Longmont City Council Regular Session November 10, 2020
7:57PM Nov 12, 2020
I'd like to now call the meeting to order. Can we please start with the roll call?
Councilmember Duggal fairing,
Here. Mary, you
have a quorum.
All right. Susie, would
you like to lead us in the Pledge, please?
Sure. Thanks. Ready?
allegiance to the flag
of the United States
which it stands, one Nation
Just a quick reminder to the public. Anyone wishing to provide public comment during the public invited be heard section must watch the livestream of the meeting. And calling only when I open the meeting for public comment. And so you can access the meeting at any other time that is talking, you'll see a toll free number on the screen right now. And so just watch for the instructions to be displayed. When we get to the public invited be heard you'll call in and then you'll be led into the room, according to the last three or four digits in your phone number. So all right, Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of the October 27 2020. regular session.
So move approval,
or I'll take that as a motion from Councilmember Christiansen and it was second by Councilmember waters. Any public any discussion or debate? All right. See none All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the motion to approve the minutes of October 27 2020. regular session is hereby approved unanimously. All right. Any agenda revisions submission of documents are motions to direct the city manager staff to add agenda items. Dr. Waters.
Thanks, Mayor Bagley.
We're all aware we're about to do the final actions on the 2021 budget. And we're all aware of the fact that in that budget, there are no adjustments in compensation for city employees, not to suggest that there might not be what we've heard from Jim and Harold, though as we get into 2021, as they get a clear picture of what what revenues might look like. They might bring to us a recommendation to make salary adjustments for 2021. But as of now, that's not in the budget. And we've heard about potential budget adjustments, and that would, that would those salary adjustments would be included in budget adjustments if they were to be proposed. So it seems to me that there there are a number of ways of compensating staff, one of the one of those wages with salary adjustments, cash compensation, and second is with time. And we talked about compensatory time, a way to compensate people with time. And I think it will be a mistake if we don't in anticipation of 2021 as caroled and and his HR staff to put together a plan of some kind to use time as a way to compensate staff in 2021. Maybe with salary adjustments if they occur. But certainly if that doesn't occur, that the use of time would be one way of compensating staff, which we haven't talked about. So I'm going to move that we direct Harold, to put together a plan for the use of time, or competent, saving staff in 2021 in anticipation of what other adjustments might occur during the year and you can bring that plan back to us if that's appropriate. In fact, there'll be a motion to bring a plan back to us for how to use time to compensate staff.
Second again. Thank you, Polly.
The universal sign of I cannot hear you. Yes. So there was a motion made to direct staff to proceed with an overall idea. The suggestion to basically grants city staff an extra work day rather than any event but there's no money to provide salary compensation for that about
it. All right. Dr. Waters.
Well, the motion was a little broader than that. It was a work day. It's not a plan. It might be more than one working.
Okay, got it. Got it. But to us, yeah. Okay.
So the motion is to direct staff to actually look at providing staff additional time off is part of their competence. package this year, that that that the motion is the motion. Alright, it was seconded by Councilmember Christiansen
Seeing no further
Oh, sorry. It was seconded by Councilmember Martin, and third by Councilmember Christians. And so Councillor Christiansen,
I think it should say a paid day off, otherwise, a day off, you know,
or a paid day off as well as I assume the motion also means any other ideas that would be really good for staff that wouldn't cut into your budget. So we're willing to hear any and all ideas, Councilmember fairy,
so And yeah, I had a conversation with Dale about this issue as well. And so and it's not off the table, then during the course of the year as numbers, projections come in, to reevaluate. So you know, they're given the comp time, but then to reevaluate if pay, adjustments can be made on the salary schedule. That was a premise of the motion. So yeah, I want to make sure that it's that that's still in place.
And that's consistent with what we talked about in our budget message based on how we see performance as we continue to move forward.
Okay, so I just wanted to make sure if it's something that needed to be included, written only in the,
in the proposal or in the motion.
I thought it was in there, but I may have misheard it. Okay, go back
and listen to take, in addition to potential cash compensation, not knowing what that's going to look like that we authorize the management team to put together a plan to use time, compensate staff, with the understanding that that there may be salary adjustments as well in 2021.
So basically, I'm taking the motion to mean, Harold, you have the green light to discuss compensation in terms of time off, paid time off, salary increases, you've got our blessing. Enjoy. You are the executive over HR proceed,
and I will bring something back to Council.
All right. And I believe that was a consensus. Anyone, anyone here not in agreement with that motion? All right. You've got a consensus vote mandate. Move forward. Councilmember Peck, I think we should take a vote. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
It is still consensus unanimous, but now it's official. All right. All right now it's official official. All right. Thanks, Dr. Waters. All right. Anything else guys? Councilmember Lago ferry.
So I'd like to direct staff to get an update on and let me know what's going on what's going to happen or what where the status is on the North Main Street corridor. You know, there were a lot of plans in the works for in the comp plan. Um, you know, I've Oh, since COVID has started, I've tried to have been trying to try to keep connected with some of the businesses just I've been ones that I frequent. But um, you know, a lot of people have noticed that things are kind of happening south and downtown. And you know, we have the Longmont downtown authority and that and they they manage the oversee that and look at those pieces. And they're doing a great job. But I want to make sure we don't forget about the North.
All right, well, actually, I
Harold, can we just I don't see a Harold. Stop playing your games in your Twinkies. I want to like that. Like I tell my kids. How does the teacher know you're paying attention if I can't see you, Harold? No, I'm kidding. You can go dark anytime you need to Harold. No. But can we please just bear prerogative just put a five minute, just a five minute update on the next at the next council meeting or whatever you can just what's going on with North Main because I do see a lot of there's construction going on? Why don't you just let us know what's going on.
If you do that.
I work with Joanie and Aaron. And we can do that.
All right. Cool. Like good enough, Councilmember.
Yeah. Any of the parks? I know we you did some updates on car park. So that was and that meant a lot to a lot of the folks in the neighborhood and walk to that make
sure let's let's include the car parks to Herald
let's include the parks that are kind of getting neglected. So that's included.
Cool. All right. Anybody else? All right. Let's go ahead then. and move on to first special COVID update. Harold, we have a right
yeah, we have several guests actually denied on this. And and there's going to be a fair amount of information that we're going to go through but the first guest I'm going to ask Scott cook to come on and Scott has a special guest with and one of the things this is really interesting Due to his Council's motion on the restaurant vouchers and how that's taken off, and so Scott's going to give you all an update and talk about how that's been expanded based on donation. So Scott, take it away. Sure.
Thank you, Harold. and good evening Mayor Bagley and city council. As Harold said, I'm Scott cook. I'm the CEO of the Longmont chamber. And I'm joined this evening by Ashley Sherman, she is with the North Main Walmart store. So the chamber has been working with Sandy cedar, and her staff on the strong restaurant voucher program. This is a program that was put forward by city council to distribute tokens to families around the community. And then those tokens can be used at the local restaurants. So this is a unique program that helps those both those in the community of course, and then our restaurants. Of course, both both of these groups have been heavily impacted by the pandemic. So of course, it's a win win. For a lot of people. In the first round, we had just over 50 restaurants that participated. And then the second round, which we're working on now will have just over 60 participating restaurants, we've only received positive feedback from the restaurants that are participating. And in turn, they've let us know that they've received a lot of positive feedback from those that are using the tokens. Many of the tokens have been used for special celebrations for family nights out or family nights in, because it is a pandemic so many people pick up their food and go home with it. And throughout this pandemic, Walmart has been a partner to the chamber and and this community. So we want to let you know that Walmart has assisted our small businesses with their game day marketplace, which they held up the one highway 119 store. And then they've also contributed to the chamber unity funds, the community Fund,
which we keep at
the Community Foundation, all of those proceeds go to area nonprofits. And Walmart also loved the idea of the restaurant voucher program and has now donated 4500 to the program. So this will help us reach more residents and more restaurants. So I wanted to let you know of the success of the program so far. And to let you know that we have one more partner in the program with Walmart. And so I'd like to if Ashley is still here with us, Ashley Sherman, like her to be able to say a few words from the north Walmart store.
I think Scott and everyone I yeah, so we have I'm really partnered with the chamber too, on to donate our you know, our money in our budgeted funds. And being able to provide to the community is something that is really poured to me and to my management team and to Walmart as a whole. So on, it's been a really good partnership, like I said with the chamber last year, it was the unity and then this year. You know, like Scott said, we have donated quite a bit to
the those strong tokens for trying to support the food and all of the all the families that are in need. So we are here for the city of longline to en and any other needs that that you guys and everyone has.
Great. Thank you, Ashley. And I just want to again, thank the city of Longmont. Thank you City Council for putting this program together. If there's questions about the program, the Chamber's role in that, please let me know. We're, like I said currently working on the second round, and that will go through December 31. Thank you.
So Mayor council you started with I believe it was 10,000 you all put into this, we put another 10,000 in from the cares funding and then added the I guess 4500 so 14,000. So the idea for this program has definitely taken off, and we hope that others are interested in continuing to support it and continue to grow the program. So thanks for the idea. There's a hand up
but water. Yeah, I
just I want to acknowledge this was Councilmember pecks proposal. You know, and I and and i don't know that any that I didn't have a sense of what a good idea it was at the time. It obviously was a great idea. And I'm sitting here enjoying, even as I'm listening to a voice message I received from a constituent. We all get a lot of incoming correspondence, voice messages and email. seldom do I get So just saying thank you for for what you've done. And I can take no credit in this but Jonah how to forward this to you? Because it is a constituent telling me how deeply grateful she is. And and how honored she felt in the establishment. She went to, to redeem that token. So good Anya
Christiansen and then Councilmember pack.
Well, it's like a looks like Polly has decided that she was going to speak. So thank you for those kind words are Councilman waters. But this wasn't, this was Council's idea. We do nothing other without a majority vote. So no, thank you, everybody. And I hope we can
let it be. I'll take that as a point of order, and everybody is hereby thanked. Everyone is thanked. All right. Hello. But go ahead.
yeah, it was a great idea. And in classic team effort with the city, you know, Councilmember pet coming up with the idea of council members coming in Sandy and staff working with the chamber, also working with Tinker mill, who made the tokens and so you're really seeing multiple groups come together to work. And that's how long it rolls, as we do things as a community and coming together. So again, just another example of our great community. That's good news to start off with, definitely seen a lot of changes in the COVID world. The first thing that I want to do, Susan, and I've actually been texting, we're going to start off with a video. So Eric, I believe you have the video. The governor, before you pull it up, Eric, I want to talk about a couple of things. We received some correspondence from Dola. Also, I also received correspondence from the state and governor's office. The governor's really, for the state employees, they've announced that state employees and level orange or level red counties will work remotely for the month of November in this except for those critical government functions who cannot perform job duties remotely. And they're asking other local governments to join in on that. Excuse me, the coffee's I'm talking back to me right now. So we're we're going through that in evaluating the situation right now. And I want to counsel to know that we are working to trim our numbers down as an organization to come into compliance with the government, the state orders, and why they're asking local governments to do. But I also wanted to point out that this this message from the governor to local governments, and so we're going to be working with that over the next few days to see what we can do to achieve that. But that will still keep the facilities open that we're allowed to under the existing orders as we continue to move forward. Part of that is they also are putting together a robust marketing package. And the first thing that they put out is a video from the state epidemiologist. So Erica, will you please play that video? Hi,
I'm Dr. Rachel Hurley, Colorado State epidemiologist working on the COVID-19 response. COVID-19 has been spreading rapidly in our state cases and hospitalizations are going up almost as high as what we saw in March and April. The cases have grown so much that in the Denver area about one and 145 people are currently contagious with COVID. Let me put that into perspective. In a week. If you come across 20 people a day, whether that's at work on the bus, getting coffee going to the store, or people in your neighborhood or friends, you will be in contact with someone who is contagious with COVID-19. Ask yourself, how many people do you interact with in a day? And how can you reduce that? I want to ask you to do three things starting today. For the rest of November, only interact with members of your household. Keep your distance at least six feet at all times and wear a mask. On behalf of the State of Colorado. Thank you for stepping up and doing your part as we continue to do ours to protect you and your family.
Alright, Susan, can you join us?
thank you, Harold. So I'm Susan motiva on the strategic initiatives and Policy Director at Boulder County Public Health. Happy to be here today. I wanted to give you some background before we go into the some of the slides that I've prepared for you. As Harold indicated the governor is really exhorting local governments local Public health agencies to do everything in their power at this time, he is really, you know, very reluctant to issue blanket stay at home orders at this time that we know that the cases are escalating in the state, they're escalating in virtually every region of Colorado. So what we're being asked to do and what the governor governor's office really strongly asked Boulder County Public Health to do in the region, the metro Denver partnership for health is to think about some additional measures that could be put in place in the form of a county order. And he's asking the metro directors to be doing this. So on Thursday morning at 8am, the Board of Health will be meeting to consider an order that will have some further restrictions on indoor events, spectators at sporting events, restaurants, a strong strong recommendation for working at home. I don't want to get ahead of the specifics, which are still being negotiated and worked on. We've received tremendous feedback from the business community, our hospitals have weighed in with tremendous feedback. And I'll my slides are going to indicate and demonstrate that escalation as well. So it really is this very careful balancing act. The state is really being clearer and clearer about two things in terms of guidance. One is the recommendation that anyone who can feasibly should return to working at home, and that is a strong recommendation. The other is that even though we are in the orange level, which as you know, allows up to 10 from nor no more than two households for personal gathering size. It is our strong recommendation, Jeff sack and cdphp as well, that and I am sorry, I got to log in again, here hold on.
It is our very strong recommendation that people limit gatherings to their own family. And we know this is very difficult as Thanksgiving approaches. But we see this as very, very, very important to limit this surge that we're seeing all over. So those are two very, very strong recommendations. Why don't we turn to my slides now?
That's okay. Next slide, please.
So you can see that our two week cumulative incidence rate is 458.8 per 100,000. And that definitely puts us in the red level, which was 350.
Next slide please.
Our two week testing positivity rate is now 7.1%. And I'll have more information on that a little later in the slide deck. Next slide please. Our hospital status is still in the green but I will be providing some more information about escalating hospitalizations and impacts there as well.
Next slide, please.
So this is our five day average number of new cases of covid 19 among Boulder County residents, and this is just as of November 9. Our five day rolling average is about 146 cases per day through the end of 11 eight, which is higher than any point except our recent cu surge.
Next slide please.
Our next graph shows Boulder County residents who have tested positive or considered probable by municipality. So here you can see that since October, one
Longmont has the highest case rate per 100,000 again that since 10 120. In the past seven days, 41% of our new case of cases have resided in Boulder City, and 36% of our new cases have resided in Longmont.
Next slide please.
So, you know about a month or six weeks ago when Jeff was presenting on our cu surge you were seeing the highest rate among eight team to 22 they are still the highest rate, although yours, you could now see really clearly those other age groups 2324 or 2534 35 to 44 really growing as well.
Next slide, please.
COVID COVID-19 among children aged zero to 17 years. So here you can see a tripling of the zero to four year age group and the five to nine year old age group. And I had a specific call preparing for this presentation with with the mitigation specialist for early childhood, Sara scaly and she wanted me to emphasize to you that health screenings occur before either staff or students are allowed in that people have to list their symptoms. Answer if they've recently been quarantined. No one allowed is allowed in sick, and people are isolated if they develop even one COVID symptom. And they like the K through 12 are on the return to learn protocol. With this age group. As you know, it's extremely difficult to get two year olds to wear masks. So being very rigorous about those protocols is very important. I also spoke to Heather crate, who was our is our K to 12 policy expert. And she said that this protocol was still being used in the K to 12 schools and that this is this online form that is submitted through the Infinite Campus. They are seeing the spread through activities outside sports clubs, family gatherings, not seeing spread in the cohorts. But they as is you know they have to submit this electronic symptom tracker. The incidence of cases is not surprising given what we know about the community spread. Next slide, please. So here you can see the trend to week incidence of new COVID-19 cases. This is a slide that Jeff sack always presents, it just did our last two weeks. And if you just look at that right hand side, it just sees that you can just see clearly that very significant escalation in those numbers among all age groups. And I won't give you like a statistical lecture here, but I will illustrate a bit from zero to nine a 353% increase, ah 75 plus a 172%, increase 18 to 22 a 168% increase. Next slide, please. So this is a slide use you've seen before, but this is giving us information about race Hispanic origin and how those cases look, we know that Boulder County 13.8% of the population is Latino.
We know that
31.8% of covid cases come from that community, and 42.7% of all hospitalizations. In the past seven days 51.8% of our cases were 331 cases have been among Hispanic Latin x community, and 47.7% of our cases, or 305 cases have been among white, non Hispanic. I will just want to add to this data slide that we're embarking on a very comprehensive COVID plan with which lexy Nolan our new deputy director is working on it will have a significant focus on the Latin next and other priority populations. And we have already been collaborating with Longmont with Harold with team on this. We've hired Nick row blace, who has a long, long time long amount resident to be our bilingual resource coordinator. So I would just expect a lot of activity and collaboration, as we learned from you're already very successful efforts and we collaborate further on this. Next slide please. So next we see a summary of COVID testing among Boulder County residents. The number of PCR tests conducted 117,326 our five day average percentage of tests that are positive 8% As you know, the metric for being in a safe zone is 5%. So that is significantly higher than the 5% number we would like to see. And our five day average on this is 4.7%. Next slide please. So you can look at our five day rolling average of COVID PCR tests. This is a very illustrative as I said, the rolling average is 8%. This has been increasing over the past five weeks, and it's surpassed the level it was during the height of the young adult surge at CU in September. Next slide, please. hospitalizations in Boulder County, this graph really starkly illustrates that upward very, very strong upward trajectory. As of November November 986 people are hospitalized in Boulder County for confirmed covid.
Next slide, please.
We're we're I asked at times, how does this look compared to Colorado. So currently, we're at 1174 people hospitalized for confirmed covid across Colorado, and that's compared to 755 people only a week ago. This is the highest covid hospitalization number we've ever had in Colorado. I would also point out that there have been 18 deaths from COVID and Boulder County since October one.
Next slide, please.
And these are resources that we always provide in our presentations. That provides far more data and far more information. I also have a 59. slide, slide deck which Harold I'm happy to send for people that would like much more in depth happy to send that to you. I wanted to address Harold, would that be or Mayor? Would it be appropriate for me to address some of the questions that came in in advance now? Or would you like me to wait on that? Um,
what questions came in in advance? From council members?
yeah. Go ahead. Russell now that's fine.
Okay, I will do my best on that. So one question was what is considered an outbreak? And just to remind you all, it's two or more cases with a common exposure within a 14 day period. Next question, people have seen places where there are two or more cases in a facility or building that are not categorized as an outbreak. Why is that? I spoke to our chief epidemiologist about this tonight. And she says you know, there are other conditions that can affect us, for example, it didn't happen within a 14 day period, that people work in Boulder County, but reside elsewhere, were dependent on the other county that test results could be delayed that there could be reporting legs. So as a general rule, that definition I gave you is correct and applied. But there are some variations that she indicated. So question about we're going the education route, clarifying the expectation of masking and social distancing. Is that masking? Is it social distancing? Or must it be both? Jeff sack and I spoke about this yesterday, and he wanted me to urge that in the strongest possible terms. This must be a continued combination. And as Dr. Hurley he indicated tonight, in in what Harold show the video, we've got to have masking, we've got to have social distancing. And we've got to have handwashing, we've got to have this constant combination in play, and that we are not actually looking at marriage measures like how safe Are you if there's only a mask? How safe Are you if there's social distancing, but not a mass? We do not have data on this. And part of the emphasis whether it's the CDC or state health department or us is that integral combination of those factors. So there question two about gyms. So for limiting ourselves right now under orange to 10 people and to households, and gyms seeming to have more latitude here. gyms are under and I just I pulled up the dial on this one. Hang on a minute, please. gyms and fitness centers are at 25% capacity 25 indoors or outdoor groups less than 10. So what Jeff wanted me to emphasize here is that they are in Trina ruhland. Actually our county attorney, gyms are highly regulated, they've got licenses, they're checked on, they have these requirements, as opposed to our personal gatherings with which, you know, nobody's going to break into our house, so to speak at Thanksgiving and examine our per our gatherings, you know, we're on an honor system with our gatherings. But gyms are really subject to that licensure requirement. I wanted to also reference then I asked that this be sent to all of you. It's guidance document from CDP he called in person learning in the time of COVID. Because another question that can't that came in, had to do with it seems as though schools are allowed other kinds of latitude. Why is that? So if you take a look at that document that I sent at your convenience, it really talks about cdphp, analyzing K through 12, outbreak case distribution guidance are not guidance, the actual results. And since March in K through five, they found 23 outbreaks, 55 cases 23 students with COVID. And in the middle schools, 10 outbreaks, 32 cases 20 student cases. So in balancing in balancing the need for students to be in school to benefit from that in a social emotional as well as educational sense. And also lower income students benefiting as well, they really looked into this guidance and literature on that point. So I would urge you to read that document at your convenience if you haven't already. So another point that's really key is people who are outdoors, have 20 times less chance of getting COVID when they're outside as opposed to when they're indoors. So bear that in mind as we're going through some tough winter times. Right, with gathering size.
so in terms of events in parsing, you know, what kind of events whether it's a protest a sports rally, big family gathering, what Jeff has said consistently, we have one in 100 people being infected, and that gatherings you have a First Amendment right, it's not about a right to gather, it's about what's judicious. What's in your health interest? What's in our community's health interests? And that severely restricting to the greatest extent we can gatherings are very, very important. So another question was, is there a trigger? What's the trigger for Boulder County Public Health, to rock require schools to go remote when rates go up? So right now under orange, there is not a trigger. But there is this continued examination of data by the school districts by us really looking closely and carefully at data and having a very collaborative and informed process. But there isn't there isn't a specific numeric trigger right now. I think we had a question about the orange level, and that that classrooms cannot do targeted quarantine anymore. And that is true. districts are well aware of it. Jeff, the local public health directors are well aware of this and we are advocating with the schools. What with the cdph on that point. I think that was about all the questions. I had Harold.
and then we'll go with council members.
Thank you, Mayor badly. Susan, thank you for that. That was very detailed. In interesting.
I have a question about post, post COVID. Is there any data being collected on people who have experienced the virus gone through it and then passed it? I'm sorry. And then tested negative after but they're still experiencing symptoms, even though they have the antigens now. And are we doing any follow up on that any data collection on Are we still having the fog brain? Are we still not being able to eat, taste? Smell and how long does that last because I think that is information that needs to be put out with these reports as well, because people seem to think that if they get it, they get it. But we don't know what the long lasting effects of this are, or how long those symptoms can last, after you've tested negative. So are we collecting any of that data?
I would just say from my office, counsel and pets that we are so focused on the surge of cases, the case investigation, the contact tracing, so focused on those core epidemiology functions, and the communications aspect and the policy aspects, that we haven't devoted time to that yet. Nor am I aware, but this is an excellent question, nor am I aware of the Colorado School of Public Health doing it or cdphp. I think that, you know, we keep seeing these waves and surges that we have to really try to competently address but that is a very, very critical question that I will just put to the metro directors meeting and to Colorado School of Public Health and cdphp. Okay,
well, I think the CDC, the CDC is doing some work on that. And, and so it you know, so they go most common reported long term symptoms fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, joint pain, chest pain. Other reported symptoms, difficult with thinking and concentration, depression, muscle pain, headache, intermittent fever, fast beating or pounding heart, and then more serious long term is cardiovascular inflammation of the heart, muscle, respiratory lung function, anomalies, abnormalities, on the renal side, acute kidney injury, dermatologic rash, hair loss, neurological smell, taste problems, sleep issues, difficulty with concentration, memory problems, and then on the psychiatric side, depression, anxiety and changes in mood. So that's what they're hearing. And I think, everybody, I think that's really where it's happening is within the CDC, in terms of that, and they'll be working with the schools of health to examine that in more detail. Yeah, I
would agree that literature is indicating that and that's in the topical literature, more popular literature as well what Harold talked about, we haven't started studying that, but it is a lot of people are going to be studying it because COVID in COVID, repercussions, whether they're economic or, you know, physical impacts, they're going to be with us a long time.
All right. Anything else?
Susan? Um, no,
I don't have anything further.
All right. Customer offering.
Yeah, I have a couple of questions. So one of them would be, um, in regard to the the masking and social distancing and washing of the hands. So would it be considered a violation of the workplace to if not all three are occurring?
We don't, there's not a specific order on hand washing.
And the meaning masking?
Yeah. And the there are specific. There are specific rules on what officers can do with masking and that you need to be wearing a mask. When you're in a hallway, you need to be maintaining that six foot distance. And this is something that the county has really grappled with and our county attorneys have grappled with. Because sometimes people have really big offices, and it does, you know, it doesn't seem to make sense to people, but I think because of the very close the need to have that combination of factors that that that has been required, and there is that specific masking order. Okay, so
we've had to we've had to deal with that in our organization. So the governor's masking order requires a mask indoors. Generally what the county attorney's in our attorneys unless you're in an office that has four walls and a door and you're not in there with someone else, and we've even gotten to the level of cubicles, all cubicle short cubicles Do they have doors, those types of issues. Generally, the rule of the rule of thumb that we're using is if you're in a building, you wear it, if you're with somebody else based on the order that's been issued. We're a little bit different outside Because a boulder County's basket in order, that's why they're both in play. They also require one outside if you can't adequately social distance. And that's not the same in other places.
So Harold, then I have a question for you in. So like common spaces like the the lounge, the staff lounge, are people able to eat inside?
So we're having that very conversation right now. And, and so basically, we're also looking at the restaurant guidance in terms of how they can eat in the lounges. But we had that conversation among my team. And we're just actually encouraging people to eat in their offices and where they are next to someone else. Because it does. When you start having those exposures, it creates staffing issues. In our part, I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing now.
And so and through contact tracing, has anything throughout the county been brought back to these outbreaks occurred in the staff lounge or in common eating spaces like that, not necessarily restaurants, but in places of business?
So maybe Susan and I tag team This, I think, what, what I've been briefed on in our administrators call is that if you really look at what's generating the bulk of the cases right now, and I think this is an important message for the community, it really is in the social gatherings, you know, when, when they were doing the, the contact tracing, and and that's another conversation we're having, just because of the volume of cases. It's different today than it was, you know, a few weeks ago. But what they're finding is it is coming out of the social gatherings, more than it is out of restaurants out of business units. Okay.
I was just mad, just add there. Yeah, it's just that is what we hear consistently, through the metro directors from the Colorado health department, that social gatherings are absolutely the number one source. And that is why the recommendation about voluntarily limiting our gathering sizes even below what the orange level requires, is being strongly recommended now,
And then the other thing was around the outbreaks. So, you know, and I'm going to all full disclosure, I'm a teacher in the school district. And the school district is the largest employer of the city of Longmont. So how the operations are handled there, affect our community impacts our constituents, our ability to function as a city. So, you know, I want to make sure that, you know, as I'm advocating for whatever piece in my union capacity, that I'm also not doing anything or supporting anything that's going to damage or hurt the city, and our constituents and the hate sell the health and well being of our of our residents. Um, so one of the things going back to the outbreak. So we've had cases where there are two or more in a building, but they're not considered an outbreak. And the message that's being told, and you know, and it kind of changes, and I think that it could be that the individuals who are sharing the information are not fully understanding. So they're, they're putting in their own interpretation, or are the guidelines changing throughout? Because early on, I mean, we have this metric, where we were looking at and I can't find it anywhere on the website, there's a new metric description that has, you know, the threshold is totally different or higher, it to move to fully remote than it was here than what we discussed back in September. So the out the message on outbreaks is that if they did not come from so if you had two in a building, if one came from one out source, and the other one came from another source, that that's not considered an outbreak, and I want to know if that's true or not.
Well, it's that definition of two or more cases with a common exposure. So I guess it's very dependent upon these facts, like how close were those people? Did they have a common exposure? And as Carol, how would that within a 14 day period, perhaps it didn't happen within a 14 day period. You know, perhaps a person who was exposed, worked in Boulder County but lived somewhere else. And I'm not trying to just repeat those things. I think that I would enquire with the people that are making decisions about that. What criteria what,
what specific facts?
What facts are governing? Because I think that that's what the other thing Carol said is that the state is looking, Councilwoman at some revised definitions and guidance on these outbreaks. I mean, obviously, the questions you're asking are, you know, they're being heard by the state of Colorado, not just from Longmont, and that they're looking at some additional guidance on this. So I think we'll have more information to give to Harold and give to you
But that's the best I can say right now, is that
finding those specific
facts? I'm answering the right, I'm asking the right questions. So you know, it's so it is really proby. And that I'm probing the right people to, and that was all right,
well, into Susan's point in the last admin call I had many of those questions were echoed by many other communities. Putting those same questions in the mix. And so I know Chris, mess checks from Yeah, from the inner city manager in Boulder. said, Yeah, I'm getting the same question. So we're all getting them. And we're all trying to get those same answers.
Okay. And then how involved is the county in doing the contact tracing for boulder Valley for us? When we have cases?
Well, when there are outbreaks, the epidemiology Office of our office is notified. And they're taking their appropriate measures and steps.
Okay. I was under the impression that we were having a hard time keeping up with the contact tracing.
Yes, yes, yes. That is absolutely correct. Carol hellwig has indicated that there are really hundreds of cases right now this is just based on those numbers I gave you that things are really really escalating, we are doing our best to ask staff, to volunteer other staff to be looking at different ways to do this. Harold, did you want to add
to that point, based on the volume of cases they are having? struggles with the contact tracing, I know an admin calls several people were talking about what can we do to help higher positions? I've had conversations with my team. When we talked about this issue. Give me a sense. I mean, Tuesday, Thursday with my full team, we have calls with other administrators, I have another admin call. We've had conversations internally about how can we repurpose our staff to assist the county in the contact tracing function, at least at a basic level so we can communicate with people immediately. Talk to him quickly about who are you around? What were you were, what are you doing so we can try to stay on top of this? All within the framework of we're in community spread, but still, how do we collectively staff that to support our county partners? And I'll touch on that in terms of conversations I've been having with Lexi, once finished?
And well, when Jeff presented his slides, he had a slide on there about individual person to person cases or cases that were because it was individual. And then others that were community spread. Does that seem familiar to anybody? did was I like imagining it? How come? I haven't? I would like to see that's a slide of that again, to kind of delighted
I am sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, that's
no, that would be
I will look through our slide deck of 59. I was really trying to kind of capture a story in a framework for you, because our whole slide deck is really, really big, but I will look for that slide for you. But I think that and and we've done some tinkering, we got some, we got a lot of feedback. And we've done some tinkering and labeling and in more in depth surveillance data work, frankly, with the slides. But I know that what it is indicating is that the community spread one in 100 people are infected with covid, whether they're asymptomatic or symptomatic. So I think that Jeff may have been making that case sort of showing a trend that was growing, but it wasn't as strong as it is today. Today. It is very strong, that we have community spread. Nobody doubts that and that the person to person that we saw in March April and May. And I am really remembering that slide right now that was much more relevant in the early part COVID one,
yes, yes. And so and you had asked you, it's asked if anybody was interested in a copy of the slide deck or emailing it? Um, yeah, I am interested. I, I like data.
So I can tell that no problem. I'll forward that to Harold.
Okay. Great. Thank
you very much. I think that was all and if not, I'll emailed Harold, or I'll email you. So
thank you. You bet. I guess the
one something I just throw out a doctor. Dr. Waters. Go ahead. You first, your arms getting tired. Go ahead. Doc.
Interesting here. I just said you deferred. Susan, thanks for your for the information, could you could you help be reconciled on my mind. But when I think I saw you present, and I'm not certain what slide number it is, for the cohorts of zero to five, six to 12, whatever those age cohorts were, and the in the numbers that have increased over the two reporting periods, because those numbers, if I recall, what I saw, are hard to reconcile with the numbers in the document you sent on teaching in person. And I'm just wondering what I'm not understanding in terms of the discrepancy between what you presented and the rates of infection now versus what I'm saying in this document? Yeah, and
I think that, um, and I can have our epidemiologists look into the actual math analysis on this, but I would just say, and I should have said this at the beginning, that the actual numbers are still relatively small, for example, in the two week period of October 12, to October 25, it's eight. So we're not looking at those vast numbers that we see with cu and other age groups. And in October 26, through 11 to eight, I'm sorry, Nov. Eight, a count of 25. So when would that be? I'm sorry, that was zero to four. Yep, that was zero to four. So that one thing that we got, we have gotten feedback, good feedback on the data, make sure and I forgive me for not doing that. It's like, you can triple and people can think well, is that 400? Oh, my god, it tripled. But when you can see it, it was a Go ahead.
Give me the isn't the next cohort is five to what?
five to nine. Give me those numbers.
it's on the screen now says October.
Yeah, thanks, October 12 to October 2513. And then 52, from October 26 to
Got it. So Susan, are these infections? These are
COVID people that have kids that have confirmed COVID. And I think I'm understanding your question about the data that I presented, you know, saying let's all take a look at that cdph report that that is based on earlier, earlier data certainly than the October 26 through 11. Eight, that oh, I guess on that?
No, it's not. It's it's dated November 2020. And the numbers are substantially smaller than what you're showing us right now. That's what I'm trying to reconcile. And it goes back I think a little bit to the concerns that Councilmember Hidalgo fairing was sharing about consistency and clarity in meaning right of the data. Because Because the whoever put together the page you sent to us about teaching in person, the data in that report are are an approximation of the data that you just shared, just in Boulder County. And how do we reconcile that discrepancies? My question, Well, why is it so different? Because Because once in October, once in November, it's going up in November, these numbers should be higher than what you presented that lower.
Yeah. And I think what what I'll do is have our chief epidemiologists work with me on that to get you an answer because that's quite frankly, and you know, this, this report from cdphp, literally just came out. And these numbers we've got yesterday from our, the COVID children, case count. We all have our epidemiologists and cdphp really reconcile this and have an answer for you.
Well, you know, and I'll be quiet but part of that's good luck. concern in terms of understanding the reasons for the discrepancy what it is, the broader concern is, the last thing we want to do is trot data out that we that we can't verify. We can't defend or we can't explain. Because for those who want to question, the data, it just gives them a reason to question the data. And I'm not, I'm not questioning what we got from you. I'm pretty, I'm pretty confident I can rely on those data. It's, it's the document from cdphp on teaching in person, and you know what those differences are? So
I will get to them, I promise
you, we'll get to the bottom of it. And our epidemiologists will talk to the epidemiology folks at cdphp. Who did this analysis, which I think the general correct. What we've seen in trends across the country and reading about this is that there is a less in case incidence in that younger population. So we'll square up those numbers, though.
All right. Well,
uh, if if the data on teaching in person is is dramatically understated, as it looks like it is, that ought to be a concern on the part of a whole bunch of folks, parents, educators,
So getting that reconciled, soon was going to be really helpful. Absolutely.
reconciled, reconciled, may not mean reconciled means in my mind, providing the explanation and the analysis about the sources, comparing them and those traditional that traditional sort of epidemiology analysis of where it comes from and how it was calculated. That's what I'm committing to
a part of what we can tell you the numbers that she gave you are produced in turn. So the eight to 2513 252. That's our local numbers. And that's what's produced by Boulder County Health, we can understand that we will need to reach out to cdphp to have them reconcile that force.
Harold, it looks to me like in the in the document that was forwarded to us that this is a statewide cake. I
mean, correct. That's what I'm saying. CDP numbers
of teachers, numbers of students statewide? Yes. And then you're right, number, not a percentage, a number of cases, for example, of k k five, reporting 23 students, statewide? I mean, it doesn't it's like hard to understand where this came from. So that's that's the concern.
Understand you completely.
can you I mean, we don't want to bait that. I mean, we've unless people are like, absolutely not. Going back to the first thing that was presented tonight was a very, I think, articulate, articulate, articulate, articulate, and succinct message conveyed by Colorado's head epidemiologist in the governor's office. Part of the problem we're dealing with here is that you've got left versus right ways of thinking. I do think that everyone could I mean, I think everyone would agree that we need to do the things that were asked of us. And so I'm almost inclined to ask city staff to write up a resolution basically saying, we encourage everyone for the following reasons to do these things. And then basically, let the city of Longmont our citizens and constituents know that we endorse what the governor's office just said, because I don't think anyone's going to watch that video. And I don't think the message is going to get out. And I think that if we pass a law or we threaten, you're gonna have half of the people say No way. And you're going to I just think that I think the message needs to get out to folks that we need to stay six feet apart where our masks and and what was the other thing where six feet apart? Where our masks? Oh, and and to the extent that it was your family unit? Yeah, stay within your family unit. And so I think that that's something that we should convey. So
So yeah, into that point, you know, just internally I'll tell you what we're dealing with, we've had to deal with masking issues. And, and for me, it's it's pretty simple equation
inside, but I think I think if we just ask people and just pass along the message that the governor is asking is that I just think that
no, I agree with you. Okay, I agree with you. Because to let you know how it impacts it. I'm just giving you an example as an organization, if I'm next to you, Mm hmm. And we had one of these issues where someone tested positive but guess what everyone is socially distance and everyone is wearing the mask. And so when you look at it, we don't have to aren't in people because they're there. And so we continue providing the services we're providing to our community.
It just doing doing create drafting a resolution. And I think you can't I mean, to avoid the whole constitutional versus just all those arguments and just say, let's do this, please.
Correct. And I think I need to update you on some other things, too. All right. So Susan, thank
you so much.
We appreciate you. All right.
I'll be back in touch on a range of issues.
So much tonight.
All right, Harold.
So some other issues going on. And so we are also partnering with Boulder County Health and Susan can stay on during this in case I miss something. So we have opened the testing location at the fairgrounds, Dan Eamon in our emergency management team, they're working with them to assist in that operation, it's also creating more testing opportunities. Also, as we look at the data and see where the cases are coming in the community, I do have access to see a more focused data set, I can't share that because of any number of privacy issues. And so we're also working with our cultural brokers, to have pop up testing sites at different locations in our community based on where we're seeing a number of tests, a number of where we're seeing issues within our community. So we are going to work with Lexie Nolan, Lucas, Nolan, and really working those issues on the testing side. But then as we look at the mitigation approach to the mayor suggestion about a resolution, I think that's really important because how we work within neighborhoods and how we communicate with neighboring neighborhoods is going to be incredibly important. And then at the same time, I've talked to my team about working with Jessica and Kimberly and all of our economic development partners about really engaging our business owners here because I want to point something out that Susan said at the beginning, no one wants to go back to stay at home. And notice, she said the governor is not looking at doing this. It's not where anyone wants to go. And in to do that we have to do the things that the mayor just indicated, where mask social distance, and stay within our family units, and really follow those guidelines. And I think those are important, credibly important messages, because the data is telling us where we're seeing the case growth. And we are seeing the hospitalization starting to increase in our in our community. And what we know is if we do those things, we can move in the opposite direction. And so we will prepare the resolution and get that message out.
And Errol, I think that part of the message I think that needs to be conveyed is it doesn't matter if the governor shuts us down or not. If your entire office staff gets sick, it doesn't matter. So I mean, the getting people to I mean, yeah, just getting people to voluntarily comply, I think is the key here.
Well, that's the key. We're struggling with that right now, in terms of when somebody's kid gets it and whether they need a quarantine, and then how does that affect operations. And I was on the phone for an hour before the meeting, talking about issues. And it really is about if your entire staff gets sick, what are you going to do? And that's the issue that I think it's a good point there. And so we will we will focus on that.
All right, cool, thanks. We'll write it up and we'll deal with it. All right. Thank you anything else? All right, then let's go ahead and take a five minute break. And actually, let's shoot for three but we'll probably take five. And let's wait for public invited to be heard to go ahead and call in. So we're gonna go ahead and do first call public invited to be heard. And we're going to take a five minute break while everybody calls in and gets in the queue. At the end of that five minute break, we will stop taking people into the queue once roll back and and make sure that the calls are done. So see you in a little bit.
Hi, folks, thank
you for joining us. As we admit folks into the meeting for public comment. Please remember to mute your live stream and listen for the instructions on your telephone. When it's time for you to speak, I'll call you by the last three digits of your telephone number, at which time you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and then you will have three minutes. I think we have just a couple more minutes to go
All right back
what a good looking crew
all right Mary it looks like we have about eight folks for public invited to be heard whenever you're ready.
All right let's go ahead and start them
all right for the color ending in 017 you should be able to unmute yourself state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. collars 017
try caller 424 caller 424 are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address
Any chance that we might be having a problem?
It looks like they unmuted but color 424 were not able to hear you.
Try hitting star six on your phone. And then star six again to mute and unmute.
heard him hit it.
Let's say well, we'll come back to him. Erica.
Sure. Color 424 we'll come back to you. We're gonna move on to 474 color 474? Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record?
Yes, here I am. Can you hear me?
We can loud and clear. Thank you.
Yeah, good evening. My name is Ethan treptow 156 11th Avenue. I'm calling in to just comment on the RV ordinance. I was involved with the first update to that code that was passed and discussed at length by this group here three years ago. And at the time, it was a significant issue. What caused us to be become involved with the conversation was an RV or a series of Arby's that parked in front of our residents for over a month. cup several months in one instance. And the code that was developed was developed, I'm not gonna say in haste. But it was definitely developed to address an issue that was very concerning to the public, and needed immediate attention. And I remember this group in particular, stating that we needed action over complacency. While admittedly, not knowing the full ramifications of what this code would mean, or code adjustment would mean. And so it was admittedly imperfect. But as Harold dominga said, earlier this evening, that's how long Montt roles were acting as a community, which I appreciate. But I think as time has continued to show us that this code is not completely perfect. It's it's been effective and giving code enforcement an opportunity to move vehicles along and limit the dwelling time, in any one imposition. And in any one neighborhood for a certain amount of time. It's not as intended 48 hours was the intention. After you look at the time it takes to report things, and then have code enforcement then come and enforce it, etc. We're looking at more about a week before people are really forced to move along. And I think we're recognizing that it's time for an update and refinement of this code. And here we are. So appreciate the group, the council looking at this issue. I would just like to say that not taking action on this is not an option. I think the time is now to take action. And this isn't really not about keeping up with the Joneses and our neighbors and what other cities and municipalities are doing, but rather This is just about doing right by the citizens and taxpayers of Longmont. And I implore you to, even though I don't have the answers here, that's why you guys get paid the big bucks. Right, um, but figure out some logical next steps and take some action. So I'll leave my comments at that. But I appreciate that but moving forward with it.
Okay, next caller.
Oops, just a sec here.
All right. Caller 424 were you able to unmute yourself. Caller 424 Can you state your name and address for the record? Hi,
my name is Dan Olsen. Can you hear me?
We can hear you now. Thank you, Dan.
Thank you. I live at 1674 Brown court in Longmont. I'm calling about the RV ordinance as well. And I emailed you all just a few hours ago. And there is some confusion about whether owners like me of a trailer can park out front for 48 hours prior to a trip. I looked through the ordinance, it's not obvious, but I'm not a lawyer. So in any case, I bring my camper trailer home from the storage unit, park it out front loaded, unloaded, but part of loading is charging the batteries and cooling your frigerator. And that's more than just a couple of hours. So I'm hoping that in the final ordinance, there is some provision for parking out front for overnight at least maybe two nights so that we can cool off the fridge, get the batteries charged loader up and off we go. Appreciate you guys working on this. I do think and ordinance update is needed. For the other reasons, the whole sleeper vehicle part. But I'm hoping you'll protect to the US owners who don't park out front all of the time, just when you're ready to get going. Thanks so much for your help. appreciate all your work on this. Thanks, Dan.
All right, next.
All right, caller 488. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Okay, thank you.
my name is Scott Cunningham. I'm calling in on the AMA smart meter issue. I practice integrative internal medicine as I think that you all probably know. And I've helped many of my patients recover from the adverse health effects of the same radio frequency radiation emitted by the wireless version of the AMI smart meter, presently under review. So I'm going to focus my comments this evening. On clarifying material covered during the recent study session by boulder County's air quality coordinator. I understand how daunting the biological literature on radio frequency radiation health effects can can be. As a practicing clinician, I've wrestled with it myself. However, my goal in the next couple of minutes is to appeal directly to the literature rather than relying on statements from so called experts who may or may not have actually read the current scientific literature about the harms of wireless radiation. I'll start with this particular speakers statement that non non ionizing radiation, including that used by the wireless ami smart meters, can't cause tissue damage at the low levels of power used by those devices. The scientific literature however, paints a much different picture. We have multiple peer reviewed studies, both animal and human, showing tissue damage, including breakage of DNA. In fact, I've sent links to those studies to the council for your review. Careful, careful review of the same literature also debunks the tired theory that only the thermal effects of radio frequency radiation are relevant to biological systems. Let's let's apply this rich body of scientific literature to the daily life of you and I, the fact that we're in die, quote, every second of every day exposed to radiation from a number of different sources and quote, does not mean that we shouldn't work to reduce that scientifically proven hazard to our health. Did we use that reasoning with lead paint? Or with the toxic haze flowing out of factory smokestacks? No, we didn't. Here's another one. Just because many are unknowingly exposed to a manmade source of radiation doesn't lessen its negative biological impact. I'll leave you with a question to ponder. Knowing what we now know about wireless radiation. Is it even ethical to impose it upon our population? Thank you
That was exactly three minutes. That was spot on. Thank you. All right. Next caller.
Caller 49499. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
Can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Thank you. Hi.
This is Joe Kelly of barberry Drive. And I am one of the self avowed EMF canaries in the coal mine. You've heard me speak of this living within the local Longmont community. I attended the long month city council ami and smart meter study session on October the 20th. I realized that one of your experts a person extremely well versed on wireless smart meters, as well as professionally embedded within the AMI industry, and therefore perhaps not as trustworthy to my mind anyway, as an independent consultant named Eric Schmidt downplay the dangers of smart meter fires. I would like to counter his suggestion that statistically these fires are in significantly small by challenging each of you to Google the term smart meter fires and also smart meter fires in Sacramento specifically, and see for yourself what videos and articles pop up. I would like to suggest that according to other knowledgeable experts, a reason these fires appear to be statistically insignificant may be that when there is such a fire, the utility is called in to dismantle the wireless, electronic microwave emitting smart meter, from its connection to voltage ASAP, thus removing the evidence of this type of fire hastily from the building for better or worse, with or without intent of hiding such a fire because I don't know. And so I asked you the great and generous people who are publicly elected and accountable representatives in Longmont do our city council. Why on earth would insurance companies refuse to insure smart meters were not for this obvious danger, and other known hazards. Mechanical analog meters lasts up to 50 years. Our analog meter is nearly 25 years old and ticking along like the Energizer Bunny, and is not a fire hazard compared with a wireless smart meter. Add this to all the evidence of health harms from ubiquitous radio frequency waves, aka microwaves in our current environment, and we have not only a recipe for disaster in terms of fire dangers, but also in terms of ours and our children's as well as our elders health. As the damage continues to mount up, the more ambient and ubiquitous this microwave electrosmog continues to proliferate. We need wise wired cities not wireless so called Smart infrastructure. I urge you to reconsider the AMI wireless smart meter program in Longmont knowing that wired infrastructure is by far the healthier, safer way to move into a healthier future for all. Thank you for your time. Thank you, man.
All right, next caller
caller 983983 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
Okay, thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the $25 circuit, wooden tokens for my family. We live in an RV. And this is Darlene Oh, Chani again, and somebody stopped by and give us four of them. Thank you very much. So I want to finish where I left off last week, when I was cut off. And the my last sentence was, with all due respect, now is not the time to make no parking loss because of the COVID. And because it's freezing cold out here. So and I just would like to know, just for your information to know that the dump station takes only credit cards, Visa or MasterCard, and not everyone has credit cards. And also I'd like to tell Mr. Fernandes that your COVID-19 we cannot turn down that road because it says do not enter. So I first saw that today. And to Jeff Sater, I'd like to say of how many of those vehicles he thought off 900 I think it was he mentioned how many of those are B. And how many warning tickets were repeats of the same vehicle and to carrying forth coordinated entry. I'd like to say, how many from Longmont did you put in the boba shelter? And did you know that when they came back to Longmont, they were not able to get services from our center? Because they were now bro the residents. And did I hear someone say maintenance For RVs going to well, Tommy? Well, does that mean we can't get any services from Boulder County if you did that? What a dilemma, huh? So anyways, and about the parking. Suppose I do find a place to park outside of the city limits and I come in with my RV, and I park in the city. Can I park in front of the lawn that laundromat without? Without getting in trouble? How about if I came to church and I parked my week in front of the church? And get not getting shoveled? Say absolutely no parking whatsoever? And what about you need to then you mentioned sleepers? Well, what about 18 years, there's plenty of 18 wheelers that park all over long, lots, lots of times. And so anyway, I just wanted to bring some of these things to your attention. And I'm looking for a different place to go. But who knows? Yeah. So sending my love to all of you. Thank you very much for being there for us. Okay, thank you. Bye.
All right, next caller?
All right, caller 418 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Do you have three minutes? caller? 418?
Yes, this is Stan toll confirmed that I can be heard.
You can be heard.
Okay, thank you. I, I'm talking about the art sleeper vehicle ordinance. I guess it includes just about anything you can sleep in. I guess you have to start towing every single car in the community. Now. One of the things is that that we're in the middle of a pandemic, and we're doing this zoom thing, and less than 10% of the people in the community can actually access know how to access the zoom meetings. And as far as the RV, there is part of the OIC, Colorado open. Meeting Law for people that are impacted by the law, there's a requirement that you get the city before it can be declared Open Meeting with chronically has to make arrangements for the people that the law impacts, how many people that are being impacted. They're living in RV, as a city made arrangements for these people to be involved in these meetings. None of them. So this meetings are violating the Open Meeting requirements in this state. And if you violate the Open Meeting, statute, any decision that you make, and then violating the Open Meeting statutes are void. Okay. That's just a process. The actual law that you're trying to act apparently violates constitutional statutory rights for people that have no other shelter operate options, and particularly people with disabilities like myself, who found that they cannot afford anything other than living in a vehicle at this time. So what happened is like under this, Martin versus the city of Boise, there has to be other options. The city has been violating the Fair Housing Act by not allowing RV parking situations for people with disabilities and people with other options to have safe places to park. So and also the coordinated entry. It's really coordinated entry is is coordinated expulsion, because you're declared not a resident of the of this of the city anymore, and that that's kind of a violation of people's rights. Alright, Stan, that's
thrones, three minutes, but we thank you very much for calling in. Appreciate it. All right, next caller.
We should have two more.
I believe this is our last caller caller 518 caller ending in 518. You should be able to unmute yourself.
Hi, can you hear me?
We can hear you. Please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
Yes, my name is john flower. My address To 719 Pendleton Avenue. I am president of the Ryder Ridge homeowners association and I have lived at this address in Longmont for over 20 years. I have spoken before about this and address the council in writing earlier today. The this new ordinance about RV parking goes too far, in some of the other colors have mentioned some of the problems with it. And I'm gonna talk about a different kind of problem. This ordinance makes it illegal for me to park my my good condition, current license, small motor home, in front of my house just to clean the leaves or snow off my driveway. I mean, as I read the ordinance, that's what it's telling me, I can't put it out on the street. Our street is wide enough, so it doesn't block anything. And we use this as our second car, so we're not going to put it in storage somewhere else. Now I understand the issues that the ordinance is trying to address. One of the big triggers was people sleeping in vehicles in front of private homes that they have no relation with. One of the early callers mentioned that we don't sleep in our vehicle except when we're traveling somewhere else. And I know there's other issues, different issues around town such as narrow streets in the Old Town area. So I have a couple of suggestions to make this workable. First of all, make sure this ordinance is complaint driven. Make sure it's a complaint driven and not just something that code enforcement chose to drive around and look for problems. Because I can tell you someone who's camping in front of my house, or blocking half the street on our block, I would be the first to call code enforcement. I mean, I agree that's a problem. And, and like the last caller says suggests that I'm going to say the same thing, you got to put a little more effort into finding alternatives for people who need to sleep in their vehicle. Some of these are, you know, there's some kind of image of them. These are all vagrants and people that are homeless, you know, not that's not always the case. Some of these are traveling nurses, or construction workers, you know, that are showing up for a project. So anyway, that's my two suggestions, make sure to like complaint driven, and that way the neighborhood where it's a problem is going to actually get the focus and puts and I remember all the problems that you had in trying to find places for other people to sleep, but you know, you got to do something. So that's my two suggestions. And I thank you for your consideration. Thank you, sir.
We appreciate it. All right. That concludes first call public invited to be heard. Let's move on to the consent agenda.
Mayor Bagley item nine a is ordinance 2020 dash 59. A bill for an administrative ordinance approving the grant of a deed of conservation easement in gross from the city of Longmont to the Longmont Conservation District on the NewBee farms openspace property, public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 1 2029 B is ordinance 2020 dash 60. A bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the Real Property known as Vance brand Municipal Airport, hangar parcel h 14 b to Craig Nelson public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 1 2029 sees ordinance 2020 dash 61 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the Real Property known as Vance brand municipal air Municipal Airport hangar parcel h 37. To Robert singer public public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 1 2029 D is resolution 2020 dash 110 a resolution of the Longmont city council authorizing the transfer of a portion of the unencumbered appropriation balance of the Employee Benefit fund to the employee pension fund. 90 is resolution 2020 dash 111 a resolution amending the financial policies of the city of Longmont for 2021 nine F is resolution 2020 dash 112 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the city of Longmont 2021 classification and pay plan for city employees. Nine g resolution 20 pardon me 2020 dash 113 a resolution of Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for mediation services. Nine H's was resolution 2020 dash 114 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont in the state of Colorado division of fire prevention and control for emergency facilities and land use of button rock reservoir clover basin reservoir and McCall lake. Nine is resolution 2021 15 resolution along with City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Longmont housing authority for support and services. And nine j is approved one Capital Improvement Program amendment.
We have a motion.
I move approval of the consent agenda. All right. It's
been moved by Councilmember Christiansen and seconded by Councilmember Peck. I saw your move your lips move first. So we'll count you, Councilmember Peck. All right. Any further discussion or debate? All right. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. The consent agenda is moved and passes unanimously. All right, let's go on to ordinances on second reading. The first is ordinance. Item 10. A ordinance 20 2051. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for the expenses and liabilities the city Walmart for the fiscal year beginning January 120 20. Are there any questions from council? All right, seeing none, staff does not have a presentation, I believe. All right,
let's go ahead
and open it. Actually, let's go ahead and take a three minute break. If you are wanting to speak at the public hearing for any of the the issues coming up. Let's go ahead just take three minute break and call in now. Okay, so back in three.
folks, if you would like to call it now for any of the public hearings on the matters on the agenda this evening, now's your chance to do that. Please remember to mute the live stream and listen to the instructions on your telephone, when you call will admit folks into the meeting and call you by the last three digits of your telephone number.
Just reminder, folks that these are public hearing time to call in for any of the ordinances on second reading item 10 on the agenda. We've got just a couple more minutes here. And please remember to mute your live stream when you call and listen to the instructions on your telephone.
We're waiting for people to come back. Why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing on item 10 A ordinance 20 2051. Is there anybody in the queue for for public hearing?
Mayor we have it looks like about five folks in the queue.
I am assuming that these are all RV related.
is there a way to find out I think
we can do the hand raising with I believe it's star nine if you want to do that.
Alright, so we're gonna go ahead and proceed. And if you could raise your hand if you are going to be addressing anything other than the RV ordinance, that would be helpful. Again, hit star nine if you want to address anything other than the RV ordinance. If you raise your hand we will stop will ask you which one you're going to talk on and we'll make sure that we address it. But in the meantime, we're going to go ahead and proceed. And if someone doesn't want to we'll reopen. We'll read it. We'll do a redo for some reason somebody wants to say Say something about the budget. All right, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on ordinance 2020 dash 51. Do we have a motion place? I'm gonna move orders 2020. That's 51 second. All right. It's been moved by myself seconded by Dr. Waters. Any other debate? All right. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, ordinance 2020 dash 51 passes unanimously. Item 10. b orders 2020 x 52. Bill for an ordinance in the budget for the city of Longmont for the year 21. Any questions from council? All right. Does anyone raise their hand?
We'll go ahead and open it to public for public hearing. Dawn anyone? No
one has raised their hand
now. All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing on ordinance 20 2052. Do we have a motion?
I'll move ordinance 2020 dash 52.
All right. It's been moved by Dr. Waters. Seconded by Councilmember evil fairing. Any further discussion? debate dialogue? All right. All in favor say
All right. Opposed say nay. All right, or is 2022 passes unanimously. Item ordinance 20 2053, which is item 10. c on the agenda bill for an ordinance making appropriations for the expenses and liabilities the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 120 21. Any questions from council? comments, concerns? Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Is anyone raising their hand? Don?
No, they are not there.
All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing pertaining to ordinance 2020 or ordinance 2020 dash 53. Do we have a motion? Councilmember Chris Christiansen you put your hand near your ear. You want to make a motion?
Now just moving the hair out of my face.
Somebody make a motion on the board is 2020. Yes. 53. Second.
All right. It's been moved by Dr. waters and seconded by Councilmember pack. Any further additional debate dialogue. All right. All in favor of ordinance. 20 2053. say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, ordinance 20 2053. passes unanimously. All right, item 10. d orders 2020. desk 54. A bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.85. The Longmont municipal code adopting an amendment to the employee contribution requirement the city of Longmont, General Employees Retirement Plan. Any questions from council? All right, seeing none. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing anybody raise their hand?
don't see anybody with a hand raised mayor.
All right. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. We have a motion
and move ordinance 20 2054.
Second, it's been moved by Councilmember Pac seconded by Dr. Waters. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, ordinance 2020. District before passes unanimously. All right. Let's go on to item 10. E ordinance 20 2055 bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city of Longmont and Joseph M. Doe CIF on the French property. The other any questions from council? All right, anybody? Let's go ahead and open the public hearing Anybody? Anybody hit star nine?
Doesn't look like it Mayor as of yet.
All right. Well, the I'm gonna go ahead and we'll go ahead and close the public area. The reason I'm chuckling is a couple years ago, when I met with Larry French, to check out the lease to look into this particular farm this this area that we're leasing, and he got me in his pickup truck, looked at me proceeded to go 30 miles an hour and reverse and just nail Mesa birth it. Yes, anyway, that's what chuckling good memories. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
I'm sorry. Mayor who moved up that and said Oh, that.
I'll move it. Dr. Waters. Want a second it?
It's been moved and seconded by Dr. Waters. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, it passes unanimously. All right. ordinates. See here, or it's 20 2056 which is item 10. At the bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of right of way within the villas Creek subdivision generally located north of 70. Devon in West Pei Street. Any questions from council? All right, seeing none. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing anybody hit star nine? Don?
no takers on this one either. Mayor. All right. no
takers. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. We have a motion.
I'll move forward to 2020 dash 56. All right.
I'm going to go ahead and take it as a move by Dr. Waters. Seconded by Councilmember Christiansen All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Warren's 2020 desk 56 passes unanimously. We're going to go ahead and skip 10 g for a moment. Let's go on to 10 Ah, ordinance 2020. That's 58 a bill for an administrative ordinance approving the purchase option agreement to convey a parcel of city owned land located at 2000. Sunset way to sunset element LLC. All right, let's go ahead and ask if there's any questions from Council. All right, seeing none, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Anybody want to talk on ordinance? 20 2058? Anybody hidden star nine?
No, Mayor, no takers?
All right. I didn't think so. Running a risk. They're just jumping all over the agenda, but trying to keep moving along. All right. So we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing. Do we have a motion to pass ordinance 2020 is 58 Councilmember dog
move ordinance. 2020 52nd.
All right. It's
been moved by Councilmember toggle fairing seconded by Councilmember Christiansen All in favor of passing ordinance. 20 2058. say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, item 10. h orders 2020. That's 58 passes unanimously. All right. Now let's go back to item 10 g ordinance 20 2057. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 11 of the law minister code of vehicles abandoned, kept on public property or jumped. Let's go ahead and have the staff report.
So mayor and council, I know we presented this to you on a couple of occasions. So we don't have a detailed presentation on this at this point. I did want to clarify, there were some questions about us asking the county in terms of their involvement in in consideration of the fairgrounds. I did receive a letter from Janet Jana Peterson, who's the county administrator on this issue. I sent that via email to you all. But generally what I want to call Council's attention to is the last paragraph where it said when I go before that, actually the HSBC, we talked about the recommendation they made during the last council session. The county commissioners supported the board's motion and recommendation, and agreed with the concerns expressed they also directed staff to work with us and follow up on the assessment of impacted RV dwellers to inform whether there's an interest in the need for short term 60 days or less option using the fairgrounds to fill a temporary temporary gap until other options are developed. And so we have reached out to Robin bohannan. Jan and I have talked about this issue and we'll continue the conversations. Generally what they want us to look at is and this is going to be part of another survey that we're going to do is really understand where individuals fit and what the need is. And again, as we stated before, I'm going to ask Karen to jump in in case I miss something is really focusing on a connection to coordinated entry. b we also know that there's some additional federal funds that are coming into play that they have talked about enabled, it could be in play to assist individuals that are willing to go into the coordinated entry program and move through that process. So wanted to tell Council, more conversations that we need to have with county staff. We're building an operational plan in terms of determining what that need is, we are also Have we reached out to Andy at help. We've reached out to Sarah Arnie David Kennedy and other individuals to get a sense of the different demographics and and where the support is needed. And we can bring we will be bringing more information to you all based on our conversations with the county. Karen Did I miss anything?
Yeah, no, Harold, I
don't have anything to add unless your questions.
All right. So let's go.
Alright, sorry. My alarm went off customer Christiansen you're on you're on mute Paulie, and my alarm was to go get my weak fins. But I'll wait till break. For
Okay, I would I would like to make a few statements. My neighbor across the street who has a giant contractor's van who would be affected by this perhaps because it hasn't been clarified in the law. Nevertheless, he has a he owes a business down on Delaware Street. And as I think we all know, various businesses are just as affected in fact, more so by this problem as residential areas Everybody's actually affected. The situation down on Delaware street this morning was that he came to work and people in order to sleep in their van had thrown all the material out of their van onto the street, which looked like an explosion of trash, so that they could sleep in their van. We just we just can't let this go on, however. And we have also heard from lefthand brewery that their employees come out at 11 o'clock at night sometimes and are subjected people who are dealing drugs and people who are threatening them or they feel they feel threatened. I know that I've talked to the people over on budget hardware, and there are people going to the bathroom in the bushes or people unloading things and dumping trash and dumping sewage out on the street. So I understand we and we all know we have to do something about this. But I can't I don't want to create more problems than we already have. I want us to be clear about the fact that it should state somewhere here that it is illegal or not permissible to sleep in or live in any vehicle on the public streets of Longmont because it creates a public safety and public health danger. If we don't say that, then we're just taking the wimpy way out by just recreating an ordinance. What is the purpose of the ordinance? We need to focus on the problem which is people living in their vehicles. It's not every RV in this town, there are probably hundreds of contractor vans, contractor, trailers. And RVs like Mr. Flowers, who seemed to think that we would not let them park in front of their house for 48 hours, although I think it's pretty clear in the law that they can do that. I think the ordinance as written is a little confusing, and I cannot vote for it unless it clarifies that it is illegal to sleep in or live in any vehicle on the public streets of Longmont because it creates a public safety and public health danger. Secondly, the term sleeper vehicle, which is not a term any other municipality uses, and is actually a very strange and vague term. And if you look it up, if you Google it, it has nothing to do with Arby's. I think it needs to be replaced by a vehicle, or the definition of sleeper vehicle, which is slang, which should not be used in ordinance, but it's on page four, it's on under four B line 16. page three, it should be at the top of the ordinance. So it explains what a sleeper vehicle is, since it is any not a legal term, not a term used by I don't know who uses this term. But anyway, unless we make this law clear, I can't vote for it. sleeper vehicle needs to be defined at the very beginning, as we have done on page three. So those are two things that need to happen, as far as I'm concerned to clarify this law and make it focus on the problem instead of affecting every RV owner in town. In addition to which I would like us to list
places that people can go when we give if we tag a vehicle they need to be told where it what their alternatives, are there alternatives that they can find they can go to a place that has a there are some places down in Lafayette and very other places that do have openings for Arby's they can apply to get into the coordinated entry program. We have to we can't just give them a ticket and threaten to tow and crush their vehicle and not give them an alternative. And I believe that January 1, maybe cutting it a little short to begin to work on this long short I I don't think this law is
up to snuff for passing it tonight. But I agree we have a horrible problem. So
Tim, is Tim hold around. Can you just curious just curious, could you read the definition of sleeper vehicle that's in the ordinance place? Is it there?
Anyone second, hold on.
It's page three, four B line 16
So the definition of sleeper vehicle existed in the current code were be amended a little bit. But what it says now is super vehicle means any camper coach trailer vehicle motorhome multipurpose purpose trailer, or trailer coach, we have added recreational vehicle vehicle and clarified that includes any vehicle converted to serve as temporary living or sleeping accommodation.
So Tim, can you explain to me why that isn't right at the top of the ordinance because you're using a term that nobody really that is not used by other municipalities without defining it until three pages later?
So we put it in with the definition section. So we're defining the term in the definition section, because it's used several times throughout the code.
That's pretty commonplace for help.
Generally, generally, if
you're going to use it in more than one place, if we have the definition, outside of the definition section, then it kind of causes people to have to go bouncing around looking for that definition. So if it's used more than once, we tend to try to put it in the definition
section. Customer Peck
I'm sorry, yeah, customer effective and Councillor Martin.
I don't think that Councilwoman Christensen was finished. I'm not sure what she
Uh, no, go ahead, Counselor Christiansen, I'd like to continue go
ahead and make just one clarification that the rest of that code section appears about the definition of sleeper vehicle because it's alphabetical so that's just in the definition of abandoned or publicly kept so it appears above sleeper just alphabetically
but So to be clear, Counselor Christian and finished I asked my question then we're going on counselor pack, but I can't go back to counselor Christiansen if she'd like to follow up on
your on your on me. You're muted Polly.
I would like to follow up because editorially, what is common throughout all editorial writing, and academic writing is the first time you use a term, you define it. and thereafter. You may use the slang version of it or the acronym or whatever, but you define it and first use. I realize it's different in legal writing. But I you know, when most people read this law, they have no idea what a sleeper vehicle is, particularly if you're encouraging people not to sleep in their vehicle. It seems an odd term to use to refer to the thing that you don't want them to do in the first place. Okay, anyway.
Right elsewhere back. Thank you,
Mayor Bagley. I want to make a clarification in my vote. Last time we have this up on first reading. I agreed with the sleeper vehicle part of the ordinance. And I'm going to bring up once again, I think, Jeff Seder for reaching out to me on this issue. But I'm going to bring it up again, explain and then make a motion. If it passes. It does if it not doesn't, that's the way it is. We have the image definition of abandoned and junk vehicles this statement. It says any vehicle any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle is going to be an abandoned and junked vehicle. If it's in a public space for 48 hours or longer. Think about that. Any vehicle that is on a public space for 48 hours or longer is in the definition of an abandoned and junked vehicle. So when you go down to the abatement section that says that any abandoned or junked vehicle can is in the abatements section which is basically being towed and I totally disagree with that. Why would we have any vehicle that is parked on a public street thoroughfare park for over two hours two days become an abandoned and junk vehicle by definition. And then because it has been labeled that it can be a code effective counted in the entertainment section. So that leaves that whole section up to interpretation. And I want to make the caveat that I totally trust our Public Safety Department, Jeff Sattar, our detectives, and that they would not probably target a vehicle to be impounded. But this ordinance does not say anything about ticketing
giving a warning. It just says they can be towed. So I am going to move that we do one of two things, we either take the wording, any vehicle out of there and define what we think a really a junk vehicle is or an abandoned vehicle
leave it in there and say that it will be ticketed. And I understand that. When talking to detective Sater that he said that this is by complaint only that these vehicles are even
But that isn't mentioned anywhere in this ordinance. This is a law. When we have turnover in our Public Safety Department, when we have people retiring, we don't even have a chief of police hired yet. When they look at this law, there is no way that a resident can fight this because the Public Safety Department is doing exactly what the law says that they can tow a vehicle that is left for two days on a street by complaint, but we don't know that it's by complaint. It doesn't say it at all in there. So I'm
I move that what section is this section for?
line one, where it says any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle, we changed read or take that wording out and define exactly what the what a junked vehicle is. It's not any vehicle. And or or we change the wording to say that it will be ticketed.
I tell you what, it's been moved and seconded. Tim, just a quick question on your thoughts on where the RV and junk vehicle statutes merge. Where there's over there crossover, we talking about two different issues, same issue. Two different
they're two different issues. They're kind of in the headline together. We this this revision isn't touching the 48 hour provision for other vehicles, except for the reorganization as we've discussed before, right. So I see them as different but
right, so So this so I guess, john, I guess this would probably I feel this would be more appropriate to raise. And if we want to address the junk vehicle 40 an hour issue. We can we can do that. But I guess my my concern is that that what your what you just move doesn't necessarily touch on the statute that was this before Council.
But Mayor badly is in the ordinance that we're passing, if we are amending this, or this ordinance. Now, we I don't even know why it's in this ordinance To be quite honest. Why that's particular things. But if we are if we are going to pass this ordinance, then we are passing it with that statement.
Can you can you read the statement to us here I'll
be glad to it says any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle left on public property, including any portion of a highway street alley or other right of way for 48 hours or longer. It's the definition of an abandoned or junked vehicle.
Is that in this picture? I don't have my right now.
Yes, it is. And
is that in this statute? Tim?
Yes, it's on pace.
Yep. So my question is, how does that Tim how does that not then take two separate issues and overlap?
This this this ordinance will move it in the definition in a numbered list, but otherwise, it doesn't change that. So we don't make any change to the definition of the 48 hours. We just move around.
So what's the definition, the definition and then what what statue If it's not this one does that definition apply to?
Because it's not that so basically what Councilmember Peck is referring to is a definition. But it's not actually the statute that that says that you cannot have a jumped the junk vehicle statute is not this one. Correct? Meaning the definition is there, because the definition
section, they do merge, they do merge. So either either of those two will both equal and abandoned or junk vehicle that can be taken care of at a later portion in the same manner. And right now it's 48 hours.
Yes. Okay. So just an I'd like to address Councilman repec. Your concern, I would totally, I would totally agree with you. However, what needs to happen is, it is complaint driven, not because it's we're taking somebody's word for it. That's the way it happens. Meaning that someone has to call and complain. Or even in theory, if you're driving along, and you just go, Hey, that arbitrary car is parked on a site on the road. And I need to we need to make sure that particular car that's parked is going to move within 48 hours, they still get out market have to give notice. They can't just take it. And then the driver will be given notice and they have to move it within 48 hours. But parking enforcement is not going to do that. Because I mean, they see the car but they'd have to stay there for 48 hours to watch it. So it doesn't it's just not the way enforcement works.
My problem there badly is that it is in the definition of an abandoned or junked vehicle. Why would we call somebody's car a junk vehicle, allowing it to be towed?
Why would we do this? Well, because you'd go if you go over to I mean, like I get, I've gotten a call from two different people every quarter since I've been on Council. And they complain that there are there's a gap. There's a homeowner that owns eight cars, and he parks them along the street. And other people would like to use the street, but he treats it as his own parking spot. And we had the real question is do we want people to be able to just park their cars and not move them for long periods of time? That's really that's really what we're doing. And do we want public streets being treated like personal property? I think we should encourage people to park their cars in the driveway and not occupied public streets. But not everybody.
Not everybody has a driveway in this city.
And that is it. I don't know what they do downtown To tell you the truth, but Kazmir Martin. Oh,
I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. The reason that Tim has said that that hasn't changed is because the ordinance has always been you had to move a car every 48 hours or it was considered abandoned. Correct. Is that correct?
That is correct. And I want to clarify, it's abandoned or publicly kept. And junked is a different definition.
Right. But But nevertheless, the the statute has always been that if you're going to park on the street, you couldn't do it for longer than 48 hours. And that's because somebody else needs a chance at the public parking. Even if it's right in front of their house, they don't own the parking in front of their house. Anybody can park there. And while I have had to tell a number of people that they did not own the parking in front of their house. I have never received a complaint about someone leaving a car for several days without moving it on the public street, except off occupied sleeper vehicles. That complaint of course we get all the time. But I don't understand the reason for revisiting the part of the ordinance that's working I mean, what we're doing right now is revisiting the part of the sleeper vehicle ordinance that's clearly not working because it creates a public health hazard. So I would feel better confining the debate to that.
Alright, well, let's, if nobody else has any, we have a motion on the table unless somebody really wants to say something. Let's go ahead and vote on the motion.
one point of clarification, there is a drafting error that I would ask that the council board and well we get the
motion on the table right now is not for the what we'll come back to that in just a second. But right now the motion is Is to either strike the word in the vehicle, or what was that? What was the what was the real key restate your motion, Councilmember back
in a minute, but to Councilmember Martin's comment, the reason I bring up is because that is part of the change in this ordinance. It has the original wording was struck out, this is a change to this ordinance. And that is what we are voting on all of the changes to this ordinance. Um,
what was the change? What was it before because just told me that it was it's the same as it was before.
It says what is struck out is any sleeper vehicle or trailer parked on public property, including any portion, they use sleeper vehicle,
any vehicle they change that any vehicle or they replaced it with any vehicle? That was the elliptical part. And that's why I brought it up?
Well, I think it was that was the clarification that I was asking for. Because I thought that was part of the reordering was Mr. Whole? Could you tell us? was it? Was it any vehicle, no matter where physically was in the ordinance was the statute that the 48 hours applied to any vehicle
The only change to that section is ordering. So it appears as a as a redline and and a new insertion. Just because that's how the ordinance has to be drafted. But the only change to that section was the ordering. Okay, does not change the language whatsoever.
Thank you. So restating that motion was either strike any vehicle or add that it would be my problem is it's the in the basement section that the any vehicle I don't really know how to state it to be quite honest. That any vehicle that other than a sleeper vehicle is deemed abandoned, or junked, per definition, be taken out of the abatement part that that would be ticketed, rather than
and once I once I once I once I just remember that in just a second, okay, because we're gonna have to split it into two I'm gonna take your motion is two votes. All right, move the first motion is striking any vehicle and then the second will be removing the language that you just said. Okay, so the motion is to strike the wording any vehicle? All in favor say aye? Aye. All right, I'll post say nay, nay. And hey, all right, the nays have it. The motion fails with Councilmember Christiansen and Councilmember Peck for the second motion will be will be taken as a motion to strike the following language. JOHN, could you read it please?
any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle left on a public property including any portion of a highway street alley or other right of way for 48 hours or longer? Is it abandoned and Junker definition?
All right? All in favor say aye. Aye.
the motion is to take it out of great grain The motion is to strike what Councilmember Peck just read. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Actually, I
have a question.
So if we do that, then I'd like to know. Um, how would that impact? What would that do is moving that language? ability to? Um, oh, yeah. I'm thinking more of the lines, because I've had calls and I've gone out to different areas, taking pictures, looked at stuff that was I mean, it clearly looks like people are just dumping their RVs in the street, we can't have that. And that we need to take care of that. Um, I take care of that piece. I'm just wondering if we strike the language? What would that do with the city's ability to be able to, to address those issues?
I assume it would make it difficult.
Well, let me Yeah, I'd like to hear falls apart.
Got it. Let's
go. Let's go deputy deputy chief sadder for a second. Deputy Chief.
Well, thank you for letting me speak on this topic tonight. As I stated last time, in the last two years, we tagged 4200 of these vehicles until 91. But this has a very negative impact on those neighborhoods without garages Because if somebody parks in front of your house that has a cascading effect all the way down the street. So if we've removed that language, there would be no way to move those vehicles on. And at this point, as I say, the last week we tagged those cars, so there is no cost to the owner for moving their vehicle. If he ticketed it, there would be a cost to the owner to pay a ticket. Right now they just get a warning and asked to move the car. Thanks. But it would have a very negative effect on the neighborhood to my opinion.
I don't want to I don't want to cut off I don't want to cut off debate. I can't do that. I don't have the authority to we can keep talking. But the motion currently is just we still have to talk about the ordinance. This is just the motion by Councilmember Peck wanting to strike that particular language. Does anyone want to talk specifically about the motion to strike the language that Councilmember Peck just read? Charles Murray Bible fairing the question or issue.
So I don't have you know, I understand where Councilmember Peck is coming from.
and I agree with it. But I don't want to be able to create another problem. I feel like we need to have a deeper discussion on on individual pieces in the in the ordinance to add specific language that will address some of the concerns that residents have, as well as, as well as people who maybe live in their vehicle, but are also friends or have some kind of connection with residents that they may be parking in front of. I also want to be able to have discussion on what types of problems what how are some of the solutions? How are we progressing with coming up with some of the solutions before we move forward with this and then don't have any place to to put folks and I'm I'm I'm also thinking about people who work here but live in their RVs. And I know quite a few folks. And I don't want to you know, so that they spend money here, they they happen to live in their RVs. But they spend money here, they work here. They just happen to live in their RVs. I want to be able to make sure that we have solutions in place before we just rush through all this. And I know it's probably not rushing because it sounds like
a discussion for a long time.
All right, again. So as we as we continue with we're only talking about the motion by Councilmember peck at this point. So we're going to go with Councilmember Christiansen and then Councilmember Martin.
So I'm very confused about what we're actually voting on right now.
But we're voting The motion is to strike the language in the ordinance that reads as follows. Councilmember Peck, could you read it again, please.
But I am going to pull my motion. It isn't going to pass. And I and I think this discussion going on too long.
Okay. Well, though,
the chair will allow you to do that. Harold, it was just pulled. Do you have anything to say other than that?
I wanted to say that you all have directed this motion was made by Councilmember Christian's and seconded by Councilmember Pac and it passed to bring back this other component of the ordinance at a later date. And that's what I was going to say is that's where that conversation covered or it needs to occur is in that ordinance that we're going to be bringing back to you.
All right, then that said, I'm going to actually move ordinance 20 2057 and all a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 11 of the Walmart municipal code on vehicles abandoned kept on public property or jumped.
Do we need a public hearing?
No, that'll be uh, yeah, do we do need public hearing? So let's go ahead and open the public hearing.
All right, well, we do have color 518 with their hand up for this call or 518. You should be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address and you have three minutes.
Can you hear me?
We can hear you. Oh, okay.
You know who I am. I'm john flower I spoke before. Just a couple quick comments. In our homeowners association, we don't want to see old junk vehicles vehicles being worked on in the driveways. And we have come up with a way of defining that because we've been rewriting our covenants that may be of help to you. We we said Please say that if it's if you have a vehicle, it has to be in the driveway can be in your yard. And it has to be currently licensed. So that's the wording we use is currently licensed. So I think in some of the cases, you're dealing with vehicles that are not currently licensed, nobody's using them. And I think that that's been effective way for us to look at it. I also just listen to the comments by council members, I absolutely agree with what Polly Christensen brought up. And also with what john pet brought up. In those are very good points. So that's really all I wanted to say is that I agree with Polly Christiansen and john text comments. I'm imploring you please don't pass this ordinance until you had a chance to look at the issues that I brought up plus the issues of some of the other colors earlier brought up there. They're valid concerns that like one of the other council members just mentioned about that there are people living in these vehicles, sort of they're not bad people, you know, they're working here. So you got to deal with that whole thing. But anyway, think about the wording of currently licensed that could be a solution to some of that discussion about trunk vehicles. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the in the hearing queue? Yep. We
have a few more folks. Caller 137.
How many is a few.
So one, two,
well, three, I believe we have left.
Caller 137137 you should be able to unmute yourself.
Hi, can you hear me?
We can hear you go ahead.
Great. Thank you.
My name is Annie Kurtz, and I'm an attorney and Equal Justice works fellow at the ACLU of Colorado, which is 303 17th Avenue Denver. And I'm here to speak in opposition to ordinance 2020 dash 57, which I fear will undermine the health and housing stability of long long, most vulnerable residents at a particularly dangerous moment. This ordinance on the one hand, some have already stated tonight is overly broad of banning all recreational or sleeper vehicles from parking on public property in every part of the city at all hours and for any amount of time. The ordinance sweeps within its reach an objectionable activity. This law would mean a family traveling in their RV could not stop for lunch on Main Street without threat with their vehicle being impounded during their meal. On the other hand, the reality is that the audience's most bitter impact would fall on the city's most marginalized residents for whom the prohibited vehicles are last resort for securing affordable shelter rest, safety, privacy and access to other basic human needs and long law. But punishing people merely for sheltering in their vehicles when they have no other meaningful option raises constitutional concerns. Courts have concluded that it violates the Eighth Amendment to punish someone for sleeping outside and public property with no indoor options available to them. punishing people for sleeping in their vehicles when they lack meaningful alternatives raises the same concern. Long long, safe parking lots closed RVs and the other locks that to my knowledge have been explored by the city but provide temporary accommodation at best. The same time the point in time survey unknown undercount of those experiencing homelessness in Boulder County reveals inadequate shelter space for those who might seek it. Not to mention that during this surging pandemic crowded shelters, only jeopardize the health of guests in the larger community such as the CDC warns against clear you can't miss it. unhoused residents and less individual housing units are available. Colorado faces an affordable housing crisis, a financial crisis and a public health crisis and winter is coming. Now is not the time to strip a crucial safety net from long month housing insecure, whose ranks are only predicted to swell and COVID-19 related eviction moratoria eventually expire. Given the enact an inadequacy of housing and shelter in Longmont. The proposed outright ban on RV parking will force people to choose between leaving the city they call home and living on the streets. ACLU of Colorado urges the city council not to pass ordinance 2020 dash 57 Thank you.
Thank you next caller.
All right, color number 418 color 418 you should be able to unmute yourself.
Yes. This is standard poll again. I I'd like to really put it to you that you're treating people that are living in a vehicle of some sort of enemy that are something that we need to expel from the community. And I've listened to peck peck us several times says why can't they go to weld County? Why can't they that, you know, these are residents of the community that Through policies that the city council has been following, has made this problem. The cloud has expanded. And we have not expanded places where people run into problems. And there, there's people who are disabled. There's people who are who are working, and they're trying to save money, so they could maybe get something. And so you're rushing this. And there's a lot of things. Like, when you put a tag on somebody's vehicle, saying you're going to impound it, by law, you have to give a person a chance to have a hearing before his property is taken. Now, I had the experience of one having a vehicle impounded illegally. And when I went to try to get an impound hearing, I was arrested and put in jail, and I was prosecuted for trespassing. That is blatantly blatantly unconstitutional. Because if somebody's property is getting taken, you are required to provide him with a hearing before the property is taken. And after the property is taken, within 24 hours, he needs to have a hearing, when you presented the little card that people have put on their vehicles, there is no notice on that, that people have a right to a hearing. And other communities like Santa Barbara, California, where my sister lives, they simply allow people to park in in the park and rides at night. And they have a little porta potti there. And then the people leave leave in the morning. There are alternatives. The thing is, is that you guys seem to be of the idea that we have to believe. And like I've said with a coordinated entry. You know, you sign up for that. Also, you're not a resident of city a lot of money. Yeah, that is some sort of expulsion plan. No, if you have coordinated entry, it has to be for the city of Longmont not to be sent off the campus or something like that. So what I suggest, and it's what I have been saying is that under pilotto Open Meeting laws, people are supposed to be allowed to be involved in the legislative process. If you're excluding any group, that
that's about three minutes. 20 seconds, we're gonna have to go on to the next caller. But thank you. All right, next caller.
Are you able to unmute yourself? caller 606.
Is this the last color?
This is the last caller 606. Are you able to unmute yourself? I think it's star six.
There we go. There we go. Good evening Council. My name is Monique Myers. I actually reside in Boulder. But I have a business that happens to operate in a small toy hauler, which could be considered an RV. And it's mostly a question of I teach sewing classes out of the RV. And I would park for say, two hours at a time in a neighborhood. Would my case fall under your regulation? Thank you.
All right, that concludes the public hearing. Um, let's go ahead and did you get that last question. Tim?
got most of it. Was it a toy hauler that
has been converted? Yeah, that's what it sounded like.
It would be a vehicle that's been converted to sleep in so Yes, right.
So the converted to to get diverted to sleep and I imagine that is in over conversions and sort of like you have a school bus that You'd have taken all those seats out of and really changed it. So I'd have to see. It seems like a judgment call.
All right, well, I'm going to go ahead and counselor Martin, you're going to be next but I'm going to move ordinance 2020. That's 57 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 11, allotments, code on vehicles abandoned, kept on public property or jumped. Second, or second counselor Martin.
I would like to say that the last woman who called didn't say anything about using her vehicle to sleep in, she said something about using it to teach from so it's like a bookmobile only for crafts. And she parks it in a neighborhood for two to four hours, which means that she wouldn't come under the violation of the statute at all. And I it may be a problem with organization of this statute. Because, you know, I read it. And I think it's clear that, you know, you're not in violation of anything until use leave the vehicle in one place for 48 hours or longer or occupy it. Well, it's part like for sleeping. And, you know, if if neither of those things happen, then somebody then then you know, all these people that are concerned that they're going to get in trouble, fall afoul of this law are just imagining this, that because they're not finding where it says, you know, they're not associating parking, and the duration of time that has to elapse before they're in violation. So I'm not sure I'd like Mr. Hold to talk about that. And explain to us where it says, you know, that that the vehicle has to stay in one place for 48 hours before it can be tagged.
So I may have missed I think I made an assumption that she said she slept in the vehicle, or had modified it for sleeping. The definition that we're changing that this ordinance is really focusing on is a sleeping camper, coach, camper, trailer motorhome Multi Purpose trailer, trailer coach or recreational vehicle includes converted to serve as temporary living accommodations, something that is really focused on somebody and being accessible for somebody to sleep in her vehicle, it sounds like would fall under just in any vehicle category, that one would need 48 hours, as we've discussed earlier,
right. And and in fact, the the thing that people aren't understanding is, is that any vehicle can park for less than 48 hours in a designated parking place on the street, right in any place that's not marked as no parking. And if they don't, if they leave it there for less than 48 hours, they're fine. Correct. As
long as they follow the traffic laws are impeding the flow of traffic, those kinds of things. And there's a valid license.
Yeah. Okay. So none of those things are changing. Is that correct? This is only changing what happens with a sleeper vehicle.
That is correct. Thank you. Councilmember Christiansen
I want to thank Councilman Martin for bringing up the subject the fact that both the mayor and the assistant city attorney, city attorney who both heard the same thing we heard both said it would cover it means that it's confusing to people. You know, there are lots of people like this woman who have mobile services that they perform, whether it's cutting dog hair, or human hair or delivering classes, as this last woman said, or plumbing services, electrical services. I mean, these are exactly the people. They're making a living using their vehicles and they're not parked for more than a few hours, usually in front of or anywhere. I don't want them to feel that they are going to be impacted by this. And that's precisely what I think is what people are feeling. And as Councilwoman Martin said, this, this woman just teaches classes. She's, and she said quite clearly I teach I converted this to teach classes. I'm parked for a couple of hours in front of a place and I applied people like that, who were you know, they're entrepreneurs. They may not be wealthy, but they're making a decent living for themselves and their family. I don't want to discourage them
because seeing No hands just I guess, again, there's there's a difference of fact, if that woman meant I'm going to be sleeping in it, yes. If he's not sleeping in it, then no. So the law is pretty clear. And it would depend on the fact. So, all right, there's a motion on the emotion on the table. But Councilmember dogberry.
So, you know, I want to clarify so that the state the question or the comment from Miss hurts, any hurts about a family who maybe have their RV, and they parked in front of a restaurant, so it's not going to be towed? Or it's not going to be tagged? Um, you know, I think, you know, I'm just as I look through, I keep scrolling up and down and trying to see, you know, some of its some of the language and there's kind of left to interpretation. And when I look at, you know, its complaint only, but does it stipulate that in here?
I don't see that. Unless I'm missing something. I've looked at it so many times. Now. I'm, it's all blending in. And so you know, so I guess, looking at specifics in that. The other thing, too, is, you know, if somebody's parking their RV in front of their house, and as the, the caller has had stated, when he's having to let his when they come back, and they have to leave it out, you know, during the fridge and do all whatever they have to do before they can put it away. It might be longer than 48 hours, what if they don't get along with their neighbor? And their neighbors just calling and complaining? Where where's that kind of? I just feel like there's it's too Let's left open to interpretation and too much too many variables? I
they'd have to answer your question, they'd have to show up in market and start the clock. Okay. And in order in order to be in order to lose an order to win a case in court, you'd have to mark it so that they can say, Okay, now we're starting the 48
hour clock, we're
starting the 48 hours. So it's 48 hours from the time that it is tagged.
No, not Yeah, we don't we don't take the neighbor's word for it, then law enforcement shows up for parking enforcement says, I'm going to count the time.
So can we have something stipulated in language? So it's very clear to residents? Would that be helpful?
Is that necessarily in your opinion, Mr. Whole? No,
I think in terms of clarifying that, for residents, I don't know if I have a comment, or in terms of how we would it would actually operate. In fact, we would still have to prove our case. It's been there for 48 hours, just Mary's commented. And while I'm speaking Mr. Mayor, I did have one revision that we need to make before any final stay here. The effective date on Section seven is 2020. should read 2021. Okay,
fellas, we're back.
Thank you very badly, um, for the loading and unloading, there is no time stipulation. Can I read this portion so everybody understands there is no 48 hour thing according to this it says active loading or unloading means the period of time in which a person or persons are physically engaged in the labor of bloating or unloading from an apartment, condominium, townhouse home or business. There is no 48 hours stipulation that I can see is that correct? Mr. Hall.
48 hours applies only to only to vehicles other than sleeper vehicles, there's a permit that you can get in may have to permit section to have seven days.
Right. But if they're loading or unloading their camper, they can take the time they need to load or unload it. There's no time stipulated here. Is that correct?
As long as they're actively loading and unloading, yes. Okay.
Thank you for clarifying that.
Marsha Morton. Thanks. I
just would like to say that. I think we're spending way too much time on this because when I read the ordinance, I thought that it was clear and I've been giving people advice for the last five or six days. consistent with what Mr. Hall is saying the ordinance says. So, um, yeah, just I think we're making a tempest in a teapot here and we should just vote.
All right, does anyone else opposed to that dark waters
just want to clarify, even if if somebody was not in the act of actively loading or unloading, because it's because they need two or three days to load or unload, absent complaint, somebody would have the flexibility to load and unload for as long as they need to load and unload. Is that fair? Tim,
my understanding from staff is that which the staffing requirements are that we are going to respond to complaints. But that's going to be a question probably for suggest
for Jeff, then. Let me just anticipate the Jeff's response would be, yeah, it's complaint driven. And I did. So I want to make a point about the current our current practice, under the current ordinance is all complaint driven. Jeff's on the screen. Is that true, Jeff?
That's correct, except for some really extreme examples.
So unless unless the council thinks that somehow in the current ordinance that are part of the code enforcement and public safety is operating inconsistently with the current ordinance, the current ordinance doesn't make any reference to the requirement for it to be complaint driven. I mean, you'd be adding something to it to the to a new ordinance that has been unnecessary in the current ordinance when it comes to implementation or enforcement. I don't know why we would have to add language. It's not in the current code correct ordinance to do what we're doing under the current ordinance. Done.
All right. There's a motion on the table for ordinance 2020 dash 57. All in favor of passage of ordinance 20 2027. On second reading say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
all right, john, we you and I. Okay, Susie, where you and I? Okay, so the ordinance passes six to one with Councilmember Christianson opposed. All right, let's go on. So nothing was removed from the consent agenda. Let's move on to actually should we take any brief three minute break real quick. Before we move on to general business we got a bunch of resolutions we're going to hammer through shouldn't be too hard. But should we take a two minute three minute break? Let's take a two minute three minute break. see in a second.
All right back
this is Aaron
We're not missing Marsha popped our people
to bed. We're virtual and share.
All right, we're all back. All right, let's go ahead and move that we let's go on to general business. I move that we recess to the last city council and command is the board of directors along with general Improvement District number one. Again. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye.
I'll post the name.
All right, motion carries. Resolution LG id 20 2006. Is resolution the board of directors along with general Improvement District number one adopting the annual budget for the district for the fiscal year 2021. We have a motion.
I'll move resolution 2020 dash six.
I'll second that. All right. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Resolution LGD 20 2020 2006. passes unanimously. I move that we adjourn is on my general Improvement District number one board of directors and communities the llama urban renewal authority. Second, all right, that's been moved by myself and seconded by Councilmember Christiansen I believe that was a hand was for okay. And let's go ahead and vote All in favor of convenings on urban renewal authority say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously acting as llama urban renewal authority resolution lmra 2021. a resolution of the Board of Commissioners the Longmont urban renewal authority adopting the annual budget for the authority for the fiscal year 2021. On favors or
I'll move that.
I can't see it on my screen. Right. Good.
All right, we're good. All right. So there's a motion for resolution Laura Desh 20 2001. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. I move that we adjourn as the Board of Commissioners long urban rural authority and reconvene as Longmont City Council. Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously moving on to item 12. c resolutions along with City Council approving a lot my contract and escrow agreement and two allotment transfer agreements for the windy gap berming project. Do we have a motion for resolution 2020 dash 116
Or it's been Moved by Councillor Martin second by Dr. Waters. All in favor of resolution 2020 dash one six a resolution Aloma city council approving the intergovernmental a lot of contract for the city Walmart, acting by and through its water utility enterprise the windy grant firming project water activity enterprise for capacity the windy grap firming project. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. That motion carries Herald unanimously. All right. Do we have a motion for resolution 2020 dash 117.
All right. I'll second that. So we have a motion for resolution 2020 117 resolution along with City Council approving an intergovernmental escrow agreement with the city of Longmont acting by and through its water utility enterprise and when you get firming project, water activity enterprise for the windy gap firming project.
All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, that motion passes unanimously. All right. Item 12 three, resolution 2025. 11118 a resolution allama City Council approving intergovernmental agreement between the city of lamarque city of Loveland for the sale and purchase of windy gap funding project storage capacity do have a motion?
I'll second that. All right. Any questions or debate on this? Didn't think so. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Resolution 2020. That's 119. a resolution along with City Council approving that intergovernmental agreement with the city of Longmont, the city of Fort Lupton for the sale. Purchase of windy get firming project storage capacity. We have a motion.
Second. All right. It's been Moved by Councillor Martin second by Dr. Waters. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Or the Motion carries unanimously. All right now we've got some resolutions along with City Council approving a third amendment the redevelopment and reimbursement agreement and partial assignment to 320 granary owner LLC for 210 Emory Street and consent to a development concept plan for 110. Ms. Emery Street, taking it one at a time. We have a motion for resolution 2021 20 a resolution Aloma city council consenting to the development concept plan for 110 Emery Street.
there a second.
All right. It's been Moved by Councillor Martin, second by Councilmember Peck. Any discussion on the matter before we vote? All right. Seeing none All in favor of resolution? 2021 20. say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right. And then next resolution 2021 21. a resolution along with City Council approving the third amendment to the redevelopment reimbursement agreement and partial assignment and assumption to 320 grand re owner LLC for 210 Emery Street and 320 Second Avenue. We have a motion.
it was moved by Dr. Waters. And was it seconded by Councillor repec
Yo, Martin. Okay. It
was seconded by Councilmember Martin. All right, Mayor
cone. All right. redevelopment manager. If you are interested, Brian Bagley, the developer of 150. Main, which is the South Main Station project crime bear who
you serve very badly. I am not i'm not developing crap. Brian bear.
But yeah, I probably appreciate him being here. Anybody have any questions for the developer? Can we vote? Well, he would he has a short presentation to give you an update on the status if you're interested.
all right. Well, if he wants to risk the nays Sure. Go ahead and talk.
thank you. But But lesson
is you always be quiet when he got the votes. But let's go ahead and hear what he had to say. I hope it's good.
I'm happy to let you vote.
Well, go ahead.
All right. Councilmember Christian says no one wants to hear we have to say,
yeah, now, real quick wanted to do three things. And I'll move quickly because I know it's getting late. But I think these will be valuable for you and, and thank you for giving me the time this evening. This is all relevant to the tap agreement. But I wanted to do a quick update on South Main Station for you. Talk also an update on the granary because these things are kind of all tied together and then finish it with the the a few slides for the for the site plan for 110 Emery, which is really the purpose of this presentation. So I'm not sure who's driving the presentation. But if you could pull up my slides, that'd be great. And I'll fly through it pretty quick. Get advanced to the next slide. As you all know, these are the chunks. These are the pieces phase one is 150 main where the red star is Next slide, please. quick update on leasing. We are actually as of today, I think we just hit 70% leased. So it's been pretty incredible during COVID. To get that kind of velocity really over the last four months. It's been very robust. There's some interesting demographic data here that I thought you might find interesting. 60% of the tenants are under age 30 15% over age 50. over a third of them are from Boulder County 30% are out of the area. So probably not what we would have predicted. And just very interesting information. As you know, these new projects come into downtown. retails 23%. leased we've got several ello eyes that we're working through right now which would be new, new companies to downtown in the sort of food and beverage and retail world. Next slide please. Building five which is the last building if you recall, we only built four out of the five buildings. We started building five About 90% done with CDs, we'll be submitting that in January for a building permit, I'm expect to start that building, probably in April May of 2021. That'll be an additional 61 units, I'll finish the finish two blocks. Next slide, please. jumping over to the greenery where the red star is, I think you all know that building. We were really moving quickly on the re hab of the actual old granary building, then COVID hit, and really, as you all know, really slowed down the whole food and beverage world, not to mention the whole world. We put that on hold. But we've actually brought that back. Next slide, please. We've sort of flipped the strategy there, we were originally going to do the greenery building, which is, which you see in blue is now phase two. And then we were going to do the multifamily their townhome apartments in in phase two, we've flipped that. And now we're moving forward with the our new phase one, which will be 20 townhome style apartments, we've already completed our pre AP, and we're anticipating a site plan submittal in January, so that'll really start to take that that quarter block and get that moving the as far as the greenery. As soon as the you know, things start to restrictions start to lift and and some changes start to happen with COVID, we will start to pursue that again. The last piece here is 110 Emory, which is where the red star is, that's the four acre piece that's directly east of phase one.
Next slide, please. This will happen in two phases, as well. Many of you, you've been out to the site, and I've showed you around, there's a an old butterball spice building down at the south end of the build of the property here, this is where they stored all the spices about a 19,000 square foot warehouse building, we're going to actually rehab that building into an adaptive reuse, I'll show you what that's gonna look like. That's phase 119 thousand square feet, we're hopefully about inside 30 days of final approvals with staff on the site plan and the replat. We've already submitted for a building permit. So we're parallel tracking, and we hope to start construction in December, and deliver that building in March. And what's interesting about that building is it fits in with the steam project and everything else that's going on, we've got some makerspace, we've got some service retail, we've got some office. So it really helped to activate the daytime use in this area, just north of that is the phase two property, which is roughly about three acres, we've got that laid out for 155 to 160. additional units, multifamily units, these will be smaller apartments with a lower price point. And it's a smaller project. So they won't be as amenitized as South Main Station. But our view is this whole neighborhood is becoming an amenity. And with everything we're doing in the surrounding blocks, we think that this is going to be a another real popular place to live in a in a nice development downtown. So that'll be two four storey buildings with tuck under parking, and there'll be some site parking. There'll be a corner amenity building up on second Emery. And we anticipate that to start next year in terms of entitlements and construction for that building. We'll start in 2022 right about when we finish building five of phase one. So this site plan here is really the the crux of this presentation to show you what we're doing on the 110 Emery property, so that we can move forward with the approval of the tap credits for this particular property. Please advance slide a couple of slides here just showing you what the building looks like and how it breaks up. Next slide. Some some rendering images, we're going to be sort of going in it sort of urban look something from out of sort of the rhino district down in Denver. Next slide please. Same same things here. So we're taking an old metal building sprucing it up putting a lot of storefront and glass and windows in it. To make it more transparent, make it feel a little more retail, a little more active. Next slide please. Here's just a snapshot of the phase two with the apartments. Next slide. This is we're starting to elevate those units and bring them up so you can see it's a little more I would say a little more modern looking then fail One. And as I said these will be slightly smaller units with the lower price point. Next slide. So in summary 110 Emery is property five in the tap credit agreement. I'm sure you don't have that agreement in front of you. But I wanted to identify that I'm we're seeking concept plan implementation plan approval from council per section nine of that agreement, which is a is a process that we agreed to as part of the tap agreement. Our plan is consistent with the first first the main transit redevelopment plan, which was one of the key things that had we had to qualify for, and it also meets the downtown Longmont master plan. So those two things we believe we meet. And phase one. This building, the warehouse building that I showed you, rehab will be done in April, May of 2021. And then we expect the phase two, which would be the hundred and 60 apartments to be done sometime in 2023. So that gives you an idea of an update of where we are with South Main Station, a preview of what we're going to be doing on the greenery property. And what we're doing right now with 110 Emory. So thank you very much. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
All right. Councilmember Christiansen?
Ah, thank you, Mr. Bear.
You've been slogging away at this for a long time.
Tell me about it.
And I thank you for a lot of thoughtful design and a lot of very design. And a lot of it's working out very, very well, I think. And I also want to thank you for putting in I don't know what these are the the smaller apartments, there's a huge need for that in Longmont. That's huge. I don't know if these will be single room occupancy, like studio apartments or if there'll be slightly larger than that. But that's what we really need. nobody's been building that for a long time. So anyway, I just wanted to thank you for that on ask you about what the price point is for those single room units.
It Are you talking about for the 110? Emory?
Oh, yeah, the smaller apartments?
Yeah, we we haven't priced them yet. But they will be smaller square footage wise, then South Main Station with a larger focus on studios in one bedrooms. Yeah,
good. So what about what size would this studios be?
I don't know what the studios would be exactly. But we're targeting about a 700 square foot average across the whole project.
Oh, that's pretty big as far as
well, that's that includes the any two bedrooms that we might do all the way down to the studio. So to put that in perspective for you, at South Main Station, we're at 100, we're at 860 to average, those would be quite a bit smaller.
Yeah. Well, thank you. Because you know, when this started, everybody, I mean, you, you know that this was a very difficult project, you know, better than anybody else and difficult to finance difficult to, because of the the mitigation, the environmental mitigation you had to do and, but the whole idea was, this would really be a game changer for lower downtown, I hope we can find something that is equally as interesting for North Main, which sort of gotten the short end of the stick in many places in our development things. But I want to thank you, I do think this will be a really enormous addition to our town. Getting people to live downtown is will change everything. So thank you for what you're doing. Appreciate that.
All right. Is there anyone opposed the resolution? All right, hearing none. Let's go ahead and vote. I believe there was a motion made correct. Who made that motion? Don?
mayor, Councilmember waters made the motion. Marcia. Seconded.
Okay. All in favor of resolution 2021 21 say Aye.
I will Sydney just to just to prove a point, but I All right. Motion carries you now. mdna. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right. Let's go ahead and move on to E discussion regarding council members rules and responsibilities of city of Longmont advisory board lays ons. I put this on because there's some question as to what are our roles is leis ons. As we all know that this is a council That is mayor and each of us is city council people, we cannot act individually, it requires four of us. And so as a liaison, are we taking an action role? Or is it a communication role? Or is it a what, what is our role? And so I think all of us have been behaving in different ways with different assumptions. And so
we're going to talk about it.
We'd like to start, Counselor Martin,
and we'll go Dr. Waters.
Yeah. And since this was Dr. Waters suggestion, I probably should have let him talk first. But I've been very quiet this evening. So I'm gonna talk, if I have found that the role of the council person tends to vary a lot from one board to the next. So for example, the senior advisory board, which I have found to be both active and effective, often has questions for me about what the council needs to hear in order to make changes or offer support. They often are interested in, in information about what's going on between the city and the state legislature, they're often interested in, in you know, CML type information. And so it's, it's, it really is a partnership, where, you know, they're they are looking to, to understand policy better so so that they can turn it into actions that serve their special constituency. In in other other boards, like art in public places, for example, I feel much more like an observer, you know, they have a very set plan of activity. And they do that in a very organized way. And they really don't need very much from the city council. So, you know, there's a continuum. I think that that we need to attend, because I think part of our duties are to the council. I think that we should know if an advisory board isn't working isn't functioning right. And, and as council members, it may be our job to take action in terms of city policy that might correct that.
Black waters, like Dr. Waters, then counselor Peck?
Personally, I just had a couple of experiences where it caused me to inquire about do we have? Do we have any guidance, in terms of what our responsibilities are, even if I thought I was clear on the role, or at least how I what I do to fulfill the role in the form of responsibilities, and in was surprised to learn that I should have asked this a long time ago that there's virtually nothing in writing that guides council member activity, which seems peculiar to me, especially since we went to some lengths to create greater to raise expectations for applicants, to boards and commissions to set some standards for attendance for them at boards and commissions. As applicants, and as participants, were boards and commissions that we had never we'd never asked for feedback. And I see here that the that we would collect feedback for detail, I have no idea whether or not what I'm doing, how it varies from what others are doing and what you might be doing that would be more productive from which I can learn. I mean, it's just the range of things and the model for boards and commissions what it is that we're expecting from them. So I think i think i think it would be helpful to have some guidance. And this leaves degrees of freedom but set some standards for or what they can expect from us just as what we've done is set some standards in terms of what we can expect from them.
Thank you Mayor Bagley, um to Councilman Marsha's point. I agree with her in that Each board and commission is very different. And I have made a remark perhaps it should have been in a in emotion, that I think somewhere on this agenda, we should hear from a report from other council members as to what has been going on with their boards and commissions. And because we don't know what each, how each one interacts or what it is they need, or how we should interact with them. I also a couple years ago made the motion that we have the Friday morning session specifically for board and commission reports. So each one of us knows what's going on with the other board and commission, and we can see and judge how we are acting? And is this what we need? Do we need to act in a different way? Do we need different things from different commission? So I don't think resolution is the way to do it, mainly because a standard that is an umbrella for all boards and commissions. They're all different. We all have to have different. I would rather have a communication first about what each board and commission that we are liaisons for, what is going on with them, and how we interact, what do they need, what is working and what is not. And then come up with as a council in a format that can be changed. I don't like the idea that we would communicate with each other by email as to what our board or whatever is doing because there's no interaction there. It's just, it's just an email. But I firmly believe we need reports. I want to know what arts and public places are doing. And not just from the minutes. But from the liaison. I want to know what I would love to tell you what's going on with Dr. cog with Neda with RTD. But there's no format for that. Um, and you know that some of the higher boards that I'm on, they have a place in the agenda where the board's that met the week before their liaisons give a report. This is what's working, this isn't working. This board is not following the work plan of city council, do we need to change it? Is it important that they do? And I would rather have one on one than emails. So I won't vote for this even though I do believe that we need to have interaction. And I have brought that up in the past on two different ways to do it. But I'm glad that we are going to have the discussion about it. Finally,
that's where Christiansen
I appreciate what Councilman Martin said. I think that we've all observed that every single board is very different and are different. There is a huge difference in our responsibility. If we are a voting member of something, versus whether we are merely a liaison liaison is really not supposed to be a liaison has no voting power or any other power. They're supposed to just communicate with each other. But as Councilwoman pack has pointed out, she did ask for us to put something on the agenda. So that we had an opportunity of every meeting of city council to comment on various things going on. When I see something that's going on. That I think is interesting to city council, I try to mention it at the end of the night. But of course we're pretty tired by the end of the night. I do think we can certainly expect that council members will actually go to their meetings. And I do think that would be useful too. If they miss more than two meetings without I mean, we hold the members of the advisory boards to the fact that if they have more than two unexcused absences that they can be voted off the board. I certainly think that would be a reasonable thing to expect of our city council members. And I believe that most of us do that. We go to the meetings and so I don't really see a reason for this resolution because it it's kind of like babysitting us. You know, we really ought to know better than any of this anyway, I think Things like, check with the City Council, the whole of city council to confirm council positions before representing council positions to assign boards and commissions, I, um, these often come up when you're at the meeting, and there's no way that you could consult with all the city council members to see what they think. Before you voice your opinion, or, I mean, no one thinks that we stand for every single thing. That as individuals, it's obvious to a board that we're expressing our individual opinion, if they asked me what I think that city council will say, if they bring something forward. I don't speak for instance, as a city as a whole as being able to give them an opinion of what everybody on city council me might think I try to imagine what city council some of the questions they might have. So they can be thinking about those before they bring something before us. Um,
I don't think it's a good idea to invite anonymous feedback, we get in people can give us anonymous people can give us feedback all the time. And they do already wait for more feedback. So I, I still think it would be useful to have the Friday morning meeting. But what I thought it would be would be, as I said, Can patterned after what Rick Fitzgerald does at the senior center, everybody gets five minutes, that would be seven of us. So that would be 35 minutes, then we can have a few more comments, then we can go home. But we could also sorry, looking for rice, we can also just have that time, we could just have that time on the agenda, where if people have something that they need to say to the whole city council about something that's either coming up or something that has happened, we should take that opportunity because it is the only time we get to find out what people think it's really nice that the city portal right now has because of long run public media, they have filming films of everything. And they also have the agenda. It's very organized, and people can check into this that they want. But frankly, I would rather have the city liaison say, Okay, I went to the sustainability advisory board. And these are topics they discuss, there's nothing that really relates to city council right now. Or, you know, just I went nothing much was discussed, we have to be very careful to about sometimes an advisory board is always advising about either a department, or sometimes it's a private entity that we give money to. We have to be very careful to respect their privacy, and to respect the fact that what we say in public can have very bad repercussions on them. And so we don't want to I just think we have a very we'll have to be very careful about what we say about our advisory board meetings, because sometimes people don't really want us to make things public. They want to they feel like they can trust us to not explain all the difficulties they're having. Um, anyway, I I don't think this I'm glad that we brought this forward to discuss it. I don't think this resolution hits the mark. But um, and I disagree with some of the things said here, but I do think it's, I'm glad we discussed it. Okay, that's all I have to say.
thank you very badly. So just to echo a couple things. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that not all boards and commissions are created equal in the sense that there's definitely some where we're actually voting members of and I think that becomes an even larger impetus to make sure that you're attending those meetings. Otherwise, you're forfeiting a vote, as as you know, a council member representing the council For instance, in visit Longmont, for instance, we are a vote there. Then you have Commission's such as planning and zoning and historic preservation, or it's actually probably inappropriate to interact too much with them as oftentimes those things can appeal the appeal to Council. And so it's best sometimes just to simply observe, I don't really have going specifically to the resolution offered by Councilmember waters, I don't specifically have any problems with the bulleted points listed. The only thing that concerns me is that if we make some of these requirements, so standardized, and to a certain extent, a bit onerous for certain members in the sense that this could become a barrier to folks who would like to run for office for the city of Longmont, as far as starting to dictate specifically, maybe absences from certain boards, or attendance issues, or, or certain things like that, to the point where, you know, I know for for me, for instance, sometimes it's difficult to attend certain meetings. And that's just part of being a younger married person working full time. And, you know, you life comes at you in different ways, throughout your life as you continue on the journey. And so my time requirements may not be the same. And like I said, I just worry about that becoming a barrier for other people wanting to run for office. So we make sure that we have the kind of diversity of representation that the city really deserves. So that's my only problem with really specifying a lot of things. Like I said, I don't really have problems with the bullet points that were provided in the resolution, because I think they were at they provided enough leeway for us as elected representatives of the community to have some sort of, you know, judgment as to whether we're really missing the mark or not to be unseeded, because of liaison attendance issues. Doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for a city council member regardless. Outside of that, like I said, it seems like a pretty straightforward and logical things that we should be considering as liaisons. And those are just my two cents on it. I know this is a discussion, so I don't think we necessarily need a motion. So I'll be interested to see any any more opinions on this at this time?
Let's move on Pac.
It wasn't that important?
checking with all city council before we take a position you know, and Dr. cog, we always have positions on different bills that are coming before Senate, the State Senate or legislature and I have to abstain on most of them because we don't get those bills, maybe a couple of weeks to take a council vote on after the DR cog meeting. So it would be impossible to get Council's input on that. And there are some things that I work very closely with Phil Greenwald, and Tyler, stay me to get input on something that's coming on the agenda, Dr. Carr Grenada, and they advise me on how we should vote for the city. So that some of these just don't work on all of our boards and commissions. It isn't that I don't think we should not course, communicate. I don't like the word correspond. Because that leaves out any one on one talking or telephone calls. Communicate would be a better word for me and that I would love to communicate what we're doing on some of those boards. We just don't have the agenda to do it. We don't have the platform. And that's what I would like to see happen. And after we learn what the liaisons are saying about their different boards, then perhaps we can at that point come up with with some points that that all liaison should always follow. But But I think they're going to be very general. I can't see how they can be specific
let's go dark waters.
for me, I've run in, as I said, there were some experiences that provoked me to, to wonder about, do we have any guidelines? And I and I'm maybe I'm the only one I suspect I'm not on the only member of the Council, who, from time to time is in interacting with somebody who's a member of a board or commission. And I'm wondering, why are you talking to me? And the answer is because the person who's assigned to my, my, my board or Commission, the council member doesn't show up. And I'd like somebody, you know, to hear what my concerns are. And I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to pick on anybody, but I don't know what to do with that, other than to say, I, you know, you go talk to that person,
had, I have had the experience of puzzling over and under this is not, Councilmember Peck, when you're voting on a commission, it is when a board member of this council represents to a board or commission, a position of the council, that I scratch my head and that word that position come from, because that's not the position that I think we took, it's a it's a, it's a surprise to me. Because I think it's not an accurate portrayal. And it would have been a matter of courtesy of nothing else. But that council member to have checked with the rest of us to say, I just want to confirm this is the position that we're that we're representing, to this to the city or to this board Commissioner, anybody. So I when I run into those things, there's nothing to turn to the in terms of guidance for me or for anybody else. And I in In absence, anything that we can point people to, I guess we could come to these sessions, and and then talk about them as one offs. I've had this experience last week. You know, and if it's, if it's me, that I'd want to hear about it. And if this is the only time to hear about it, then I want to hear about it, but but to ignore them, I think is irresponsible, which is what is happening now. And for us to set a higher standard for the members of boards and commissions than we would apply to ourselves, I also think is irresponsible. So this not may not be the right set of rules of responsibilities for fulfilling the role, but to not want to hear that the council members Christensen about not, you know, wanting to hear anonymous feedback, that's, that's how we evaluate. That's how we get evaluative feedback from folks, is to say you don't have to put your name on it tells us what's working and what's not. And to say that we're not interested in that feedback, again, I think is your response. So, you know, we can walk away from it. But,
but, but if
but I don't know what else to do, then when I run into this except to bring it to a council meeting and say, Okay, here was the problem that I heard last week. How do we go about solving whether it's me or any other member of council?
Councillor Martin, we'll go with Councilmember Christiansen. Yeah.
I think that due to adopt this resolution, we would need to I'm sorry, I'm having cat problems here. We would we would need to do something different.
Marsha, you disappeared.
I know. I'm back on
a little derailed sorry. Um, I think that the idea of of communicating individually with with council members to make sure that a potential representation of the council's position is not the right way to go about this. In fact, it might be construed as making policy outside of the public meeting. If we did that, in a couple of my boards, I do get asked questions like that and my usual exam usual answer is I don't believe Council has taken a position on that. I mean, obviously, you know, in many cases, the council has taken a position on it and I know what it is. But otherwise, the answer is the council hasn't taken a position and the role of the advisory board is to offer advice. You know, it would help us it would help the senior population. If council took this position if council funded You know, back in the old days, via services to get people to council meetings, for example, was was one policy that the senior advisory board offered as advice to the council? So I do have I do have a disagreement with that. I think we do need in my my complaint about most of the internal advisory boards is that they don't offer enough advice to the council. And I would I would like it if they were more active. In that respect, some of them are more discussion groups that never yield anything up to counsel. And well, it's fine to have discussion groups. They're not really fulfilling their their charter by only doing that. But then that comes back around to it's a standard for the board and not for the liaison. I'd have to give more thought to what we do about that.
We're gonna go with kelsier. Krishna send them and I'm going to cut off discussion unless there's a motion. Go ahead, Counselor Christiansen?
Um, yeah, I appreciate what Councilman Martin said about this. I do think that, you know, the original purpose of advice reports was to give the public at large, any member of the public, a voice in local government, and to help them understand local government. We have now it is true, we have changed. We have preferenced people with higher education. And I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, where you made it intimidating for anyone who does not have a college education, or who is not upper middle class, to be on these boards. I also do think that as Councilman Martin said that people are not they don't understand that they actually are an advisory board. And they should come up with ideas, and we'll listen to them. I I've observed over my last seven years that people are very intimidated by city council. And they feel like I mean, the whole their whole job, which they volunteered for is to advise us about how well a certain department or sometimes a certain entity is working, and what is needed between City Council on those entities. And yet they feel as as Councilman Martin said, they feel like they're supposed to just be a discussion group. And there's nothing really wrong with that. You have to educate yourself. Anyway, I mean, it was a sustainability advisory board, there are lots of different people come in and speak. And it's very educational, learn about a lot of different things very, a very broad array of things. It's really interesting. It the difference between these all these boards and commissions and things is so vast that I don't think we can come up with standards and predictability and all of us are different. And yet, all of us on this board are equal. We were all elected by the people of Longmont to represent them. And if people don't trust members of this council, then I mean, if our own council members call each other irresponsible, I don't think that's very helpful at all. As far as getting seeking anonymous feedback, we don't allow people to write us anonymously. That's why I think it's a ridiculous idea. It leads anonymous messages and communications lead to people saying things that they would never have the courage to say publicly because they know they can get away with it because they're being anonymous. So I had take great umbrage at the idea of anonymous feedback because we don't allow that in any communications with staff count with council right now and there's a reason for that. I also think there's a huge difference between when I go to a typical advisory board is like seven members in me. Um, and I have no I'm a liaison. I have no voting power, as I said, when none of us do. And there's a difference between that. And something like, Council, Councilman Rodriguez serves on the planning and zoning board. That's very powerful. And, and he gets a vote. But no, you don't get a vote. Oh, I thought you did. All right. Marcia Martin gets a vote on LDP, don't you know?
Okay. Any more anyway, some of these. The problem is that when you have a vote, and you're one of say, with Colorado Municipal League, there are probably 150 people there. And you get the agenda two days beforehand, and it's constantly changing. And until an hour before the meeting, I sit down with Sandy cedar, because I'm representing not City Council, I am representing this municipality. And many times the municipality and Sandy and entirety of staff have already discussed these issues, and come to some conclusion along with Harold, of course, and, and that's what they want me to represent. The Colorado Municipal League represents municipalities against the county against the state, it's often against what I would choose as either an individual or as a member of this council. But what I'm supposed to be doing there as representing the city of Longmont, the staff and administration of the city of Longmont. And I'm doing that as a city council member, and it puts me in a lot of very difficult positions, but it's not something that I mean, I'm I always vote the way that the staff and, and the city administrator want me to vote, because that's my job to represent the city of Longmont. I do that after spending a couple of our cyclists, Sandy. And so it's not it, that's a totally different role from when you're sitting down with 150 people, or more. That's a different situation. And I don't as far as having predictability and consistency. We all like predictability and consistency. But I don't think that's really something we should have a fetish about with boards and commissions. So I won't be voting for a resolution. But I think we should keep talking about this and figuring out a venue for us to have some kind of consistent comments, some consistent time when we can comment about these, because I would like to hear what everybody else is doing.
I guess I would just, I just I just I just just just type in, I would just ask that. If you're not a voting member of the board. I don't care what you do. Just make sure that when you're expressing an opinion, when it pertains to me, just make sure that you're actually expressing my true opinion. If you don't like it, I don't care. Just get it right.
many times I hear from other boards that all so and so said the mayor, and it's just wrong. So I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or criticizing me just so long as it's factually correct. So anyway, Dr. Waters, want to say something else, that's fine. But
yeah, I'm gonna make just one more comment, and I'll let it go. And I will make a motion. It's clear where this would end up. But I did hear Councilmember Christiansen make a reference to this council intimidating members of boards and commissions her words. And then not wanting any anonymous feedback from boards and commissions. In people who might be intimidated by a board or commission like this don't one way we might get some honest, candidly, helpful feedback would be for them, to not have to put their name on it. If they're already intimidated. That would be the whole purpose of gathering some anonymous feedback for the purpose of us getting better at what we do. I've heard Councilmember Christiansen make reference to we don't get better without data, those that's either the kind of data, not the only data, but the kind of data that that people like us should be able to use. To improve our performance, whatever the comments are, yeah, my the concerns of fear of somebody saying something that's offensive. I, it's, it's hard for me to imagine if we structured a way to get feedback, we get a lot of offensive comments into feedback. But we might get some comments that it would help us sharpen what we do that adds value to what they do. So I'll let it go. Alright, let's
go ahead and wrap this up. Meaning that concludes our session on on liaison. How about we'll just do the best we can. We'll go nuts. All right, Mary, pretend wants to say something else.
Okay, I just like to move that the meeting proceed past 11 o'clock if necessary.
Second, anybody opposed? All right, consensus, we're going to go past 11. All right. Um, let's go ahead. And just briefly, let's fly through this disgusting established 2021. City Council meeting schedule. I guess my Harold, I guess in the future, I guess it doesn't really matter. I won't be around. So anyway, go ahead. Let's go ahead and go through the schedule. And basically, it's, we it's always the same every year. If it's a weak selection or holiday, we take it off, make sure we get to regular session meetings in there. And fill in the rest of study sessions shoot for
But let's do what we always do.
Thank you, Mayor, I
think we can work pretty quickly through there's just a couple times where we do would like some direction. So I'm assuming you all are looking at this draft schedule that I've got. So January 2021, would be to regular sessions on the second and fourth Tuesday, a study session on the first Tuesday on the fifth. The question is would you like us to replace the second study session with an open forum? Yes, if it's virtual, so last time we postponed
Yes, yes, sir. I believe everyone's gonna say yes to that one.
Okay. And then an overarching question is would you like us to begin again, with coffees with counsel in January, even if they're virtual?
so January's done. February is a pretty regular month. Study, regular study regular, no questions there. So I'll just keep going. In March. There is a possible NLC congressional cities conference. A lot of council seen or some council when they go fly out on that Tuesday. So the question is
canceled that Tuesday?
Tuesday, the ninth. By the way, I'm
just gonna say it and speak up if somebody disagrees. I'm just going off the what we've done for the last nine years.
So you can
cancel the night. That means we'll make the the 16th the regular session. Would you like to cancel the meeting? The week of spring break? St. St. Brain spring break? What day is that? 23rd? March 23?
Two in a row guys? Yes.
All right. Yes.
Um, can I break in for a minute?
Go ahead, john.
Since that is two in a row. Can we hold off on the NLC? In case that is virtual?
in case we can't fly? And then maybe we don't have to?
Do too and a good idea. Let's hold off.
So we will
cancel it if it's if it's in person don't cancel if it's virtual.
Okay, so and then a regular day. We'll see what happens with that. That conference cancel the week of spring break. Yeah. And then the 30th will depend on how the ninth and 16th pan out.
Because, potentially, we'll need a second regular session two weeks apart from the other. April is standard study, regular study, regular, no questions there. And we'll just keep copy with counsel on the fourth, Saturday, as we've done may study, regular study, regular
really, may the fourth off,
may the fourth be with you, Mayor. In June, we would do a study regular. If we kept your pattern, we'd make an open forum on the 15th instead of a study session. June 15. Would
you like us to do that?
I also think we should get rid of the 29th if we I mean, for for this council.
we've canceled the fifth meeting of the past. Anybody opposed to that?
The question would be the week of the 22nd is possibly CML. And generally you cancel that one for CML. And then the 29th June 29 becomes a regular session.
So four meetings but a five Tuesday month
Would you like to cancel the study session the day after independence day? So July 6,
or hold that meeting? That's not the day after?
the second day after sorry. Yes. But the holiday celebrated is Monday the fifth?
I'd like to cancel it. What do you guys think? Anybody opposed to canceling July 4? All right.
And then the 13th would be regular the 20 of the study the 27th. The regular moving to August would be normal study, regular study regular,
Cancel the 31st. unless you'd like to also cancel. And the day after Labor Day and the following month in it, maybe we hold that in case budget would like it.
That will labor days. The what? Six? The six? Yes, I see we do the seventh cancel the seventh. What
do you guys think? Cancel the day after Labor Day? And then keep the 31st if needed? Yeah. Okay. The 31st of August. Okay. Then the rest of September is normal. The 14th would be irregular the 21st. to study the 28. The regular October is absolutely regular study, regular study regular. I'm holding the sheets up for you apparently I think you can see the sorry, November. The first Tuesday is election day. And it is a council election year. So it assume you'd like to cancel that one.
Oh, yeah. Cancel that one.
You're gonna celebrate mere regular on the ninth a study on the 16th. And then the question is, would you like to cancel the 23rd? for Thanksgiving week? Yeah. And make the 30th irregular? Yep. We're almost done. December. So December, there's a couple I did two options. One would be just do your normal schedule, study, regular study regular
Some of us depending on what we decided to do, don't care. But let's cancel the 28.
So we could do a
regular study regular if you wanted to hold the meeting on the 21st. Or if you did the same you did this year. Two regular sessions on the seventh and 14th and then cancel
the last two weeks. Let's count let's let's hold the 22nd in case we need it but can't cancel the last two have a 22nd meeting if we need it.
I'm sorry, the 21st Yeah,
so cancel the 28th for sure. Okay. And your you want to meet on the 21st
I guess I'm might get my dates wrong.
December 2021 Tuesday's just 21st
maybe my calendar got jacked up, but I'm showing the 22nd Tuesday's not
I relied on this calendar. I downloaded mayor
in the wrong year. Mr. Mayor?
I don't think so. We're looking I mean, January 1 2020. One's a Friday. And so the December before that,
no, my phone, it's the same as well, may or sorry, Google Calendar, Google Calendar showing me Tuesday, December 21.
All right, well, then I'm just gonna assume it's the wrong year. But yeah, the last two weeks cancel.
So we will go regular regular back to back and then cancel to get your to regular session. Yeah. Okay, we will. I'll throw this back in cleaned up. So you can look at it as an information item. So that everybody has that clean copy. Thank you.
All right. Great. Okay, let's move on to Marin council comments. The council comments.
Casper Christiansen. Um,
well, tomorrow is Veterans Day, and we won't get to have an parade. And that's really sorry about that. But I hope all the veterans out there know how much everyone appreciates their service. So thank you.
All right. I don't see anybody else. What I would like to say is just I'm an unaffiliated, former Republican, and as mayor of a small town in in Longmont, Colorado, I just want to stress how important it is that we continue to recognize and and support our democratic process for selecting presidents and other elected leaders. And I know I'm just a mayor in Longmont, but I'd like to gratulate President Elect Biden for his victory. And I would encourage our current president to accept the apparently Other people. And I know my comments are going to upset a lot of people, a lot of my friends, but it was a close election. It's hard fought. But in our country, when you lose, you concede, and there is no even if even if there were sporadic instances of voter fraud, which there may very well have been, you legally cannot overturn an election based on individuals acting alone. without evidence, you have no case. And without an and I would just not only congratulate President like Biden would admonish our current president to concede move on, and let what has happened, continue to happen, a transition of presidential power so that we don't get stuck in a situation where we're confused and hurting. So congratulations, President Elect Biden.
thank you very badly for those comments. I echo them. But I also am very proud to be an American to be live in the United States, because it is one of the few places where we can turn our government in a peaceful, democratic manner without a coup without and have everybody's voices heard. And I think that is a that is a privilege. And we should never forget that, that we're very fortunate to have the opportunity to voice our opinion. So thank you very much.
Anybody else? Because Roman. Yes. So
I'd also like to commend you, Mr. Mayor, for very well chosen words. I concur. And I think in the coming year, I would like us all, to work on having a consensus of fact, if not a consensus of opinion, because it's been frightening to me to watch. People argue about what the state of the election is based on completely and consistent premises. If you will, separate sets of facts. We have research and and news outlets such as the Associated Press in this country that are nonpartisan and indisputably trustworthy. And I, I hope that all of the American public will remember that.
All right, anyone else? All right, that concludes mayor and council comments, city manager remarks.
No comments, Mayor
All right, Eugene, man.
To the chair mayor.
Beautiful. All right, guys. Do we have a motion to adjourn?
I'll second Matt. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right. That's
an A so that's, that's a that's a that's a big guy.
We're out of here. It's
I'll see you next week. Thanks, everybody.