6:34PM Jan 7, 2021
mayor pro tem
Mayor Are you ready to return?
Yeah, we're ready to return. I'm seeing Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmember Christiansen back.
there they are. Like waters he back. There he is. Alright, let's go ahead and start with first call public advisory heard.
Mayor, we currently have 10 callers. I'm just gonna wait a second for it to clear the livestream before I begin, and it looks like it's just doing that.
Alright, and then let's go ahead and close the close the room. So we don't go from 10 to 20. All right,
I will begin with the first caller, your phone number ends in 035035. I'm going to ask you to unmute
Hello. Hello. Hi. Can you hear me?
Yes. And I can hear myself in the background. Is it possible for you to mute the live stream?
I will do that entirely. Thank you. There we go.
All right, you may begin by stating your name and address for the record.
Okay, thanks. I am Jenny black. I live at 2609 Elmhurst circle in Longmont. Good evening there vaguely in council members, Christiansen Hill, doggo fairing, Martin, Peck, Rodriguez and waters. The comments I'm going to make are about the road bike park constructed in the riparian corridor along left hand Creek with item 12 C on the agenda. I emailed a longer version of these comments to council back in May but did not speak to the council at that time. Just as background. I am the mother of two boys now grown with a voice of their own and concerned about what happened to the riparian way and seeking expert advice on boys and bike. I sent the Times called article of may 20 to my son's for review and comment. Both expressed empathy for the riders while recognizing that they must bear some responsibility for their actions. Their suggestions are incorporated in the following comments, I hope they will be helpful. Well, the creativity of these boys in building the course and then calling attention to a personal need, or a perceived need for bicycle or bicycles course in this neighborhood is admirable. It is unfortunately in the wrong place. This is public land that has been set aside as a riparian way to protect both the river and the wildlife that use this corridor. This mistake however, can serve as a teaching moment for the whole community to honor their petition request and or leave the course in place. Allowing de facto continued use would not be the appropriate lesson to remove the skills course and repair the area as soon as possible would, particularly if those involved in the destruction were to help working with the city and perhaps with the aid of concerned community members and wildlife restoration volunteers with whom the city has partnered on other projects. In addition and equally important after or while the repairs are being done. Those interested in a bike skills park in this neighborhood could work with the city to plan and obtained funds for building one in a more appropriate place. In the meantime, Dickens Park was safe Although more distant access could be used, Taken together, these actions which are consistent with option to being considered this evening, would serve as a lesson in environmental conservation and the necessity for compromise in civic planning and political action. Thank you very much for your consideration of these suggestions.
Thank you. All right.
And the next caller, your phone number ends in 347347. I'm going to ask you to unmute
347. Try hitting the star six on your phone. If you hear me There you go.
Oh, I thought I was already muted. This is Mary Lynn. I live at 744 Atwood Street. And I'm recalling, I'm calling with our two actually two issues. The first is I'm very, very concerned about the very, very weak scientific justification for the restrictions that Governor polis is continuing to put forth and that the city is unfortunately still complying with, which are devastating our local economic community, especially our restaurants. Every week, I look at the statistics that the city is using, and I think if someone with a scientific training, how can they possibly justify this? How can they possibly justify the numbers of quote unquote, cases, when the international community is now working rapidly to make sure that PCR tests are never used, ever used to actually make a case diagnoses? We don't know how many people who are sick at this time or or dying are dying from flus A and B, because the CDC does not track this is not tracking the flu this year. I urge the city to to recognize that the information that's coming to you while you're trying to be safe is is very weak. And you are restricting the rights of businesses their natural light, right to their constitutional rights to make a living, and it has to be stopped. We have got to get the city back on track and people loving walking around in downtown Longmont in and loving our city again. And we we have to recognize that whether the governor says it or not whether the department the Health Department says it or not. It is the responsibility of the people who are carrying out these restrictions to make sure that they are actually correct in terms of doing legal right to restrict people's businesses. And I know that's being questioned. I heard about another lawsuit today against the local business. I don't want to hear this. They don't want to be in this position. Please do the right thing and open them up. Thank you.
All right, next caller.
next caller your phone number ends in 452452. I'm going to ask you to unmute There you are.
Can you hear me? Yep,
you may begin.
Sherry Malloy 2113 rangeview Lane. Thank you for recognizing the beautiful life and life legacy of Nino gala tonight in May 2020. The issue about the creation of a BMX bike course by air used along the creek by lefthand Park was discovered and created without approval by the city. This course was not only very damaging to this section of the riparian corridor, it was also illegal. Obviously, the kids didn't intend to cause harm or break the law. But that's what happened. At that time due to COVID restrictions with kids not attending school combined with pressure from parents and online petition. The youth created an a boulder bike group's involvement. This council directed natural staff, natural resources staff to monitor the situation. David Bell told me the parents in the bike group folks all realized what the kids had done was wrong. They just asked for leeway and time in hopes that the COVID impacts would be short lived and the parents and by group understood the bike trail would be shut down in the fall. That approach and rationale seem to make sense at that time. Well, it's now January 2021. And while we all know COVID impacts continue To be significant, the kids have used this area for eight months, and it's time to get real and fix this unfortunate situation. Option two is how council should direct staff tonight. This means spending the money required to remove and restore all impacts to the disturbed riparian corridor, including the removal of the by course, Council has a contingency fund that can and should be used to fund this project. option three is out of the question. And option one reinforces improper behavior. But the kids did so unintentional, was misguided and unacceptable. No one wants them to be held responsible for the $35 $35,000 price tag to repair the damage they cause. We look the other way long enough and it's time to make it right. As a parent of a dirt biking and mail enthusiast I get it, kids will be kids, but that includes being held responsible for their mistakes. There is a bike skill area Dickens farm, which is only two and a half Greenway miles away with no street crossings. 2.5 miles is not far on a bike, especially when one realizes the entire argument for letting this continue eight months ago was to give the kids some exercise and enjoyment. Option one reinforces irresponsible behavior and teaches a dangerous civic lesson. As a retired teacher for 35 years, we should be using this as an opportunity to teach you about the value of repairing areas, and why it's necessary to respect and protect this space and other natural areas where 95% of all wildlife depend on healthy riparian areas for their survival. I would love to see a restorative justice approach where the youth involved might take responsibility for the harm caused and be involved in the repair project. That would be a win win full scenario, full circle scenario. As a volunteer with natural resources, I'm concerned about the previous efforts to plant natural vegetation in this area, which has not been successful due to the unintended abuse. I look forward to help with the restoration efforts. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
The next caller, your phone number ends in 488. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
can you hear me?
Yes, we can you may begin.
Alright. Yeah, my name is Scott Cunningham. I live at 3771 South Narcissus in Denver and practice integrative internal medicine. My comments this evening are in reference to the climate action recommendation report published in June of 2020. I want to begin by congratulating the council for embracing the very ambitious goal of 100% renewable, clean and safe energy by the year 2030. At the risk of stating the obvious, I want to I want to bring to mind that in order to reach this worthy and audacious goal by 2030. You can't afford to waste any time spent in distraction along the way. As an example, I'd like to draw your attention to initiative three, marches, ri three and the recommendation
rd three suggests that in conjunction with local utilities, by 2023 options and incentives will be provided for electric utility customers to participate in a demand response program that manages electricity use in the home to reduce peak demand, shift the peak load or absorb excess production, I would suggest that if all you have is a demand response program by 2023, you won't be even close to meeting your goal of 100% renewable by 2030. Now, in contrast, I'd like to focus on an aspect of the recommendation that I believe is right on target are referring Of course to re five which suggests that by 2021, a pilot renewable energy grid would be a huge step in the right direction. I agree with you that our renewable grid to include residential rooftop solar, and a beneficial sustainable and above all safe electrification plan is absolutely critical to meeting your 2030 goal. So in conclusion, I recommend an aggressive state of the art 100% renewable pilot to be implemented immediately to demonstrate to all observers that Longmont has acquired the technical expertise and possesses the collective will to create a fully functional 100% renewable, smart, fully wired utility grid in 2021. Effectively bringing long months bright future into the present, and positioning the city for first mover status and gaining recognition, even nationally. Thank you very much.
All right, thank you very much. By the way, I love it when people like it three minutes exactly like Exactly. So that last caller was like, on anyway,
next caller. Yes.
The next caller, your your phone number ends in 579579. I'm going to ask you to unmute 579.
There you are.
Do you hear us either?
I do. Thank you City Council for taking my call. My name is Greg Swart. I live at 2023 Sundance Dr. Benton Longmont resident for over 40 years and I'm calling regarding the proposed Rex maintenance facility at the ute Creek Golf Course. First of all, I'm an avid golfer, and I voted in favor of the maintenance facilities at the you Creek Golf Course. I feel I was misled because I believe I believe what I was signing up for was a remodel or revamping the existing facility, not a relocation. Since then, I've learned that the facilities are planned to be relocated to the parking lot in the clubhouse by the clubhouse. And, and I'm I'm outraged that it wasn't disclosed at the time of the vote. That would have absolutely changed my vote along with many of my friends at U Creek. I have had the privilege to play hundreds of golf courses, nice golf courses all over the world. Never have I seen a nice golf course with the maintenance facility by the clubhouse by where all the clients and patrons park the nicest golf courses on the planet have done a fantastic job of hiding their maintenance facilities away from the participants. You Creek as our as long months premier golf course. And I just hate to see it degraded by the exposure of the maintenance facility. After talking to several of my golfing friends who also voted for it, they were disgusted that the plan proposal was that we were going to custom have a custom architectural building as a maintenance facility instead of a standard efficiency building that could be provided at its current location. I'm asking the city to please be financially responsible and please don't degrade the nicest golf course we have. Please keep the facility in its original location. Thank you for your consideration.
Our next caller is 681 those are the last three digits 681 There you are.
Can you hear us? Yes we can. Wonderful.
Yes Scott Pierce 2017 Sundance drive in Longmont. Good evening, everyone and Happy New Year. I too am addressing the city council regarding the proposed relocation of the youth Creek Golf Course maintenance buildings. The current maintenance facilities been located along the highway 66 area for 25 years for the original you Creek Golf Course layout that was designed by the Robert Trent Jones the second golf architects. As you know the city of Longmont staff, which also happens to be the applicant here is proposing to build a new facility right next to the existing clubhouse. This decision is opposed by several 100 of the homeowners who live all around you Creek Golf Course and also many of your pain golf customers. Many of us have spoken with members of city council and city staff regarding our issues and the disapproval to move the facility. But we have not been provided any feedback to our concerns, and the project continues to keep moving along behind closed staff tours. Our request is that the current facility off highway 66 must be upgraded and upgraded at its current location and not relocated The city applicant is justifying holding itself to a lesser design standard by citing development cost savings, we strongly disagree with this position. In addition to centrally relocating the maintenance in a waste yard, the city applicant is requesting variances to install a chain link fence and buildings with non conforming sheet metal exterior designs. These variances exempt the city applicant for meeting building standards for design and compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Simply put, city staff is holding itself to a lower design standard than the surrounding homeowners and their Hoa is required to meet in 2002, a non non public administrative approval to move the maintenance yard was never acted upon and technically expired one year after the project inactivity. There have been no public discussion regarding the relocation issues since that time. Did you know that there are over 240 public and private golf courses in Colorado, and our research shows that none zero of these courses have built a maintenance facility next to or even within 1000 yards of their clubhouse. Even though Robert Trent Jones golf course designers and two other golf course architects indicated to us that they would never design a golf course with these two facilities in such close proximity to each other. Why should Longmont do this? Who does it benefit? Come on? We request that the current maintenance facility be upgraded at its current location and not relocated. The city must hold itself accountable to its own standards and abandon this preposterous preposterous proposal that will devalue the premier golf course in Longmont.
All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 696. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you are. Can you hear us?
Yes, I can. Can you hear me? We sure can. You may begin. Thank you. My name is Chris hammerschmidt. I live at 2619 Fernwood place in Broomfield, Colorado, and I am calling in response to the businesses that are currently shut down in your city. I have looked at all the data on the Colorado website. I am a data analyst I deal with a lot of data. And I pulled the data for the outbreaks both the result inactive cases for both boulder and weld counties. Most of the results cases were found in healthcare facilities in schools. In weld County. A lot of cases came from meat processing facilities and the only cases in restaurants were due to staff testing positive. There are no members of the community that tested positive from restaurants and no deaths have resulted from the restaurant. The largest source of active community outbreak of about 2000 was at the University of Colorado and resulted in zero deaths. The whole food store on Pearl Street had 20 people test positive and no death. And the only grocery store in weld County was King soopers number 117 with 28 confirmed lab staff cases. The other retailers in weld county who had lab confirmed cases was nature's urban Wellness Center. And the target in Greeley was six and 11 cases respectively. The only deaths have been in health care facilities and jails. I i've been reading this book called the transmission of epidemic influenza by Dr. Edgar hope Simpson. He states that viruses are seasonal, which is what we are seeing now we're seeing the rise and seasonal cases of a virus. influenza in the north hemisphere appears from September to April exactly this timeframe with a peak in January. And in the southern latitudes influence appears from April to January this is all well known. I am asking you to open these businesses instead of punishing them for something they have no control over. And this is the data that you guys should be looking at. And I will just state a Facebook page from a restaurant here in Broomfield County. I'll make it short. This is a restaurant owner. And this is what some of the excerpts of what he put in here. As I take a card that has just had this handle sanitized. I think about my restaurant which invested 1000s of dollars so far on ink and paper to print disposable menus to ensure no touch. No two guests touched the same menu. As I watched the woman next to me pick up apples with her hand check them over closely and then put them back on the open pile and repeat this until she finds the perfect apples, the same thing that all the other people that day who want an Apple will then do and then put those apples in their mouth. I think about the two step sanitation process in place at my restaurant for all cutlery, and dishes and glassware and between every single guest and the sanitation of every skin, every surface guest touch tables, Chair salt and pepper shakers, et cetera. I just want to leave you with this. I don't think your five stars your your h2 solution, your five star mandate is, is what businesses need. They need to open. They are in despair. They are in desperation, and they need your help to open right now. And none of the data that is on the Colorado website says that they are at fault for what is happening in this community of virus goes viral. That's what a virus does. And so I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mayor and for city council members for listening to me. All right, thank
That's three. For one more.
Mayor, there's three left the next caller. Your phone number ends in 949949. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
Hi, my name is Ruby Bowman 1512 left and Dr. Mayer Bagley and city council members city council should spend the funds necessary to restore riparian habitat on left hand creek that was damaged by the illegal BMX track. habitat restoration should be done as soon as possible. As you know from previous council discussions, the city stream corridors are highly valued habitat in terms of species richness, and they serve as well I movement corridors. Environmental sense sensitive areas like left hand Creek should be protected. If residents want to buy course in their neighborhood, there is a proper way to advocate for their project, like attending a private meeting and asking prab members to include a bike course as a park ci p project, it will probably have to be a CI p project because of the high price tag to build it. The illegal excavation of left hand Creek bank was not the way to do things. I also asked council to consider requiring a restorative justice measure and dealing with the BMX course. Those who damaged city property should be required to participate in repairing the damage. Thank you so much.
All right, our next caller your phone number ends and 789789 I'm going to ask you to unmute.
Thank you Good evening. My name is Shannon carbine. And my address is 6469 pulpit rock drive Colorado Springs, Colorado. And I represent a group here called make Americans free again, their city council thank you for staying up late with all of us tonight. We have reviewed the following information and have concluded the following concerning the covid 19 pandemic. During the year of 2020. We witnessed the unlawful incarceration of millions of Coloradans without due process. Our right to travel freely was severely restricted. We watched our children's spirits dampen as their schools were closed and they were forced into online learning depriving them of knowledge in social interaction. Our elderly grandparents were jailed inside nursing homes deprived of fresh air, sunlight and visits with loved ones. We were kept out of our religious and spiritual centers and told we could no longer have fellowship with others. Our businesses were forced to shut their doors, forcing many of us into poverty under bankruptcy. Our fundamental rights granted to us under the US Constitution were stripped away at breathtaking speed. This was all decided for us by Governor polis and the unelected health officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This was done to us by force, all under the guise of a health emergency. Well, we have examined the evidence for the so called pandemic and assert the following. The death count is misleading and substantially overstated. testing for COVID-19 has huge flaws. The cure is worse than the disease. The public has been severely misled and masking social distancing will not stop the spread of the virus. Furthermore, COVID-19 is no worse than a seasonal flu. Our conclusion, there is no emergency. Therefore, we the citizens of Colorado have decided for ourselves, we do not comply. We do not comply with unconstitutional orders that are not even laws. We do not comply with unscientific emergency orders using manipulated data to target our livelihoods. We do not comply with the use of fear tactics and manipulation to coerce us into our homes. We do not comply with the wearing of face coverings that do not stop the spread of infection in Hyder faces and blocker voices from being heard. Instead, we declare we are citizens in charge. We declare ourselves free, free to educate our children as we see fit. Free to see our friends and family members at the time of our choosing.
cut her off. Thank you. All right, next caller. By the way, just to just reiterate, like everyone gets three minutes, you know, sorry.
And our last caller, your phone number ends in 926926.
There you are.
Can you hear me?
Hello. Good evening. Thank you Mayor Bagley and council members. I am calling today to mention the fact that the Wall Street Journal was just published about how
to me Please state your name for the record and address. Thank you.
Okay, sorry. It's been Sergeant and I lived on what street in a side?
Okay, so Wall Street Journal article. The big tech giant Cisco Systems, is now dropping out of the Smart City technology market after investing heavily in initiative over the last decade or so. So why did that happen? Because they recognize that people don't want it. cities don't want to be smart, city surveilled. They, because of the all of the publicity around surveillance technology. Basically, Google also shut down this model project in Toronto for the same reason, no one in the community wanted it. It was bad for their brand. So I I'm calling because I understand that the city is trying to move ahead with putting smart meters on all of the houses and apartments here. And I suspect that the real reason that it's being rolled out is again for surveillance. Because if the only intention really was the balancing and regulating of power needs across the city, if that was the only goal long lat could achieve that with approximately 406 smart meters, maybe a few more, maybe a few less, depending on how you how evenly distributed they are. But it's completely unnecessary to put smart meters on every house. So the only justification for imposing smart cities, meters on all of the homeowners and all of the rental property owners is that that data collection has monetary value. And that's why, you know, the the the cities want it, obviously, they can monetize it. But that's why the people don't want it. And so the cities that are listening to their people are actually stepping back from the holes, smart technology, smart city push and I hope that Longmont will wake up before it's too late. It's a gross misuse of public funds. To do this entire project, it's completely unnecessary. There's no justification for it. And
if you want to regulate the usage of power in the city, you are sampling. I hate
to cut you off, but that's three minutes. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
mare that was the last caller.
All right, I heard a cat meow somebody But anyway, let's go ahead and move on to the consent agenda and reading or the consent agenda and an introduction and reading by the title of first reading of ordinances.
Dawn you're muted. It
Thank you. Mayor. item nine is resolution 2021 dash o one a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Regional Transportation district for ecopath contract. Nine V is resolution 20 2102. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for parent education services. Nine C is resolution 2021 dash o three a resolution of the Longmont city council modifying the method of appointment of the commissioners of the Longmont Housing Authority. And nine D is designate the city's website as the official posting location for city council meeting notices for 2021 meetings.
Move the consent agenda.
All right. The consent agenda has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, consent agenda passes unanimously. Let's move on to items from or actually just general business. I'm gonna move that we recess the last council can be as the Board of Commissioners the Longmont Housing Authority. Again. It's been moved by me and seconded by Councilmember Christiansen All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right. The motion passes unanimously. We have a motion to adopt the revised eha bylaws that are consistent with the Longmont City Council. As the LA Board of Commissioners established the one my Housing Authority advisory board and take specific actions called for the bylaws.
So moved. Second Second.
All right. It's been moved by Councilmember Martin and seconded by Councilmember Peck.
Anybody have any
questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, let's vote All in favor say? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, as I say at the bottom. All right, Dr. Waters.
Thank you, Mayor Bagley. My question really is not as much about this motion. I'm going to vote for this motion. But we didn't see in the right time to weigh in as we were approving the consent agenda. And I didn't want to put up a poll and I am off. Is there a provision on tonight's agenda to appoint the the the immediate past I guess, now lhsaa board members minus me to the advisory board a week? Is that on the agenda? Are we doing that tonight, if not, at some point, we should just I'll just say that and be quiet and go for this motion.
So there's some pieces in this. So point one, adopt the revised bylaws that recognizes the city council as a ellijay Board of Commissioners, and it establishes in Longmont Housing Authority advisory board. second piece is appoint the former members of the lhsaa board as members of the newly created housing advisory board. The other piece is council chooses to appoint me as the Interim Executive Director of the housing authority. So that's the adoption piece.
So I'll just let me interrupt if so if we, if we pass the bylaws, then we taken care of the appointment issue. For advisory board.
Thank you, across the board and for the executive director to
all right. Anybody else have any questions? All right, it's been moved and seconded that we adopt the revised ha bylaws and and the rest of 12 a. The motion is on the table has been seconded. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, the eyes carry unanimously. Do we have a motion to adjourn as the Board of Commissioners Aloma housing authority and reconvene as the last city council
Councilman So moved.
Second. Oh, Councillor Peck. You got sniped? Oh man. Oh god. That
was brutal. Councilmember Christiansen made the motion. It was seconded by Dr. Waters.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right, the Motion carries unanimously let's move on to 12 be possible changes to inclusionary housing code for review and direction.
That's actually going to be Kathy
Good evening mayor and council Kathy Felder Housing and Community Investment division manager. And tonight I would also like to ask Molly and Heidi to turn on their video and unmute themselves in case there are things that they need to answer. Heidi Peterson is our inclusionary housing program specialist. And she and then Molly McElroy is our housing program specialist. And Heidi takes the development side of the inclusionary housing program, through the provision of units working with the developers attends to DRC meetings, tracks the projects, collects the fee and Lu when we get that and approves middle tier housing when we get that, and then Molly works on the homebuyer side, once we have housing units, gets downpayment assistance as needed processes, fee waivers, and other financial support through the CDBG. And affordable housing, fun. So both of those folks are integral parts of this, and have been involved in inclusionary housing since the beginning in the case of Molly, and as soon as she was hired in the case of Heidi, and work together to make sure that we always have somebody who's knowledgeable about the inclusionary housing program as we as we move forward. So what we're bringing forth to you tonight is some updates that we have observed over the course of the two years of the program has been in operation all of 2019 and all of 2020 since the ordinance was passed and approved, effective December 24 of 2018. You remember, it's a city wide and a county wide goal of 12% of the housing deed restricted discriminate portable is our goal. There's so many options for compliance with the ordinance, and accessory dwelling units, individual single family homes are exempted. You want to bring up the PowerPoint, please go to the third page. All right there. Okay. So like I said, in the two years following the adoption, we've identified some areas, some of these were identified by planning staff in some by as just going through the processes. So this is a review of some specific areas where there's either been conflicts between the language in the code and possible intent. Sometimes counsel has actually brought up issues as we have, as you have reviewed some of the voluntary agreements, etc. So we're providing options for resolving these scenarios, that has have arisen for your input. Items one through nine are possible potential amendments to the code. And then we have two areas at the end items number 10, and 11. That we just want to bring forward and get your initial thoughts on them any further input from the community how you want us to get that kind of thing. So those will be coming back for further discussion for sure. Next slide, please. So the first one is an exemption for existing housing units. So the current code does not provide for an exemption for existing housing units that would remain as part of a new project. If you remember, the Martin street family multifamily project council did approve a motion to give the developer an exemption for the pre existing unit that was going to remain and be included as part of the project on site. It was a original house, and they were going to rehab it and rent it as part of the project. There was also another home on the site that they demolished so they did not get an exemption for that. So based on Council's previous direction, the question is should the codie language be amended to reflect an exemption from the inclusionary housing calculation for existing housing units that would remain on site. So option one is to change the code to provide the exemption for existing and remaining part of the project housing units or to leave the code as is and deal with those on a case by case basis. And if you want to provide direction. As we go through this, that might be the easiest. And I can answer questions about each one as well.
I suggest that if we we do take motions will have to exit in and out of the presentation for the mayor to be able to accurately see.
You rock up real quick you said one more time.
I was just saying if we're going to take motions after each bullet point or item that we should probably exit in and out of the presentation so you can accurately see who wants to ask questions and stuff.
That's true. I just noticed that Heidi Peterson, Kathy fetlar. And Polly Christiansen and yourself, currently do not have any hands raised. I don't see anybody else. But what I would like to do is how many, how many? How many slides? Do we have? Is it possible to go through it and then return? And then do that all at once? Yeah, there's,
there's 20 total. Or we could stop at the nine and go back and do those and then have the discussion on 910 and 11.
What do you think is best? You know, what's coming? Kathy, what would you recommend we do?
I think get would probably be most quickest and most helpful probably to just take each one as it is it take the questions on each one. And
on each one. Let's do that. Now,
I can see everybody right now. So he put up the slide. Real quick.
So we're looking at option one, the change change the code to provide an exemption for existing and remaining housing units or to leave the code as is and deal with it on a case by case basis. Okay, Councilmember Christiansen?
We're making a decision on inclusionary housing at a time that is kind of a financial meltdown. So I first of all, Kathy, thank you for all the hard work you've done on these, these are things that we need to deal with. So and I think we can go through them pretty quickly and get it out of the way. This particular one has to do with already built housing that will have stuff added on, I think each one of these cases will be very different. I would rather not try to do a one size fits all. And I would like to see us leave this as it is on a case by case basis for a while and maybe we examine it after the economy picks up a little bit. I think that because these are going to be odd cases, we should look at them on a case by case basis. So I would recommend that we I would move that we suggest you're not looking for motions, right? Yeah, we
need to we need to pass. Okay. Okay,
I would I would move that we go for option two and leave it as is for now.
All right. It's been moved and seconded. Anyone disagree with that? All right. All in favor of the motion, which is just leave it as is say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
Thank you, john, pack.
I make a statement here for a minute. Sure. Go ahead. Um, I don't. Are we voting on each one of these? Or are we just going to tell each one of us what option we prefer?
We're going to we're going well, if there's a motion, okay, there's a second, we will vote on it. All right. If I mean, just,
I just missed. I just missed the strategy here. So thank you. Okay, that's all
right. So to be clear, it was a six to one with six eyes in one day with Councilmember Peck dissenting, right.
Let's keep going. Kathy,
can you put up this slide again, then, please?
Go to the next one.
All right, so on group homes. Right now there's the code does not provide for an exemption for additional units added within the current existing building footprint and or conversion of non living space to living areas or bedrooms. So in this example, we did have a group care home conversion provided application was submitted and then later withdrawn. But the what happened was the proposal was converting a single family home of three bedrooms into a group care home and converting the garage area and some former non living and living areas into five additional bedrooms for a total of eight. The code currently requires all the square footage to be considered in the inclusionary housing calculation. So similar to the one before this option one is to amend the code for group home conversions to exclude existing bedroom spaces from the inclusionary housing square footage calculation and only new bedroom spaces would be applicable. or two. We could exclude group homes from the inclusionary housing code requirement altogether. I guess a third one would be just to leave it as is
Thank you Mayor Bagley cafe, our group homes typically not for profit organizations, or can they be for profit?
It could be either one. This particular one I believe is for profit.
That makes it more complicated in my mind, but I want to listen to other people first before making any motion.
but just to get it on the floor, I'm not gonna I won't argue one side of this. The other I'm gonna, I'm gonna move that we we approve option
number one, which is to exclude existing bedrooms, but any additional a new bedrooms are subject to the code.
Second, all right. It's
been moved and seconded. Councilmember Christiansen, okay. All in favor say Aye.
All right, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
I thought I think I Councilmember Christiansen you wanted to talk and then you move it like Go
on, go on.
And then you wait that again? Do you want to say something?
Okay, I'll briefly say something I'm in support of what comes from waters suggested. Does the language specifically say group care home? It needs to say group care home. Because a group just a group living together would be a totally different thing. Well,
we'll make sure that it matches the planning definition.
Okay. Okay. Yeah, I do think we should. I don't think we should exclude them. Because as Councilman Martin pointed out, there's a big difference between a for profit and not not for profit, sometimes not. But anyway, I would support option one. Okay,
there's a motion on the table to adopt or instruct staff to adopt. Number one, option one. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, the motion. The motion carries six to one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez in the dissent.
Thank you. All right.
And just for future reference, we don't we're not going to do it now. But anytime, can make Mayor Pro Tem anytime you've got a an opinion. I'd love to hear the reason behind it. And I don't mean that to argue I mean that with all sincerity.
I did raise my hand just didn't catch it.
Oh, that lets you know what then point of order. That's my fault. Let's go back. And actually, we'll revote. And if you don't mind, I'm sorry.
I think the vote is fine to stand. But I'd be happy to explain real quick Go Go ahead, please, is that I feel that the affordable housing program, at least in this case, is going more by the letter of the law than the spirit of the law, in my opinion, because when I think of trying to provide said housing for the the community at large, group homes don't necessarily come into my mind as something of working class folks trying to find a place to live, much less anybody trying to look for ownership of a property or rental of a full property. This is seems to be seems to me to be a completely separate issue, in the sense that these are these are folks who are needing some sort of assisted living in concept. And so I don't think it really is a detriment to our housing stock. Just an opinion, but that's why I voted Nay, I would have preferred option two to exclude all group homes from the affordable housing program.
Oh, but just just to be clear, before we start talking the motion, the motions passed,
like, you know,
yeah, yes, it's past. So I just didn't call Mayor Pro Tem. And if you wanted to take the vote again, I would have asked us to go ahead and do that, because I did not use them on my screen. He's at the very, very bottom. And so for some reason, I'm not I'm not saying Dr. Waters. Now. I missed one from Dr. Waters. Miss welcome,
I'll just start voting next.
Yeah, exact just if you move, I catch it. So I apologize. So all right. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So that motion is passed and carried six to one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez in the sec. All right.
I had a hand up and was called on it.
Go ahead, Counselor Martin.
It will I wanted to comment because I'm not sure we shouldn't vote again. That was the reason I asked the profit nonprofit question was because these are institutions. These are not housing.
We don't we don't we don't need to vote again. You know, Mayor Pro Tem was the only dissenting vote and he did not object. So Councilmember Christiansen
I see what both points that you're making. However, this specifically talks about when you're converting a home into a group home, so it is actually affecting our housing stock. And it particularly if it's a for profit, very high income stuff.
Anyway. So again, again, we've taken the vote. So all this is, is, is politely you know, all all obsolete. So let's go ahead and move on with the presentation and go on to the next
hotly debated topic.
And can you go to the next slide, please? Number six. So single family home conversion to a duplex we've had several residents have brought proposals to the DRC to convert existing homes into duplex homes were allowed by existing zoning proposals have not included a change to the existing footprint of the residents of what we've seen so far. Option one is to keep the existing language in the code, which is a conversion from a single family home into a duplex is subject to inclusionary housing requirements, and one of the two units would need to meet the inclusionary housing requirement. Option two would be to exclude single family conversion to a duplex from the inclusionary housing code similar to the exemption for ad use, or option three would be to apply the inclusionary housing only when adding more than one unit. So converting it to a triplex or a multiplex. Those are the three options that we have are proposing. And two and three kind of go together by exempting a duplex. But if it was more than one unit added.
Let's go with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez the bottom of the screen
but hand it up.
Thank you, Mary Bagley. This is just a question about the difference between option two and three in the sense that let's say you had a triplex and you wanted to convert it to a four Plex or a four Plex to a five Plex or say just adding one unit. Does does that then apply an option three to any size complex that just wants to have one unit per se. Just curious.
I guess you you provide direction to me, what would what would make sense in that situation? If you're just adding one matter what the size that should it apply? Or does it have to be more than one?
Okay, well, I mean, there's obviously certain limitations based on square footage, as well as the zoning of such things. I would be okay, personally, and I'll move option two. Specifically for single family conversion to duplexes.
I will second that, which would make it exempt, Correct.
Correct. Councilmember counselor
waters Hands up. But I noticed Councillor pack you had a hand up and you have not said as much as others. So do you want to say something?
Yes. Thank you, Mayor badly. So um, my confusion comes in. If someone wants to have a triplex or a four Plex, then are they excluded as well? Or is it only the duplex excluded? And then I'm not sure that is clear to me. If we go with option two, does option three stand as being included in the inclusionary? housing? I guess this is for Kathy. Yeah.
I mean, I would say yes. Unless you're telling me that if you're only adding one unit, one additional unit that it doesn't apply. Otherwise, I would say if you vote on number two, number three is assumed.
See that I was going to move option three because that automatically took out the duplex. But if we just vote for option two, and I'm not sure if we have a solid reason for option three to include inclusionary housing. That's a gray area for me.
Councilmember Martin because your fingers move faster than Councilmember Christiansen
Councilmember Christina just kidding Council.
So I actually have, I think a solution. That first of all we can use we could have two motions. We have more than one option that could be implemented independently. So I would like to I'll tell you in advance what my two motions are. I think I would move or I guess we should vote on Councilmember Rodriguez is motion which is to exclude duplexes, right exclude a single family home being split into a duplex, and it's exempt. So we should vote on that. And then after that, I would like to vote on the the adding one unit to an end Plex and exempt that as well. So I'll move that after we've done voting on the first time. And the reason that I am and the anything that's different from that would have to be handled as a separate case, you know, as a special case, but that would be seems seems like it'd be pretty rare. And the reason that I think of it this way, is because these exclusive, these are adding density, which is what we want. So let's be lenient about it and encourage attic density, then go down in in price anyway because they're smaller.
So mayor, Mayor Pro Tem Would you accept the friendly amendment from the second that basically just says that we will exempt? Anyone adding a plus one, meaning if you have a single home going to a duplex or duplex to a triplex or triplex to add on one more would be exempt?
Yeah, just to make it a little bit more complicated. I would accept the amendment as long as it doesn't exceed zoning limits. Yeah, absolutely. So
the motion is that any any one adding on one more one more unit to an existing unit, as long as it's one more and does not extend or go beyond the zoning? What is permitted by the zoning limits? That is that is the motion in a second. But we have plenty of questions, comments, concerns and debate left Councilmember Christiansen and Councilmember waters. Okay, I
I'm all for adding density in the right places, the right places are downtown and some of the other areas where we already have apartments and things like that. When you start adding more and more and more density to a neighborhood, what you take away is your neighbors right to any kind of sunshine in their backyard, your neighbors right to any kind of privacy, your hips, your spread to any kind of peace and quiet and having the neighborhood that they moved into. I think we can do that in a smart way by just limiting things as we did with ad use and SDRs to not that many per neighborhood. But once we start just saying, Do what you want, you know. And it doesn't have to be affordable, you can just keep adding and keep adding and keep adding because I have lived in big cities. And this is what happens. It creeps along until everybody's filled up every available piece of space. And that kind of undermines our carbon sequestration and the ability for the gram to absorb things that messes up drainage. It messes up. It stresses out sewer systems, it stresses out parking, it stresses out everything. So I really think we need to be careful about doing this. I think it's fine for people to to do this, but I want them to be making it affordable instead of just doubling their income and monetizing their neighborhood turning their neighborhood basically into a commercial district. So I would I'm not going to vote for this unless it's option one.
Okay, Dr. Waters.
Thanks. I see here wanting to get in. I
come in behind here. Yeah, I don't know. Harold, you're at the bottom of my screen. Sorry, buddy. I have a sign for some reason. My just these are bifocals. And they're there. For whatever it's worth their their progressive lenses. And so if I'm like this, I see the top three rows, but I don't see miracle Tam or Harold. So unless there's movement, like a dinosaur a T Rex,
there's no movements.
All right. Sorry, Harold. Let's go with you then. Dr. Waters.
Yeah, the only thing I want to clarify. So you get two different issues here you have one allowing the one additional and then you have a zoning issue. And so even if you can allow the one additional that doesn't override the zoning if you can't have that many units in that area. So the zoning is always going to regulate how many units you can have. This is simply saying if you could have have additional units by zoning. How do you want to do this? So I wanted to kind of pull those two things apart for each from each other.
Do I have the floor? Yes, you do. Yeah. Thanks. So I just
would like some clarification on exactly what
the motion is, I think of what I heard is that if you are going to build an edu, that's not subject to the, to the ordinance, but if you're going to build a duplex it is or expand. We're talking about
going from one dwelling unit
meaning taking a single family home to a duplex or a duplex or triplex and
so you're I'm accurate the motion is, if you're going to go from a single family home to a duplex if the motion is that it's subject to the ordinance.
No, it's exempt.
so let's just clarify an edu or a single home to a duplex would be exempt a triplex the third unit would be subject to the ordinance
That's all you need to know. I'm gonna vote against the motion.
Councilmember fairing I see your hand Marsha. But Councilmember Lago fairing hasn't said anything tonight. So i'm john, you're up first. But I'm just trying to give everybody voice?
Um, yeah, I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. Because it Okay, so if you had an existing home? Is it talking about expanding it? So using up yard space? Or is it just converting the existing space into two parts? Or like so right? Where we used to live on Bowen Street, people had converted their houses, like the top part was the house and then the the basement or was the additional duplex? So it was an expanding space? And would this differentiate that
so this The motion is only pertaining to whether or not the expansion is exempt? To for to the to the What do we call this the getting late? What's the words that we use? inclusionary? housing?
It does not. It does not change zoning, it doesn't change zoning, it doesn't say they can do it automatically. It just says if they do get permission, if there is if there is a they want to do it, do they have to pay into the inclusionary zoning fund? Or are they exempt? But as far as whether or not they're permitted, the size, the variances at all still stays the same? The motion does not touch on?
that that would kind of change my mind, though, because if they're you utilizing the space in their yard to add another an additional unit? I would go with option one. If it's just taking your same house and not expanding?
i? Yes, you're saying
you're saying that you say you're viewing a difference between going from one house contained to two units versus one house to an ad you?
Yes, you difference? Yes, I did.
And you're already exempted under the code. And we're not proposing that that be changed. Okay, a couple of examples that we've had. So one homeowner came to us and they wanted to put two units in the basement in one unit upstairs. So they're going from a single family home to 234, a quad Plex, basically. So in that instance, they didn't change the footprint. So this could be either adding units within the existing footprint, or they could have ad added on and used up yard space. So either one could apply on this ad use would be exempt. And my understanding is what that amendment was that one additional unit could be added and be exempt. But if it was two or more existing footprint or new add on that would be subject to the inclusionary housing and ad use stay exempt. Clear definitely around what's an ad you
Okay, so if we pass the option to then that is only the addition of one more unit. So if we go for two to three, then it is subject to the inclusionary housing.
If they weren't already had two units and went to three that would just be adding one so that would be the amendment. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, is my understanding mark. Yep. counsel, you might have a better explanation says what was your amendment?
it's sort of
Thank you. The mayor changed my proposal, I was proposing to handle it as two motions. And I think we'd be done by now if we done it that way, because all these complexities are putting it in. So let's return to the mayor pro tems original mode of motion, and vote just on whether you can divide an existing single family unit into a duplex and have it be exempt. And then what I would suggest, instead of my, my preview of coming attractions was, let's let Kathy move the two to three in the three to the four into number nine and 10. So that we can think about it more and not be here all night.
Right. There's a motion on the floor that belongs to the mayor Pro Tem Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.
So it to a certain extent, it does sound like Councilmember Barnes asked me or is retracting an amendment or I can not accept a friendly amendment that wasn't technically offered, maybe
it was offered,
it was going to be a second amendment.
understand that point. And, you know, in that case, I will reject the friendly amendment at this time. And I just would also like to say that, in the concept of folks worrying a lot about this, when I said zoning requirements, I also am very well cognizant of that each zoning district within our city has a density cap. Okay. And so when we were talking about at us, we were talking about density caps. And I was suggesting, at that time that we count at us towards said density cap, which would be essentially the same issue with converting single family to duplex or triplex or quad Plex, it doesn't really matter. It adds density units to whatever that acreage unit is of, say, eight units per acre, which I believe is our current single family, residential single family requirement. And then so on and so forth, as we go up from to residential, multi neighborhood, or mixed neighborhood to residential. High Density is as we go along, or multifamily. I mean, used to be high density as multifamily. Now, anyway, the point being is that there are density caps, and you're not going to drastically change the character of a neighborhood because of these density caps. And so I don't want there to be some sort of huge fear out there that all of a sudden, you're in a single family neighborhood, and there's an additional 16 units, it's just not going to happen on your block. That's my point. So but I'm happy to go with the motion I
All right, so Councilmember waters. Yeah, just I should have asked the question when I before I signed out.
What what's your what's the rationale for you are the mayor Pro Tem, in exempting an Edu from the ordinance, but requiring a duplex adding a second unit as a duplex to be subject to the ordinance? It's
in both cases? It's the exact opposite. The ad unit is exempt already.
I know what
emotion exemption is saying this is exempt? Well, that's the question I asked. I have a heads going Oh, and I and the motion is that if you've got a unit and you're fit, you're adding one to two or one to two, two to three, three to four, four to five. That new unit will be exempt just like an edu, then I'm gonna
vote for the monkey. That's that's what, that's what I want to clarify. I guess as long as we're not treating the duplex one way and add another way. We're treating an additional
unit in the same one unit no matter what. One additional unit is exempt. Thank correct. Yes. All both emotion. All right. Councilmember Christiansen Councilmember
Beck's loving this.
Counselor Christiansen floors yours.
In the example that Kathy gave. That same homeowner could create one unit a year. And all of them would eventually be exempt because he'd be creating one after another after another after another? Or would that how would that play
out your house we'd be very small.
Also density caps.
So in my opinion on that question, we would be tracking and we would know if they were adding one a year and One exemption would be that I we'd have to add that into the language.
So that would be one in total per property. Yeah. Okay.
All right. So Harold, sorry, you're at the bottom.
Yeah, I just want to just want to reiterate again in case people are watching and, and so so here's the point somebody can come into Kathy and go, I want to convert this house into a duplex. Kathy,
it or Molly,
I want to convert this into a duplex. At the end of the day, they may be able to do it via the affordable housing ordinance. But if zoning says they can't, they can't do it. So I want to just make that clear. So to your point, there's two checks to this is what Councilmember Rodriguez or Mayor Pro Tem said, there's actually two checks, a Kathy B zoning, because you can't allow that group to go. And so zonings always going to overrule on the affordable housing ordinance.
Yeah, it's the first check, we just come in afterwards and apply it as affordable housing not we're not approving plans. It's just how the inclusionary housing is, is applied.
Correct, not changing any variance codes etc. Other than Are we going to make him pay into the inclusionary zoning fund? Councilmember Lago fairing
so this is just I just want a clarification for people who are listening as well. So if we pass the option to to exclude the single family conversion to a duplex from an inclusionary housing, it's not going to create a system of development gone out of control, um, where our neighborhoods are going to have this influx of because of the zoning component that's going to put a cap on that. So I just, you know, I just wanted to have that clarification as we move forward, so primarily for people listening.
so I asked a point of clarification. So as I've heard this discussion, are we really talking about option three as opposed to option two,
you're applying inclusionary housing only when more than one unit is added? Not specifically, just single family to a duplex. I thought I heard discussion around if it was a triplex to a quad Plex or a duplex to a triplex adding one more unit is allowed. But anything above that, regardless of where you started out,
exempt or would not be exempt. So just that's just a point of clarification. Are we really is it really number three?
I withdraw my motion and subsequently move option three.
Can you put Sup? Can you pack it?
Can you put option three backup. So that is option three? Yeah. All right. Okay, well, so
who was the
who was the person who said we should take down the slides while we're discussing this
in your bag? We
can see all the hands me, bro. Tam. Well done. Well, well, well played my friend. That was funny. We just got punked by the mayor Pro Tem. I'll second that. So it's been moved and seconded that we go with option three. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. Hey, all right. Motion carries six to one with Councilmember Christiansen and the descent. newly discovered a new way to count to three people. I think that's that's that's great. Typical government inaction.
let's keep going. Next slide.
Okay, one of the situations that came up was a property line adjustment, this proposal was to move the property line between two lots so that an existing driveway would be located completely on the lot of the homeowner. Typically a lot line would not have triggered affordable housing or any kind of a review. But because this was complicated due to the driveway location, or replat was required, which does trigger the process to go through inclusionary housing. So the question is, do we want to maintain the language in the inclusionary housing code and continue to have minor lot line adjustments subject to iih if there's a replat that's needed in Japan, With those issues on a case by case basis, or do we want to amend the code to exclude this specific type of replat?
Take the slide down, please.
All right. So that said, got it.
So if it truly is that specific, I okay with the exemption on that, I mean, but that's extremely specific. And so I'm just curious what you would consider other examples of that beside that specific example. Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to move. Option two, I
I just want to answer the question first, before I make that motion.
So Heidi, do you have any background on this? This was a very specific one. And I don't know. And Joanie, I don't know if she's still on or not, if she has anything to, to jump into as well on what other kind of anomalies we might see. But this was a very specific one that that did come up. And I don't know that we've seen any other weird ones like this yet. Not that it couldn't come up.
Mayor Paglia Mayor Pro Tem. So yeah, I think what land adjustments in my professional opinion certainly wouldn't meet the threshold of
necessitating an inclusionary housing add. However, I think the way the original ordinance was written, there wasn't a clear cut way for someone to exclude them. So I think this is certainly an anomaly.
Well, I think if there recladding in order to or changing a lot line in order to have a developable lot that's quite different. And then this particular instance, as well, right, I
see how changing a lot lines could necessitate falling into the eye. Ah, one thing I also had a question on, but this could be answered later, possibly. But I'm gonna throw it out there now, is that it seems like a lot of the communication in our council con was that specific things were hitting a certain level of review in the development process, that we're throwing them into the category. And so that becomes some of my question, because the specific example cited obviously, doesn't make an exemption, or it does make exemption status to me. But as somebody pointed out, hypothetically, you could totally re redraw a lot line that would add enough space to build an additional unit as we were just talking about, and so So, I guess, because of what assistant city manager, Marsh just said, I'd rather do this one on a case by case as far as redrawing lot lines. So I guess I move option one, based on hypothetical alone. The specific the specificity of the example given that I would have advocated for an exemption. So I think this one seems a little up in the air.
I'll second that. Councilmember Martin, your
fingers. Again, we're
moving fast. And we'll go with Councilmember Christiansen. Well,
I I don't have a comment because of the direction that the mayor Pro Tem went. So
hold your fingers. We're still moving fast. Councilmember Christians?
Yeah, I would support with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez said I think that this is it is very weird. I mean, we don't want to make development and renovation impossible we but we also don't want I just think it's better to review this on a case by case basis, since it's this kind of a strange little anomaly.
Like waters, near Bagley. Kathy,
is it? Is this like
the is just like the one exception that's come along. It's a case I'm uncomfortable with with the motion. But I do have a question, how often how much staff time is spent reviewing the exceptions that you can you could reduce staff time, if you just change the ordinance to exclude the kinds of the kinds of replanting you're talking about? Well,
I don't remember exactly how much time we spent on this. We did have discussed multiple discussions with planning staff and with the city attorney's office around this one and what to do about it. Some might be easier than others to move forward on. I don't think it's an inordinate amount of time. And I think we resolved it. If I remember right, internally, Heidi, correct me if I'm wrong and it just Come to Council for a resolution that we all fairly agreed that this really wouldn't trigger inclusionary housing because of what happened. So I think delaying or leaving it on a case by case basis until we get more data would be perfectly fine.
We need a second got
a motion for number. Noise second today. So we have a we have a motion on the table by Mayor Pro Tem, which I seconded for option one, which basically is taken on a case by case basis. On Harold, you look like you're confused. Okay, all right. All in favors. All right,
Yep, go ahead. Again. mayor and council there, there is really no case by case basis, it either does or doesn't trigger inclusionary housing. And so if you leave it as it is, it will trigger. I think staff, if I recall correctly said we would let this one go and fix it in the code. So
if you leave it in, it does trigger inclusionary housing, then you get into an e6 circumstance where it has to meet the criteria that creates more affordable housing, and we get kind of stuck. So the case by case basis, I think is not an accurate representation. reclass trigger inclusionary housing and a property line adjustment is a reply.
All right, so Marsha, I see a hold on one second. It's gonna be Marcia, then Paul, as soon as we finish Mayor Pro Tem.
what do you want to do with your motion?
Well, now I have a question. In the concept of leaving it as is versus completely exempting, if we completely exempt? Will we have some sort of recourse in the concept that somebody does adjust lat line or replied, to add additional units without triggering the code, the affordable housing?
I think, if we so basically, it's not a case by case basis, what we're saying is that we're going to keep it in the code, we're going to include them in the inclusionary housing fund. And if we choose later on to make an exemption,
then we'll do that.
Well, that was my question. Is there is there recourse for the specific example cited as far as just moving a lot line for a driveway? So we can allow an exemption to happen, even though there's no case by case basis to make set exemption? That's my question.
It's happened once. Right.
we'll go, Harold. No, Joanie first and then I'll go after Joanie,
Mayor Bagley, members of council, it might be important to
understand that the code for a lot line adjustment limits that white line adjustment to no more than 10 feet. So it's a pretty succinct.
And basically, you can only affect two adjacent lots. So the zoning code is really specific about a lot line adjustment. And
so I would say in the 20 years, I've been working in the planning department, I've probably done at least one of those a year, and they have always been for something where perhaps a neighbor is, you know, giving someone five feet or they're moving something after the fact to accommodate utilities. So that's the typical standard for a lot line adjustment, if that helps.
Mr. Patel? Does that help?
Sure. Is there the ability as was pointed out earlier, also by the assistant city manager to or maybe it was by Housing and Community Investment director to say buy into a neighboring lot to get the lot line adjusted to add more space for your development.
Certainly, if 10 feet provides that that would be a workaround, I guess, as you're indicating.
Okay. I guess I just worry about dinging people for wanting to get their own driveway or, or what have you. But at the same time, I have an issue knowing that there's very creative Have people out there, which I'm not going to fault him for. But there's very creative people out there that can figure out some infill projects that could probably bypass us. And, you know, I guess at the end of the day, nothing's perfect. So I'm gonna I'm gonna go with, I guess, keeping the code as is.
Okay, I'm gonna second that, because we just one way or another, we need a motion by Councilmember. Yeah, that was a motion. I'll second it, Councilmember Martin.
So it seems to me that in the example, given it would was impossible for the number of units total on the two pieces of property to change. And and so isn't there some criterion that if the number of allowed units or existing units on after a replan shaped plat doesn't change, then it shouldn't be? retroactively subjected to inclusionary? housing? I mean, that would be a really terrible result. You know, if I'm sitting there with a triplex and I give a, you know, move my lot lines so that my neighbor's driveway is in his own yard. And suddenly, I have to make an affordable unit out of my existing triplex. I mean, that's not a good result.
Yeah. I was just wondering why. Why is it true, if you're not going to build anything, why a lot line would trigger an inclusionary housing thing, that if somebody eventually decides to build something, then yeah, I just don't I don't understand why that triggers a replat. I think it's a Yes, I'm sure that Harold will tell me.
So I think the issue is the letter of the law versus a practical application in this case, and that's what the struggle is. So under the zoning code, if you have to adjust the lot lines, you have to do require, even if that's adjusting it, so you can build a driveway. So the practical application of this is they're adjusting the last line to build a driveway. But because the way it's written is connected to the replan it's what putting that in the iih piece. And so that's at times, I think this is where Mayor Pro Tem was going at. You're telling you're giving us direction today, and we can think about this. But there's a point to where we give the admitted planning some discretion in maybe we look at it from the standpoint of if the replat is not going to create a condition for additional units to be developed. They have the ability and again, we got to work the legal piece of this where it's not beholden to the iih piece, because it really is a practical application versus the letter of the law. And that's what's catching this thing in this situation.
So one solution may be it's give staff discretion. One solution may be to give staff discretion if if it's not going to create the scenario for additional housing units. That can be a staff level decision. Right. Then we'll figure out how to wordsmith it.
No. So basically, I am to restate the motion. Mayor Pro Tem, why am I hearing the motion to mean that it will be exempt so long as it does not create new housing units.
My original motion was to leave the code as is knowing that we can't do a case by case basis. So I'm not sure what the wordsmithing would be because in concept to me, that sounds like case by case. But I'm not putting the words into obviously legal or staffs mouth on this one. That's just what it sounds like to me. I'd be happy to change the motion if they can figure out how to thread that needle. But right now where I'm sitting at, there's not a needle to thread without any sort of wording for us to review. So that's why I'm sitting at leaving the code as is on this particular item.
All right, so we have a motion to leave the code as is Dr. Waters, when would you ever say, hey, so I'm gonna vote against leaving the code as is because it sounds to
me like Harold just laid out option three, which is to come back with with language that rather than trying to work that something at whatever time it is on tonight with another item on this agenda that option three would be to come back with language that is more specific about the kinds of things that would be in would not be subjected to the code, which is where I think we ought to end up but i but i but based on what I've heard, I'm not gonna vote to leave it as is.
I in any other night, any other night, I would let us go to 11 and not tell you guys and just end the meeting. But Sherry Malloy, I know is really concerned about left hand Creek Park and she was extremely nice to me and said some very nice things to me when I got divorced when I was really needing some, some, some some support. So this is payback for just being a good citizen and treating your elected leaders just like humans, so I'm going to move that we extend the meeting
beyond the 11 o'clock limit. Okay.
All right. It's been moved by myself and seconded by Councilmember Pac All in favor say aye. I'm sorry, Counselor Christiansen.
I think we're gonna have a lot of discussion at the rest of this, I would move that we vote on this, the property line adjustment, and then move on to the other the riparian area, because we have a lot of people who've spoken on it, and finish up number five to nine. Next week, if possible, or have a special meeting with us, when can
we push it off till next week Harold can be a problem. Or what we could do, what we can also do is let's we could also vote on this. Let's go ahead and address the left hand Creek Park riparian restoration, then we can actually move to suspend the meeting and then just pick up finish this then go into our next week's meeting. You don't want us to do that. Harold,
I'm sorry. Your mute Harold,
you look beautiful talking. But we want to hear you.
You're still Yep,
you can do this. Harold,
the mute button
hit the spacebar, buddy.
There you go. It's
my it's my mouse. It's my mouse. We don't have anything on general business next week. And we have the items we need to add for you all. So that'll let us move it so that we so we can move. We'll just move this on. You don't need to continue. It says just a study session. I
there's a motion on the table. Aaron. Since it's coming back. Theoretically, it's coming back next week. May your
vote on the motion to extend the meeting first.
in favor of extend I'd say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Thank
It's your motion Aaron, or Mayor Pro Tem you can do whatever you want. But do we want Tim whole new gene made and maybe provide some language that would provide some clarification.
Hey, this one. Obviously, it's been slightly more tricky than some of the other questions, I think. And as a real estate guy, I'm always happy to continue talking about real estate. So I'm more than happy to continue the conversation. Alright, so I'm going to say I guess I'll withdraw my motion.
Cool. But I'm going to move that we table this conversation to the next week.
all in favor, say aye.
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
Okay, Harold, Harold and Tim, could you guys just put together some language that would address this that we can just vote on and you get to like, look smart and save the day and stuff. Okay, thank you. All right. Let's go on to somebody else say something. I didn't see movement. Okay, but let's go on to the left hand Creek Park riparian restoration.
Hey, good evening, Mayor, council members, they've developed Metro parks natural resources. appreciate you taking this forward because I do notice is important members of the community as well as Council. I have a quick PowerPoint presentation to kind of set the stage for this. And with that being said, I think some of the stuff that I heard this evening, I can add some clarification that might make this easier for counsel make this fairly quick as well. So again, this is really kind of a restoration of the Creek area where we had the BMX track and a bike area made along the creek. Next slide please.
Again, just kind of putting in perspective where this, this park sits over their long left hand Creek left hand Park. Next slide.
Really hard to see john fire had written a story about this one, go and take a look at it with a tree canopy. It's difficult to see from above. But as you get into trees, these next slides will kind of show kinda the impact that was created down along the creek. Next slide.
This area was always intended to be more of an unnatural area, it did have one access area, so people could walk down to the creek that there was fencing, there was signage in place to try to make sure people understood that. And we definitely want to look at throughout at options, we look at how we enhance that signage. So next slide. This I'm going to use this as a point to talk about some of the damage caused by the individual kids that I know were contacted by the paper. And really, we're kind of focused into the event. If you look this area, this is more than one or two kids working this area. And when we found out about this, as a teacher, I think the city needs to look at our process to that not having a range of controllers out there looking all the time, this probably should not have gotten to this level of impact. Had we had the the trolls out there, I think we need to be monitoring these areas. This was the result of Dan Wolfers, natural resources, rebel, they're doing some restoration work where we really came upon this. So the idea of taking a certain group of kids that were out there at that time, and to take credit for doing some of the work, I think there's significant work here that was done by multiple kids over many, many years, as I talked to people in that area to that they had kids that were out in the metro area as well. So if you want to pursue that line of restorative justice, we would be happy to take those individual kids at that point in time, issuing them a summons or a ticket, and then using restorative justice as an alternative to do that. So I think we're kind of passed away. And, David,
I'm gonna, I'm gonna actually I mean, just just say, just to be clear, city, county media, just somebody else wants to debate it. I don't think we should. But there's we don't, there was a lot of talk about restorative justice, pricing and fines fees. City Council has zero input on the enforcement of our laws, that that should be up to code enforcement and the police. So appreciate that. So let's don't even talk about that.
Right. I want to make sure that we knew we did something that Okay, I think the same place that same staff in this position was now that dispatch really, for superstar judgment, those that those individually as well. So what do the next slide about points? Again, I think this is just as you can tell, lots of use over time. Next slide.
Again, that continue to impact again, I just trying to reinforce the idea that this was long term used by probably lots of different individuals. Next slide. So I think one thing that can maybe help counsel as they look at these different options, we heard the public that wrote in and also recommended option two, the real reason the staff recommended option one, and it should be piece that I could make clearer when we said we're using $9,000. To leave the BMS area in place, it wants still to use fencing and sinese to close it down. So there wasn't really rewarding of individual to doing that, it really was saying that we recognize there's a bigger cost here. And we can work that into our work schedule and our budget, we would need $9,000 to go ahead and enforce reinforce, rebuild and put some additional fencing and read enforce our signage to close that area down would also bring in the community ragers this summer, and have them out helping to pull that area. Again with our always our ultimate goal is to get voluntary compliance is using education enforcement people being out there to try to remind people so option one and option two really are the same other than the time because staff was really looking at not asking council to give additional funds this point to speed the process up. We could speed that process up if we had those additional funds it would send it we would be willing to do. I also heard from the community about volunteer work and we have worked with wild land restoration. They've been a great partner over the years, especially riparian areas they have moved from long from Boulder to Longmont, so they're not right here in our community. And we know we can work with them to do some work there too. So I think as you look at options one and two, it really is does council want to use their discretionary funds? staff would encourage reorg reprioritize our projects and we could try address sooner but wanting to really do the same thing we would be closing down. Under number one, we would just be trying to work it into our budgeting and our existing CIPS timeline. Next slide. And that's as simple as I can make it here. So you can
airbag Lee, we're looking at you,
Councilmember. Can you hear me? Yes. Can
you hear me?
We can hear you now. But you we were waving at you. And you were ignoring us?
Oh, well, that was because you guys were obviously not waving strong enough. All right, council member pack. Were you screaming? Or were you waving? Because when everybody came back on my screen was still on. And
now you're all moving. So
Councillor pack? Did you?
Thank you. I went on mute, I move option to
It's been moved and seconded for option two. Councilmember waters.
And then, like everybody else, I think we need to restore this area.
I'm just if we're going to go to option two. We just heard David say that. Basically,
the effects of option one and two are the same. And I'm puzzling. David or Harold.
We delayed dealing with this for for a number of reasons that we all understand. I guess I'm a little puzzled why we didn't make some provision. As we were building a budget, we're in the first meeting of a new year. And now we're talking about spending $35,000, for which we didn't budget. And I understand, we would take it out of a contingency fund on, you know, $35,000 on day one, or meeting one of a new year, as opposed to 9000.
Is there a reason why we didn't budget for this? Knowing that we were going to deal with this early in the year?
I think the reason we wanted we we came with the option one and two is really that we feel we would have the budget at $9,000 really would be staff using our internal budgets to manage this. To get it on a faster track, though, is where we really want to say it Council's priorities. Whereas this fall, it may not follow as quickly as council would like to see it or some other members of our community like to see it happen. If we work it into our budget and into our timeline, by coming back to council to give me an update, to say here's where we're at. And if you hear from the public, we know what their priorities still, but it may not be our top priority. If council would like to get some additional funds, we will then make sure that we are meeting those priority timeline. All right, I
it'll be interesting to see what kind of demands occur or needs materialized for which we would spend contingency funds as the year unfolds.
just seems that seems a little out of sequence. Because this isn't a surprise. What is it gonna cost? We knew that before we finished building a budget.
So I'm gonna jump in here again.
All right, guys. Okay, so just so you know, you have the floor of Casper pick after this. We're going to go Harold, then then Marcia, then Callie. Okay. And Polly, then you're going to be first the next couple times because I realized that. But let's let's do that.
So David, I understand the need to go to X swiftly on re building this riparian area. So my question is, if we use contingency funds, in the next budgeting process, is there a chance for us to get those funds back so that we can use them for other important issues that are going to be coming along? And that and that would be an amendment to my motion? Actually.
I would have no problem looking at our budget and see how that fits in again, I think if we're really trying to do this a week, we can probably find these dollars over time within our budget. So if we had a fronted budget, we could use those same dollars that I would be finding later to return dollars to the council budget. I'm gonna say that probably looking unable to look at Harold or Jim, if I can do that. I'm sure there's a process in place where we could actually take dollars that we would have used it in a further out timeframe to make this happen and make it happen. You know,
any deal the dragon
abrupt, just real quick, guys. I'm sorry. And I see Councilmember Martin, you've got your hand up.
Don't fire me. But I wanted to respond to Councilmember bloggers. This issue did come up in your budget process.
We did bring it up at towards the end of the budget process. And I don't know if you recall, but Jim golden did set aside funding,
as opposed to allocating it at the
time in your contingency funds, or you to be able to respond to this issue. And so we knew it. You're correct. We knew it going into the budget. Our budget to get prepared back in May, though, but by the time we got into the September, October, we knew the cost. We knew where we were. And Jim mentioned that to y'all. And I think and I think Jim still on the line, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that we did try to make some provision to set additional funding aside in your contingency to address this particular issue if you so chose to do that.
Thanks, Dale, for the for the quick refresh. jonesborough barn. Thank you, Mayor
I will not vote for option two if the phones have to come out of the council contingency fund. I have been speaking to Mr. Domingo's and Mr. Bill both about other priorities for restoring the depredations on our park system that I think are in fact a higher priority than the restoration of this area. Um, and so I would like to see the area closed off and protected, which is what the staff recommendation is. And then consider separately what our priorities are. The reason for this is that is because I have been hearing from constituents who are saying that we've got a conflict between our homeless populations use of our parks, when we don't have restroom facilities are in them. And they that because those aren't there during the wintertime. There is the the parks are rendered uninhabitable. You know, things like that. I think that's a higher priority. I do. And so I would rather see those things that cause health issues and and conflict in the neighborhoods be addressed. First, you know, this basic human decency issues. And we can work in the riparian restoration over the course of the warm months, and come up with funding however we see fit. But I don't see any reason to go against the staff recommendation and rush to restoring this particular little piece of the riparian area with the understanding that yes, it's going to get restored. And having been burned throughout this discussion with complex motions. I don't want to do it now. But I have a proposal that I could talk to the staff about, and maybe get on a future agenda about controlling the time and get and getting volunteer workers to work on the this this piece of restoration. And and maybe the amount of volunteers that come from the community could be a measure of how much we really want to accelerate this. Which also introduces a an aspect of restorative justice into the matter without actually going through the legal system to do it because we could never identify all the perpetrators, but we would like to be able to let the guilty come forward and bend their backs a little bit to do this work. So for now, I'm just saying I would prefer item number one and I won't vote vote for option number two myself.
We have a motion on the table number two is on the table. Correct? You made that motion john was in it. So I said Councilmember Christiansen then we're gonna go with Mayor Pro Tem.
So in the last few days, we've gotten many letters from people who are have a great deal of respect for Ruby Bowman, Paula Fitzgerald, who is the queen of parks JD Cherie Malloy, JD glades, Paige Lewis Anna reverse. Nadine Lester's Susan summers, Hazel Gordon, Kathy Clark, Karen de Kathy Partridge,
Whoops. Anyway, all of them are advocating that we do that we do number two. And I thought about that for a long time, I really originally thought that number one would be sufficient for now. But it doesn't really, you know, things will start growing in March. It's now January. And if we're going to restore this, we'll have to wait another whole year. If we make this, if we find the funds to do it this spring, then we will have more. It's just the right time in terms of what grows and in terms of flooding. And in terms of spring runoff. I just think we should actually fix this. But I, I would caution people to not think in terms of these young people as being somehow terrible or anything, we were all young, we all did dumb things. But there are now twice as many people in Longmont, as when I moved here 30 years ago, there was very little free land. And so I don't blame them for what they did. I understand wanting to have fun on your bicycle, it's like other things you can do. But they there needs to be some education component here to the idea that just because something is open, but piers open, it appears abandoned, it isn't. It's somebody else's property. Somebody else has to pay for liability insurance, somebody else to pay for maintenance, you can't just build on a piece of land, and their parents should have told them that. And, you know, it's just it's too bad. Because it's a great idea. I admire their their hard work, I admire the fact that they got 2000 people to sign a petition. So let's see if they'll get 2000 people to come help restore. Okay. This is what Marsha suggested. And we could make this a really good positive thing for our community.
Although technically, it's called adverse possession, you can technically steal the land. If these kids actually have been doing it long enough. I think Colorado changed the law. But anyway, we won't get into that.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Thank you very badly. So I'm just going to start out with the fact that I support option one because to me foremost, we need to protect from further degradation. That's a one on my list of things. The other thing is, I don't think has really been spoken about too much is that I always felt that as a council with the way we use contingency funds, there seems to be to me in a way a precedent, either with helping people helping nonprofits or helping businesses generally speaking, versus what to me, appears to be something that wow also has not necessarily been outlined for us the difference in timelines between the expedited use of contingency funds and how long that process could take versus the $9,000. Protecting of it, regardless of option one, option two, and option two being or I mean, and option one being the gradual restoration of it through normal budgeting process, or reallocation process that director bill was was somewhat speaking of in relation to the staff recommendation. So I haven't heard yet the difference in timeline. But I think that based on the fact that it's only January 5, we have a lot of unknowns facing our community, not knowing exactly what the rest of the economy is going to look like throughout the rest of the year, not knowing exactly what the pandemic is going to look like as throughout the vaccination rollout, which as we just heard, looks like actually late summer, early fall at this point before a good amount of people are vaccinated. And so I'd really prefer to keep the contingency fund as much in place as possible to continue ideally helping with housing assistance, if needed, or small business assistance if needed, because all things considered the continuous See phones not that big. And a $30,000 hit to the contingency fund is rather significant to that fund specifically, that's why I prefer it option one, because it's still the promise that the city is going to restore the Greenway. It's just maybe not as expedient as some folks would like. And again, I'm only okay with it. Because it's already been expressed that we are going to attempt or make all attempts to protect from further degradation of the Greenway. And just an anecdote I did grew up in this specific area of town. And as a young boy, we had a bike, an illegal bike course, on city land, that was at one point taken out by the city to make the underpass to go into Left, left hand Creek Park. And while there was not as many people living in Longmont at the time, it was still a big blow to me as a child, but I had no no concept that that land was mine to do with, as I pleased, you know. And so just as an anecdote for those people say, you don't have kids, you don't understand what kids are going through. Actually, the city tore down my bike course right in that exact same area 25 years ago, or 23 years ago, just as an anecdote. This is not a new thing. So
anyway, I'm going to insist that you recuse yourself. The conflict of interest here as a parent.
I'm calling you out publicly. Kidding, by the way. All right, Councilmember Peck.
Thank you, I'll withdraw my motion. But I also think it because it's extremely late, and we're not making much sense as I listened to us.
Amen. Here, here, motion is withdrawn. Somebody's gonna make a motion.
though. I do want to say something, though. And, um, we do have enough money in our community fund. And we also, I agree with Councilwoman Martin, but but I haven't heard any proposals as to what to do with that money. Come forward yet. So, Harold, can you expound on what what's going on here?
Yeah, thanks. I've been trying to. So and so a couple of questions. A as this was coming in, obviously, the requests in the budget are pushed early in the process. That wasn't part of what was submitted and what I can do to the best to my recollection, going through the budget process, it came in much later. So that's the question. You Councilmember waters on this. When we look at council contingency, what I wanted to let you all know, is, if you remember, we carried there are two pieces to this that we talked about. There was a there's other components that we looked at within the budget, but this one, we carried money over from this contingency, bus, if you remember, on the cares funding, we replenished the money that council put in for the meal program. So there was another 40,000 or so 40,000 of that was from care. So we're carrying over next year 102,000, into the council contingency, and you've allocated another 60,000 into the council contingency, or 2021. So you'll have about 162 ish 1000 on that. And Jim's working on some of the numbers on this. And then we had some other pieces that we need to look at. So I wanted to clarify that too. In terms of the number something.
So can I can I simplify this? What let's just quickly one, what do you want to do? And then two, how are we going to pay for? So are we going to so are we going to somebody make a motion to leave it alone or fix it? And then the next question is, how are we going to pay for it? And lastly, when are we going to do it? So council members?
I you know, I would like to make a motion to select to stay with 35,000 to fix it, however.
use council contingency funds minus the 9000. So, the 9000 the city, the parks budget would cover that. And then the 26,000 would come from the council contingency funds. Currently we're at 67,000 is that correct? around that, but you said you said you know by the year then we're gonna be at 162,000.
So you're at 67 you're at 67,000. Now because that's what was budgeted? Yes. Before the new year I got the direction from council to carry over those additional funds and remember that has to come in through the carryover appropriation.
so So, before I second this, the motion you just made was you said 26 but you meant 36,000 from contingency to fix it immediately. Is that what you're saying? So,
the 35,000 was the month the amount they gave us, I want to subtract 9000.
So it was 45.
Or was it 3535 35?
Okay. 30. So, yeah, and
when would you want to fix it? When as soon as possible? Okay, so the motion is to fix the riparian area, do away with the bike track as possible using 26 or $26,000 of council contingency money. I will second that because it's late and just want to get on. So, council member, Christiansen
just one clarification, we were going to send $5,000 to the Northern Arapaho, correct. That was
done that was done right arrow gym, right.
Where my numbers correct. When I said the council. Okay,
stay with her. Okay.
Yeah. All right. Dr. Waters. Yeah, I'm gonna I'm we're counselor Martin is I I would like to see this area restored. But I'm going to support the staff recommendation, they know what they're doing. Not that I'm going to do that in every case, but they felt like they didn't think about this. And in and we've got, we do have a lot of unknowns going into the year. So I'm gonna be happy to see the area restored. But I'm not going to vote for option two. Obviously, there are four votes. That's the African.
David bill. Just real quick, Mayor, Mike respond to customer christison. And Mayor Pro Tem. those letters I read those two are from people I definitely respect as well. As we started looking at planting seeds in Fall is definitely a good planting season for grasses and stuff along with wrestling. So we wetland area, so we do have another windows, we start looking at how we can look at kind of spacing that budget out. So that it goes goes back to Mexico towns question about what is that next timeline. So I would say we'd definitely try be shooting for a fall maybe restoration, planting and seeding. If we missed that window, it would be the spring the following year. So I would see this being done with within a year either way with that commitment to the area. And that expedited means of getting it closed down. So we do protect it in the interim.
So what you're saying is if we vote on this motion, you'd close it off, not let anybody use it, and then receipt it and fix it next fall. Yeah. So we got a motion that would basically take $26,000 out of council consistent tendency to fix the red parent area as soon as possible. And we're hearing that it's just what Mr. Bell said. And,
yeah, that's a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
Okay. Opposed say me. Hey, hey.
All right. Wait, so I voted nay.
Who votes voted? Did
we have four votes? Interesting. All right. votes for what? against the motion. The motion was to apply. I voted against the motion. That's what I mean. So we so the motion fails when I move option one. Okay. The motion fails with myself, counsel, Mr. Barton, Dr. waters in Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez against option one. Specifically, Dr. Waters, will you instead of just saying option one will you repeat, clarify the motion it's like I move we leave the disturbing riparian corridor as is keep the area from suffering additional damage. It would need to be a fence repair, additional fencing and new signage would cost approximately $9,000 increase city Ranger patrols and the eventual restoration
of the disturbed riparian corridor would be absorbed by the parks and open space budget. Okay.
It's been moved and seconded for option one. Would that would also entail that no one would have would be allowed to use that bike bike rack it's gonna be fenced off posted in patrol. All right, Mr. Bell before we vote, is it possible to come up with money and get this done in the fall anyway? Harold saying yes.
So it looks like we're gonna get the same result. So all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries unanimously, and it looks like we're gonna rope it off. We're not going to spend council contingency and it's going to come out of the budget and looks like Carolyn's gonna try to make us all happy by fall.
All right, thanks, guys. My challenge is I'm gonna challenge I'm gonna challenge him to do it a little bit quicker. Yeah,
I'm just I just think it's fun. Because tonight's been interesting it's run a practice for a couple of weeks. All right, the let's move on to a final call publican by to be heard. Let's take two minutes and see if anyone's still awake watching us. We'll be back into all right. Is
there anybody in the queue?
No matter we have
no callers at this point.
I didn't think we'd have any. All right. Let's go ahead and move on to the mayor and council comments. Anybody want to say anything so pressing that's willing to keep us up past 1130 Councilmember Christiansen
I just want to say, I was very happy that we had a proclamation for Nina Gallo Gaga. And he was a very strong and kind man who was a mentor to many, many young people and he will be very sorely missed. One of the victims of COVID anyway, All right, thank you. Thank you.
so um, to public school starts tomorrow full time for elementary school. So dry slow. Pray for us. And, and you know, and be careful, be safe, don't go out if you don't have to go out I was very angered by the you know, people have the right to their, their beliefs. However, you know, people are dying from this. And you know, there was a teacher in El Paso, who passed away her video she did went viral with the handshakes and just really connecting with her first graders. I've met her through our National Education Association so I know who she is. And you know, it's it's hitting home for a lot of people and we simple things that everybody can do to be safe and stay alive. Where your mass social distance wash your hands, you know, we can have businesses open and we can function and we can have schools open if people are smart and safe and careful and not acting out of selfishness and irresponsibility. So that's, that's all I have to say. Good night.
All right, Counselor pack. You're just not getting back to us anything. Okay. All right. We're gonna move on to city manager remarks anything.
city attorney, anything? comments, Mayor.
All right. Can we have a motion to adjourn, please?
I'll move that.
There's a second.
Well, motion the second and I believe it was made by
So let's go ahead and vote All in favor of joining say aye. Aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, We're adjourned unanimously. Thanks, guys. See you later.