average is 3.2%. Okay, that's when you look at the last five days to figure out how many tests they've done. And if you remember what Jeff Zack said when he presented and we're going to try to get him back again. What they really wanted to do is that study said having the ability to do 500 tests when right when you get there, and they've obviously exceeded that on certain days.
Okay, thank you for re restating there's
All right, counsel, reliable firing.
Um, so you and I have had conversations and I also spoke with Jeff Zack about this, but that period where we have that 17% positivity rate. So in our conversations, so we think about early in the pandemic, you know, really you were kind of on death's door death's doorstep before you could even access a test. Correct. returning a lot of people away. Um, so that rate then impact impacted the overall so I know I stations with several educators because I think was it two weeks ago that it was even up to 5.7%?
Maybe for the state, the state Okay, I don't I don't think it's Boulder County. We've been there but the state.
Let me pull that up.
yeah, on July 22 2020, the state positivity rate was at 5.84% 24%.
Okay, so that's what I was thinking, but it was looking at the whole
duration of the pandemic. So that's why the 5% overall rate is a little higher than that. 3.2% 2% correct.
okay, yeah, Thanks for clarifying that. The other question I had was around licensing for daycare. Is there any work about maybe expediting that process for people who want to? I know, I've heard community members and parents talking about wanting to create these pods where they would still have so they'd have multiple children in their home, but still utilizing the district's correct, you know, curriculum, so we would still have bt
But the fact that they would be having multiple families in their homes I, that kind of for me that raised a red flag as far as licensures.
Yeah, I you know, I don't I don't know the answer to that. But I know we can get with Jeff and Karen and Christina to try to get the answer to that. Because one of the things we've asked Jeff reasoner to do, if you remember, early on, we were, we were spinning up some childcare opportunities within our organization, because of what we were seeing and the need for childcare for healthcare professionals and what we needed. And so I've asked them to look at the same thing. As we get into the fall, in case there are gaps or shortages. But you know, we've done some things now where they're, we're helping facilitate PPP, PPP through our system because of the bulk purchasing that we have at play in play to hopefully reduce some of those expenses. So we're doing a number of things and hopefully When we can bring that care spending piece, you'll see it all be where we're tying it together. Okay, great. Thanks a lot.
All right. See nobody else held.
I've got a David Bell for a quick presentation.
Good evening, Mayor councilmembers. David Bell, Director of parks natural resources. This is a follow up conversation and I got lost in the judgment. So I'll try to keep it brief. But we'll definitely make myself available for questions here, even afterwards, always can reach out to me. But on the 14th, we hit some highlights of what we were seeing in the parks and I had a chance to hear from House members of the public about some other items they wanted to discuss. I want to make sure that what I heard from counsel might hear from the public is aligning with what you're hearing out there as well. And this is also a chance for you to hear what we're doing in response to some of the things we're seeing in the parks because that increase use and again, I just want to remind everyone this is an increased use not only in Longmont, Boulder County but Nationwide as people are really trying to take the opportunity to get out of the house that people may have been uncomfortable into restaurants or theaters or movies or really taking advantage of being outside and enjoying these outdoor opportunities. So we definitely are seeing an increasing use, which again, I think has some very positive aspects, but also has some impacts on our community and the resources. So I, I'm not sure who's going to run this PowerPoint or how I do that, Harold. I was I sent it to Susan.
Sorry, David, just one second.
You're fine. Thank you.
Alright, I'm advanced. Let me go back.
My apologies, David start, start talking.
I have my other