Longmont City Council - January 12, 2021 - Part 2
7:33PM Jan 14, 2021
All right, there we go. Thank you very much.
So we have no one calling in for any public hearing item there.
All right, great. And the break, my computer battery died and my chair broke and I fell on my butt.
So good timing would spill into my left face planet
against the wall.
would have made great television.
Alright, let's pull this here
we would have had no idea because you're on mute.
That is true, but you would have seen me that's what i mean if I would have been if I would have been here on the if I would have been on that's what I mean. It happened like two seconds I turned to my left to get away from my desk and and took a spill. So I'll just say it was good timing. I'm glad it was on mute. And the video was video was dead. My Computer died and saved me. Alright, so let's go ahead and move on with the agenda. All right. We have a you have a presentation Harold on the river set annexation resolution finding a parcel of land known as a river said annexation eligible for annexation. All right. And what is Eva? Why don't you go ahead.
Good evening, Mayor Bagley and council members, Eva chef ski principal planner Planning and Development Services. I believe Susan is going to queue up, we just have a brief staff presentation and just goes over the nuts and bolts of the staff report. And then the applicant will also have a brief presentation as well. So next slide, please. So just to give you some background again, this is a six acre parcel at the northeast corner of Boston and sunset Avenue. It's depicted there in the little yellow rectangle. It's currently in unincorporated Boulder County and it's zoned general industrial. As you can see kind of to the right of the yellow parcel. There's the same brain Creek there on the east an important piece of property there. It's designated on our comprehensive plan envision Longmont as a mixed use employment. The property to the south and to the west. In are both in the city. They're both zoned primary employment. property that's just east of that St. Ring creek bed it which is left hand brewing is zoned mixed use employment in the city. And this property to the north used to be lost in construction. It's now under several ownership, but it's also a construction storage yard and that's not in the city. Next slide, please. So this is the concept plan for the annexation. Some things have changed. As you may have seen on the previous slide. It was for this whole piece of land here. Now you see there's some red and then there's some gray. Yeah. Oh, there we go. We have some gray there. Since the time that I had taken this to planning and zoning Commission, the city has acquired about a half an acre of property adjacent to the st ring Creek as part of our resilience st rain project. And so we've notched Out, out of the concept plan. This this, it's still going to be all zoned mixed use employment, the entirety of the parcel or put the concept plan really applies to the portion that's under private ownership, which is in the red. And this gray triangle, if you will, at the southeast corner is now under city ownership. We're using that for our resilient St. St. Rain improvements. And tonight I have Josh Sherman, who's the Public Works engineer. He's the project manager for that. So if you had any questions about that acquisition, Josh is here. I also forgot to mention, we also have Chris huffer from public works engineering who was on our development review team reviewing the annexation materials as they came through. So the concept plan, they're asking to zone the property as it is designated on our comprehensive plan which is moving Excuse employment, so they're both consistent. They don't have a specific site plan at this juncture. So it is pretty blank. But there are certain allowable uses in the mixed use employment zone. And so those are similar to manufacturing, office storage, some office flex space, some supportive commercial, some live work, high density residential would be allowed as a secondary use, meaning, you know, this whole parcel could not be a high density residential, but 49% or less. And same for hotels. While the concept plan is fairly blank, they did provide a traffic study of the applicant and their traffic study was contemplating about 25,000 square feet of office and flex space and 23 live work units. So that's something that you know, may potentially come forward if the property is annexed. Next slide, please.
So just to give you some quick background, again, this went to planning and zoning Commission on February of last year, it was our intention to take this immediately to Council. But then we had to put it on the back burner for a few months because Public Works was in talks to acquire a portion of this and that may have affected the annexation map as far as you know, who owns what and the concept plan. So we sort of put it on the back burner until public works. And the and the property owner came to, you know, an agreement and the city acquired the property. And then we went ahead and adjusted our maps and move forward. But at the planning and zoning commission, there were some concerns raised regarding the property history, some environmental concerns. There were some phase one and phase two environmental studies. And they did not conclude that a landfill had previously been here. However, there were some signs of some things that were going on. And I think some of the neighbors felt that it may have been a landfill, in spite of the fact that the environmental reports for this property did not indicate that something came up again, Josh is here to answer the Army Corps of Engineers report questions, but I think he had made an assumption that this property had been a landfill and put that in a previous report. They then said, No, we couldn't find anything to corroborate that. And they amended it. But nevertheless, those concerns were brought up. And so Planning Commission planning and zoning commission recommended a conditional approval that additional environmental studies be provided. And that resolution is in your packet. And so again, yeah, so adjacency to the creek, again, we put this on hold while we were working through it, the city got control, or acquired that half approximate half acre, last summer, then we spent the fall reworking the maps. And then we got here, starting around the holidays. And so that's where we are with this next slide, please. So just just to give you an idea of some of the community input, and this is all input that, you know, we had a neighborhood meeting before the annexation petition was submitted. And then we took feedback when the application was submitted. And then we got more feedback, of course at the planning, planning and zoning commission hearing. So some of the comments that the neighbors brought up or you know, the the lack of detail in the concept plan. So we talked about how this is preliminary. And, you know, sometimes property owners don't really know for sure what they're planning to do before they annex the property. There was some questions about whether this would be coordinated with the resilient development of this property would be coordinated with the RSP project. There were concerns from the business owners in the unincorporated part of the neighborhood, there's a retail marijuana business up the street. They had some concerns that they may be forced to annex. There was some concern about habitat wildlife adjacent to the creek corridor. There were some neighbors had questions about how the city or the property owner would handle stormwater runoff when it was developed. And we talked about our development review process that if it were annexed, then they would have to go through that process and then that's when our Public Works engineers would really drill down into the stormwater runoff aspect. And there were questions about what the potential residential density is. So we talked about, you know what those allowed uses are though, that I just pointed out in the concept plan in the end The envision Longmont plan that is and then there again, like I had just mentioned the previous slide there, there were some neighbors that believed it. This was a landfill based on the Army Corps Report. So there was some confusion at planning commission and then that got resolved Army Corps rescinded that statement and said no, there was nothing to corroborate that. One neighbor had asked that council require a, that the applicant or the property owner can never ask for a variance for from the riparian setback. I think there may be some legal issues with that. And then there was another neighbor requested that council require a conservation easement to protect bank swallows. And then there was another request to require remediation of contaminated soil that may be found on the property. So that was the basis of the community input. Next slide, please.
So tonight, again, just for those of you who you know, are a little rusty with annexation, you've got two items that you're looking at. There's the resolution of statutory compliance, that's not analyzing the property per se, it's confirming that this property does meet state statute eligibility, that it does have one sixth of its boundary is contiguous with the city of Longmont municipal boundary. And then the second thing you're you'd be approving is the actual annexation ordinance. And so with that, again, Josh Sherman, and Christopher and I are all available for questions after, but I do know that the applicant, David Starnes, who is here and he's going to make a presentation next. So Susan, if you'd like to queue that up.
Give me just a minute. Okay.
All right, David, take
Good evening, Mayor, members of council David Starnes, with river set, LLC the applicant, we wanted to thank you for the opportunity to present our reverse annexation zoning and concept plan, I think he did a great job in terms of setting the stage in terms of where we are to date. Next slide, please. So as I mentioned, our property is about five and a quarter acres once you exclude the half acre that we sold to the city of Longmont earlier this year, or last year, for resilient, same brain, as even mentioned to our concept that we're looking at for our portion of the property is mixed use, we're looking at primarily adaptable commercial slash flex space. Again, there's a gap in the city and this is work that Longmont Economic Development Partnership has done that has alluded to a lack of high quality, modern quality commercial space that provides jobs and services in the community. And so our goal and I'll have some slides of representations of what our building would look like, is to provide that kind of high quality commercial space that is really frankly needed in the market today and what businesses and entrepreneurs and tenants are asking for in the Longmont community. And with this project, obviously, redevelopment, you know, we will be improving the existing conditions within the savory Creek corridor in terms of connections to the Greenway as well as, as part of our annexation. We'll be analyzing this portion of Boston Avenue from sunset to bridge into the city and then conducting improvements along that streetscape as part of redevelopment. Next slide, please. Here's an example of what we're on as part of our preliminary site planning concept for what the potential flex space would look like. This is actually a project in Lafayette along the Coal Creek, there was a two story structure, it's a flex space that has a mezzanine level on the upper level and then ground floor commercial space. Next slide. And kind of sticky more to what this FLEXPAYS could look like. This is another project that we're contemplating Erie. From our architect, that's a again, it's it's a flex space that has ground floor commercial and then upstairs could be office. It also could be residential, and this kind of shows kind of a concept of what this could look like. It's about a 2500 square foot building. That's, you know, 37 feet wide by 50 feet long and we could have multiple buildings and we could tie them together. Assuming if we're successful with annexation, our next step, we're actually going through the site planning process, which was take some time, but we want to kind of lay out initially kind of our initial concept for how we intend to develop the site if we're successful being annexed in Next slide, please. Our site and our proposed concept plan and redevelopment is consistent with envision Longmont, as David mentioned, you know, the site is within the Satan brain Creek focus area. It's one of the four carat carats identified in the city and vision in Longmont, the other being the sugar mill overrode and then North Maine and Midtown as the other three areas as areas in the city that offer the greatest opportunity to accommodate future development. And we view our site as a you know, a pretty key infill site that we hope will catalyze additional reinvestment that support st vane Creek could we do the same thing Creek as a amenity, the great place for people to come walk bike, and to be able to work close by and for people to get on the path and commute to other areas or recreate in other areas of the city is something that we viewed positively. Next slide, please. In terms of the goals, it's outlined indivision Longmont, you know, we feel that our project meets a number of them, obviously, number one is embracing a compact and efficient pattern of growth. This is an infill site, you know, it's um, it's not extending the city boundaries. It's one of the few remaining parcels that's considered enclave within the city limits that the city has previously identified as their desire I believe to be annexed in it supports the adaptive reuse or redevelopment of underutilized site. As mentioned, currently, our site is vacant land. We're currently having short term short term storage there that once if we're successful, and being annex in and redeveloping the short term storage will go away. And we agreed to redevelop the site with that commercial flex space that we're envisioning.
redevelopment of this site really prioritizes employment uses within the mixed use employment area, that's our main focus is employment and supporting job growth, particularly for entrepreneurs and we believe that kind of this flex space, which is much smaller space of 2500 square feet, you know, per building kind of provides that ability for entrepreneurs to kind of grow their businesses in Longmont hopefully stay in long line. It supports the Longmont economic development partnerships, advanced Longmont 2.0, to open Oh with, with their four kind of key industry clusters, focusing on smart manufacturing, Business Catalyst, and these are businesses that support other businesses and knowledge creation and deployment in food and beverage, which is very strongly suited for. Next slide, please. And then our last few slides again, you know, we frankly view the the city as a key partner in this project in terms of getting it done and moving forward. Again, the city has identified the city this property has an enclave parcel, you know, we sold in terms of our partners have a portion of our property to the city in terms of the resilience a brain project in terms of the floodplain mitigation work on the annexation would include the Boston Avenue right away between sunset and the bridge, which is currently in the county. And we will provide upgrades to de Boston and sunset Avenue and other infrastructure permits as part of our site planning process. And we also will work for the city in terms of relocation of a 12 inch water main and a 36 inch sewer main that's associated with the resiliency train is located on our property. Next slide, please. And the last slot in kind of our parting thoughts. kind of summarize we, you know, we review this development as a callus for reinvestment in the st. Brain Creek focus there, there hasn't been a lot going on and no left hand brew is contemplating kind of a expansion or some additional work just across the bridge there. You know, we have to build off of that this annexation will will repurpose this blighted property, and we believe, address a growing demand for a kind of niche, commercial slash flex space. It's high quality and is modern. And it's attractive today to today's tenants. And it provides an opportunity to make critical public infrastructure improvements along the corridor that we believe will benefit the community at large. And we look forward to working with the city and partners to really improve this area that will you know, benefit the st. Green Creek focus area in the community at large. So with that, we'd like to thank you for this opportunity to present. I'm happy to answer any questions as well.
All right, thank you very much. Do we have any questions, comments or concerns? All right with that, can we please have a motion for resolution? 2021 dash oh nine.
All right. It's been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Dr. Waters. All in favor of resolution 2021 dash oh nine
say aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. All right. Item 10. A to similarly ordinance 20 2101 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the reverse annexation, generally located north of Boston Avenue and east of sunset Street and zoning the property m u e or mixed use employment. We have a motion.
I'll move approval of ordinance 2021 dash Oh, one second.
All right. It's been moved by Dr. waters and seconded by Councillor pack. Any discussion or debate? Seeing none All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right, that Motion carries unanimously. All right. 10 b ordinance 21 dash o to a bill for an ordinance authorizing a First Amendment to farm land lease agreement with the city of Longmont and site farms, LLC the tenant on the newbie farms open space.
We have a motion.
So moved. I will second that Councilmember pack.
Any discussion debate?
Do we're gonna have a hearing?
Oh, yes. Well, we don't we have no one call in so we will open and close the hearing. So thank you.
open and closed.
So all in favor of orders. 2021 dash oh two?
Opposed say nay.
And I would also like to point out we did not have the essentially we had the opportunity before for all of these. We did not open it for public hearing on ordinance 2021 dash oh one and took the vote. That's because no one called in. So I did not say it but we opened it for public hearing. We took a break we waited for people to call in for the ordinances on second reading. And no one called in and therefore it was closed. So no one took advantage of that. But thank you. So let's see here. Ordered 2020 2002 just passed unanimously. Let's move on to item 10. See orders 2021 dash oh three a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 16.0 16.08 the Longmont municipal code to adopt by reference to 2020 edition of the National Electrical Code. We have a vote or Do we have a
All right. It's been moved by Councilmember Christiansen and seconded by Councilmember pack. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. ordinance 20 does 21 dash oh four also known as item 10 d a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city llama to lease the Real Property known as Vance brand, Municipal Airport, hangar parcel h six to the schuck family trust.
Do we have a motion? So moved.
That all right. Move by Councilmember Martian Martin. Psycho Martian. You're kind of a Martian sometimes. Marsha. Moved by Councilman Burke. Martin. Seconded by Dr. Waters. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right, let's go on to item the concentre. Giant agenda number B, which was a bill for nor disproving the modern West concept plan amendment. Dr. Waters, you
have some questions? I do. I I did speak with Brian Schumacher earlier today. And it's my understanding that the property owners are on the call. I just want to confirm that, that the representatives from Israel in the Rocky Mountains, are they on the call tonight.
Marin council member waters their rubber edges from Israel and Rmi are not on the call this evening. But there are representatives from the property owner as well as their consultants.
So Brian, can the property owners or should we wait till next meeting then we might have folks from Israel and Rocky Mountain Institute. Talk a little bit about how they're coming at this. I'm just curious how they're thinking about this project. I'm very impressed with what I've read. But I am curious about is this an r&d effort from Israel and Rocky Mountain Institute's perspectives? How is that working funded? Is there a dissemination cast that goes along with the rd effort and when we might benefit from the result of that?
Councilman waters, Derek grazioso and Peter fatale are on the call this evening. If you have some questions for this evening, or if you'd prefer, I think they'll also be available for the meeting on the 26th and I my understanding is that Shanti plus with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and Kara Carmichael with Rocky Mountain Institute are planning to attend the council meeting on January 26. If you have additional questions for them as well,
might we get a little bit of a presentation?
On the meeting on the 26th Yeah, I'm the the applicant has prepared Or to provide the council with a presentation and kind of their collaboration and partnership with both and rail and Rmi. On the meeting on the 26th. Perfect, then I can I can wait to them. I'm just very curious.
I did. It's very impressive what we saw. But but but it would be good to get a little more information, especially from the Unreal and Rmi, folks. So with that, Mayor Bagley, I'll move item nine be ordinates 2021 dash oh six. I'll second that I can.
Let's go ahead, move by Dr. Waters. Second about myself, Councillor Christiansen and then Councillor Peck.
Just to comment to Dr. Waters, there's a there's a really good link in some of them. Somewhere on the information. That letter from modern? Well, the letter from the companies developing it, there's a they do have a really terrific presentation about the the grid system they're going to set up and the integrated system for for doing this. And people from n ro and Rocky Mountain Institute are speaking. So just hop through there and find the link and click on that or at their website to
idea I was curious about is how is it what how is your work being funded? Is it an r&d effort? Is the Energy Department funding that is the developer funding that are there specific dissemination tasks that go along with that? That's what I'm curious about. I just didn't see any of that in the materials.
As we're back,
thank you very badly. Um, I also think this is an incredible development. And I'm very excited about the theory behind it. And we'd love to hear from Israel as well. However, the the I am not going to vote for it to annex this because of my commitment to not annexing anything with residential property in the airport influence zone, at least until we get part 16. With the FAA resolved, I keep asking about that it keeps being pushed back. It was the airport influence zone was addressed in this council calm. And it was only as far as the air operation of the airport goes. And our our airport manager David Slater even had a little concern about the height of the businesses and that it didn't totally conform to FAA regulations. So, again, it's an incredible it's incredible development, but I do not want to put any more residents in that influence zone of noise and traffic until we have that part. 16
All right, we have motion on the table. All in favor of ordinance 2021 dash oh six on first reading say aye.
Opposed say nay. Okay. All right. Motion carries six to one with Councilmember pic. dissenting, but the motion carries. All right. Let's go ahead and move on to some business. General Business 12 a possible changes to inclusionary housing code for review and direction continued from January 5 meeting we were it was late. So we pick up where we left off. Do you remember that was city staff?
I think it was number five change the type of home.
I believe we argued for two hours over a 10 foot one time occurrence ever in the in the in the in the code. So I believe that Mr. Whole you're gonna come back with some language or whatnot. Let's go ahead, Kathy. I saw your name go your hand go up. So why don't we start with you? Yes.
So we're actually going to start with number four. That's where we ended. And if Susan will pull up the PowerPoint where our direction was to bring back a third option that reflected the thoughts of counsel, but to provide it in a more specific way and I don't this is not the right one. The one that I sent this afternoon, Susan, give me just a second.
All right, let's try this one.
Correct one, yes. Okay, so if you can go to where it says number four property line adjustment. So I think it's on page seven, maybe.
There we go. All right. So, um, the discussion that had happened was we had talked about
providing language that would exempt something like this from inclusionary housing as long as it was not going to result in the development in any new development or any kind of development of housing. So the option that the city attorney's office came up with would be option three, which is to provide the following exception to the inclusionary housing code, a development receiving planning approval, that would not create a condition for further development shall be exempt from the application of this section. And then there would be a provision that will clarify in the rules and regulations that we already have about the program that would provide guidance for when a development does not create a condition for further development. So it'd be further defined in the rules and regulations. And we can bring that guidance back as well. If this option is chosen, when we bring the the code changes back. Are there any questions about this? Or does this not address where the disk you felt the discussion was going?
I can't see anything I can do customer waters.
I think I think it does. Personally I think it addresses exactly what we were talking about. And if you can figure out how to use the word development one more time in that paragraph. It will be perfect. I'm pleased. I'm being facetious. But I do think it I think he addresses exactly what we were what we were struggling with.
Can you make dark waters? Can I suggest to make a motion?
I'll move that we adopt option three for Under Item under option under I guess what is this topic or section number four?
It's been it's been seconded by Dr. Waters made the motion was made by Dr. Waters was seconded by Councilmember pack and was to adopt the language that Mr. Hall so eloquently provided, as highlighted on the on the slide and just saved us next time. cut us off before we start talking.
do me a great service by all in favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. The Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Good job. Okay, Susan,
if we can go to the next slide. So this is a change to the type of home for an RV approved development. This is something that did happen in the I never know how to pronounce this denial west or danio. West, I'm not sure. There's been multiple ways of saying it by multiple people. So what happened was that they were not subject to the inclusionary housing with their original development. It was approved prior to inclusionary housing coming on board. So subsequent to that the developer wanted to change the approved townhomes to small single family detached homes. The proposal didn't add or subtract any units, but the overall development square footage would increase. Again, the original prod project was not subject because it was approved prior to the code, but because of the change and the replat that would be required. It did make the development subject to inclusionary housing.
gonna move option three, I think we should amend the code to have the amendments still trigger the inclusionary housing requirements would only apply to any additional units or square footage proposed and the requested amendment. So as long as they don't expand, it doesn't apply but anything in addition to would be included. Again. It was moved by myself seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, Councilmember Christiansen
so you're saying number two, but number two, just talks about the number of units it doesn't trigger. It doesn't talk about square footage. It was number three, three.
Move number three.
I don't see number three.
Number three is in red. It's a new one on the slide it based on what it's what staff brought back that would include additional square footage.
Okay, this is different than what I have. Okay. Um,
it's up. Don't be confused because I moved it. It's something you you would have moved it had I not?
No, not necessarily. I just
I promise I
just tried to move this along.
I know, I know.
I can confusing you because I voted for it or I moved
that isn't it? I just I don't I think that really when they change the law, and you know, here we're talking about something that happened when people were not previously subject to inclusionary housing now everybody is. So I'm not sure that that's relevant. It's all going to be part of inclusionary housing.
No, no, what
I'm saying this this is it. These are the people before inclusionary. Housing, yes, sign other. Now they're coming back, saying? I mean, if they don't change anything, they don't have to pay into inclusionary housing. But if they expand their development,
I know. Okay, all right. But I just we're making stuff that's kind of backward looking. This is no longer, you know, everybody is now subject to this. So this is the case that happened. Kathy has something to say that I'm sure.
There are still developments that were not subject that something
could happen. Okay, well, I think those we could grandfathered in, but from now on out, I think anytime they change, they should actually, you know, still be subject to inclusionary housing. because everything's subject to inclusionary housing now. The here's the reason I'm against it. I don't want people changing around and going from one type of housing to another going from affordable housing to middle tier housing, and saying, Oh, well, you know, we made that agreement. Now we're going to it just makes it it muddles things. And I would prefer to just make no changes to the code.
Okay, Mayor Pro Tem,
Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.
Thank you very badly. I think that just begs the question, how many exact projects do we have left? That don't apply under the Ah, oh, that we passed earlier?
That is a good question. I don't know if Heidi might know that answer off the top of her head, and she is on so she knows please speak up. But we could do some research around that. There are some I don't know how many there are out there. But there are some that either are still in the process of construction, or that haven't pulled the trigger yet. But they have their approvals. So I'd have to do some exact research on how many they were and how many units it would apply to.
Thank you, I do know that these things have a ticking clock on them, generally speaking, and so there's a very limited number at the end of the day, when we talked about this that our would be eligible to even talk about changing their plans, if you will. I do agree with the mayor even though he may not have moved to because he actually agrees with it.
I did I just had
it as expediency. But I do I do you agree with the point that if we're not changing or adding square footage or decreasing units, because that's what I'm more concerned with is the decreasing of units not adding units per se? That I think that we should definitely apply that. But at this time, the example given as well as the concept that there is not really many projects out there necessarily even have the ability to change their project in the same way. I feel confident with the staff requests or the staff proposed addition that Mayor Bagley suggested and as I believe I second so that those are my my reasons behind
supporting brilliant as always, Mayor Pro Tem Thank you, Councillor Martin
It was really well thought out actually enjoyed that. I appreciated that. Customer Martin. Also brilliant I'm sure go ahead
and let you
know if you're not though, Marsha.
I know. It's a real it was a really simple question. It would have been over by now. Um, if we have something that isn't planted yet that's all together. But it's a phased implementation. And it turns out that the change is going to be in phase two, would this not also apply?
Okay, initially under iih, and then any change would still be under iih would still be under Ah, but it might apply differently because of the change.
Tim, no. No, that's
that's not the intention of this discussion would be to apply this specifically to before the enactment of a statute.
Why would it not apply to something that's new?
Something new would just have the general application of the statute to the entire project.
So they, even
if they increase their square footage, they would pay more fee in lieu if that's what they chose, if they increase the number of units, and they would have more middle tier or more affordable. So it would just the regular inclusionary housing requirements would just continue to apply.
it's it's not considered an exception, even though it would still happen.
In our agreements tend to have a catch all that says if you build more units than is representative and disagreement, and you have to apply, you have to give us more.
All right. There's a motion on the table for number three. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay,
nay. All right, motion carries six to one with Councilmember Christiansen dissenting.
Go number six.
Oh, how many? There's seven, right?
There are actually 11 altogether.
It rhymes with seven.
All right, let's keep going. It's okay. It's not 11.
I talk fairly fast. Um, so this is a situation where rental homes constructed under inclusionary housing code that might change to for sale within a certain period of time. And if you remember, back with, again, the Martin street multifamily project, they chose to do a rental project, and had actually told staff that they were eventually going to sell the units after a period of time, but they were starting them and building as a as rental. So under the fee and lieu that they chose to pay it's $1 90 per square foot. And for if it would have been calculated under the for sale fee in lieu that's 790. So a difference of $6 per square foot. So right now, there's not a provision in the code that imposes a waiting period on transitioning from a rental project to a for sale project. Again, when you guys considered this project, back in 2019, I think it was Yeah, September 2019. This concern was raised an emotion to set the time at five years. So if it converted within five years did fail at that time period. So the direction that we did get from Council in in during that meeting in September was to add language that requires payment of the difference between the rental and for sale fee in lieu if it's converted from rental to for sale within a period of time. So I did go back and look at the expiration of the construction defects that applies to condos, which is what most rental properties would probably convert to, and determine that probably the two options of setting the time at five years. Make sense, or Option two, setting this time at 10 years. That the conversion. If you convert at the expiration of the construction defects with just some period between seven and nine years after being built, that would allow us to have a couple more years of affordable rental units before they can convert without a penalty. And if you go with option one, this would likely not be enough to stop a conversion, but it may slow it from one or two years. So a more immediate conversion and at least allow us five years of rental affordability. So option one is kind of set at trying to stop the immediate conversions. And option two is getting a longer term period. That's kind of tied to when a rental project is probably most likely To convert to for sale because of the construction defects loss.
And I have the screen back. Thank you. All right, counsel Martin,
Can you remind us why it's not a certain interval for the construction defects? How can it be seven to nine years? What's the determiner?
So that's the period that I guess there was an amendment to that not too long ago. So that they've got it was a longer period of time. And it's been shortened a little bit, but they've got so many years and then another two to three years, which is why it went from seven to nine. So there was a another thing if something is found. Let me see if I can find the language that I got around that. I can remember where I put it. Sorry, I should have had that pulled up and ready.
If a defect is found, then the period of time is is extended, or does it done when it was built?
Sounds like an appeals process. Yeah,
it was something around that. Let me see if I can. Sandy did a lot of research for me. And
in my mind, I kind of took it as a process to in the sense that if there's a defect found, and they cure them, there's an add Yeah.
I don't think that's the right language. But that's how I was processing.
Sorry, I apologize, I should have had this product.
I think that we get the idea I was looking for Well, you know, why don't we make it instead of 10 years that, that, you know, when the construction defects liability expires? But we kind of see why it needs to be after the longest possible interval, correct.
All right. So Sandy provided some backup for me, she says so it looks like six years generally, but if discovered, during the fifth year, two extra years may be added on for litigation. So generally two years seems to be the safe zone. So that would be fifth. Five years plus two years would be seven and then six years, generally, plus two years would be eight. So I went to nine.
That makes sense.
All right. Who had their hand up? counselor Christiansen.
Don't show me.
I Kelvin counselor Christiansen? I apologize.
I know better than that. Anyway, the previous one said set this time at five years this would capture most folks that might want to convert to for sale sooner than the statute of limitations allows and give us at least five years of affordable rentals. Anyway, I would opt for option one.
Okay, is that a motion?
Yes. Okay. Sorry.
All right. There's a motion for option one, which is five years set by a made by Councillor Christiansen seconded by Councilmember pack. Anyone opposed? Dr. Waters.
Thanks very vaguely. Kathy, I can read the write up. Just from your perspective. There are pros and cons that what am I not getting in terms of the city's interest in options in options one and options? Two, it's what I think I've heard you say is that option two would give us more affordable units for a longer period of time. is the is the the payment in lieu amortized as it is somebody paying less attended at five? I mean, what's the trade off here? From the city's perspective between options one.
So yes, that's that's correct. Option two would give us a longer period. I think the way that it's set up, or would be set up is that it would be the fee in lieu at the time of construction. So it doesn't penalize so if you know they paid $1 90 and the For Sale was 790, like it is now. And in 10 years for eight years, if they go to pay out, then it would be, you know, $11 difference. So it would set it at the time, this is what I would recommend that it would set it at the time the construction happened, and we would know what that was. And that would be the difference that they would pay if they converted prior to this. Whatever period you send you set. Thank you.
That was for more. But yeah,
so that means that they would not be penalized for leaving them as affordable rentals longer as the differential is set at the time that it starts leasing up. Okay. All right.
There's a motion by Councillor Christiansen second by Councillor Peck for option one, which is five years. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay. Nay? Nay.
What were your council member? dogberry
All right. So the motion the motion carries four to three with council members Peck Christiansen and Iago fairing and myself for and Councilmember Martin, Councilman waters and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez against. All right. Let's move on to actually we have more to go sorry.
All right, um,
maintaining the rental affordability at 60% ami or changing it back to 50% ami, which is where it was prior to the inclusionary housing ordinance being impacted. So, um, is part of the 2020 to 2025. Consolidated Plan. We did a housing needs assessment, which was presented to council earlier this year. I think it was in February March timeframe perhaps. And it showed that the greatest need for rental housing in Longmont is for households at or below 50% of area median income with most of the gap at or below 40% of the area median income. So this is the chart that was provided. And the red line everything above the red line is 30% ami. Between the blue and the red is 40% ami, and between the green and the blue is 50% ami, everything below the blue, or the green line is over 50% ami. So we're short about 2300 over 2300 rental units to serve those earning less than $25,000. And only 9% of the units are affordable to serve 28% of the renters at that 30% ami level. Next slide please. So this shows, again prior to the adoption of inclusionary housing the affordable rental limit was set at 50% ami 60%. The thought was when we approved the change to 60% that that matches the low income housing tax credit limit. However those tax credit projects can operate and receive financing. Even if the city sets 50% ami is the maximum limit, they can still they can go up to 60% we just wouldn't count those units. Reducing the rental limit in the code would help address the city's affordability needs for rental housing, but would lower the units counted in meeting the overall affordable housing goals. So it's going to take us probably longer to reach our 12% goal. And the chart on the right shows. The blue is the number of units that are deed restricted right now. For 30% ami. The red is the number of units at 40% ami, the green is 50% and then the number of units that are deed restricted at 60%. ami is the purple. So option one is to make no changes to the language in the code and stay at 60% ami for rental affordability. Or amend the code to reduce the rental ami limit to 50% ami
Thank you, Dr.
Then Councilmember Christiansen
I move option number two to amend the code to reduce EMI. And
I think I'm gonna be the only one but I guess I would just the reason I'm going to vote against it is only B it's been most moved by Councilmember waters and seconded by Councilmember Christiansen I believe maybe Councillor Martin was one of them, both of them but it's just that I There's unintended consequences. And I think that by by keeping it 60%, we still I mean, the more low income housing we build, we need to hit 12%. And the harder we make it for developers to build that middle tier, I mean, 60% are not mansions. The harder we make it for developers to build, the less likely they are to build, and the fewer houses that get built, the fewer apartments that get built, the more expensive it is to buy a home in Longmont. It's just a supply and demand curve. And the price goes up. Anyway, I'm probably going to be alone on this. Counselor, Mr. Sorry, Counselor, Christian counselor, Mr.
I can appreciate your monthly lecture on supply and demand. But this is the greatest, I think this is one of the most positive things we can do for the inclusionary housing ordinance because it's where the greatest need is, and we have to work from the bottom up, instead of the top down. Nothing has been trickling down that anyway. So I'm going to be voting for this. Thank you.
Right, and I'd appreciate it if you're afraid for the month. The comments like monthly lecture, all I'm doing is sharing now. You said it, you said a monthly lecture on economics. Okay. You
know, I said supply and demand.
well, okay, customer mark.
I actually am not sure that I understood the mayor's argument. But what I didn't understand is the number of people that I talked to about what rent they can afford, and what they can find for rent. And, you know, down to that 25 $30,000 a year. It is very little, you know, I mean, they cannot rent anything that costs them a third of their gross income. You know, they're, they're renting it half. And, and, you know, getting by very tight. So even if it takes us longer to reach the goal, and I'm not entirely sure why it should. Let's return it to 50. Because that's what people can afford.
Yeah. When we went through the, the initial draft of the inclusionary zoning ordinance, because because chafa would finance affordable housing, light tech financing, at the 60% level, I advocated to raise that from 50 to 60%. And then said at the time, let's see what the market does. In the end, what what Kathy brought us last February, was pretty clear, the market does. We get we're getting not a lot, but certainly the majority, or the largest percentage of homes, that are apartments. These are rentals, I think, are coming in at at the 60% of ami in terms of the cost of the lease. And at the time said, let's let's work our way forward, let the data inform where we go. And I would say I made a mistake in my motion. And I think there's a lesson to be learned here. And I think we ought to learn it and we ought to we ought to move it back. And and then check a year from two from now and whenever Kathy does the next comprehensive study, and let us see what what this adjustment in policy does in terms of that bar graph of the number of units available in the market.
All right. I admit y'all think I'm stupid. Can we vote now? All right, Who else wants to say something? Now that's it. All right, let's go all in favor of moving it to 50%. ami, say aye.
Opposed say nay. Nay. All right. The motion carries six to one with Brian Bagley. dissenting. All right, number eight.
All right. So one of the things that we have found, and we we started out with the inclusionary housing, that rental projects must voluntarily agreed to provide affordable homes that restricted rents to comply with the state's tell you right decision on rent control. So this means that because developers have to formally opt in by providing a voluntary agreement. It makes sense for the developers that are only providing the minimum amount of deed restricted rental units to make sure they understand what they're getting into. And have that go through a council approval of the They're voluntary alternative agreement. So for instance, farmhouse, which is under construction right now, they are doing the 12%. At the affordable rental price, and having them do 12% through a voluntary alternative agreement so that they show that they understand that they are voluntarily agreeing to rent control, basically, on those 12% units makes a lot of sense. A lot of the developments however, rental developments that come into the city are already fully affordable, either 100% affordable, or that they come in with other affordable housing finance that has already that they've already agreed to deed restriction,
remove option to
All right, it's been moved and seconded. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez,
thank you very badly, I'd actually prefer option one in this circumstance, because even if, essentially, the entire Council is 100%, behind this project, I believe it's important to provide at least the option for the residents to make their cases known. And to have their opinions heard in any development that goes on in town, and not to have just administratively approved developments.
Is it just a quick question? So is that Kathy, is this this is this, this is just approving the inclusionary housing component? It's not
not the development. It's not the development
review process. So it's just administrative approval of the inclusionary housing piece,
not 100% affordable or have other affordable
care I cut you off.
No problems in that case. That seems copacetic to me.
You're muted, Polly.
I agreed with Councilman Rodriguez, I still think that it is important for city council to have a picture while we're implementing this the inclusionary housing ordinance of what's actually going on. So I really do think that it should still come before Council. At least for a while. Secondly, so I would go for option one. Secondly, the state legislative the state legislators legislators have sworn that they are going to either they're going to rework the telluride decision to either make sure that it does not apply to limited to inclusionary housing ordinances or they're going to get rid of rent control entirely, which I don't think will happen. But if they do do that, then we could review this again in June and make a decision then I think we I don't think we should make a change to the code yet. I think we should wait until June and look at this again and see if how things are going. Hopefully the economy will be going somewhat better by them. And the state will have either decided to fix the application of the telluride decision to inclusionary housing, or else they will once again have failed to do that. But anyway, so I would I would favor option one.
All right, there's a motion on the table for option two. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right. The motion fails five to two with myself and Councillor waters in the dissent. All right.
Well, okay, then how about I would move option one.
Okay. I'll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right. Motion fails, or
Where'd he go? Oh.
I believe he just left the meeting. So give it give us just a minute. Brian
has left the room
and didn't get to vote.
I think you fell over again.
Somebody needs to buy that man a new chair. Pretty good by himself. Actually. know who's
old enough to remember firesign? He's no fun. He fell over.
I hope he's okay. Actually.
This could be a problem. He's staying down there and long enough.
maybe we should check on him.
I'm just guessing that he would like us to move on. And then he would, you know, pick it up when he gets back into the meeting.
I do not know. But it appeared to me the motion passed six to one with Mayor Bagley dissenting. I agree. So at least we can move on from the boat. But might I suggest we take a brief moment to find out where Mayor Bagley is.
I'm trying to text him right now. Okay. Thank
you. Mayor Pro Tem. Do you want to take a few minute break? And I'll put the slide on?
Yes, please. Just a few minutes to figure out what's going on. Technical difficulties, if you will. Say that
He's coming back. His computer crashed and it's back now. So he'll be back in a second.
Probably a couple minute break.
Sorry about that.
My Computer died. I guess.
It's okay. We were just worried you'd fallen over again.
I live by myself. So So tonight.
I could be
dead on the floor. Nobody cares. Nobody
But you have a dog.
I do have a dog. But he doesn't care either.
Well, he might eat you. You know.
That's true. They're smart. They can get
healthy. What page? Were we on?
12. And I believe that I think Aaron mighty connected. But that last motion
passed six to one with myself in the descent. away for Aaron to get back and we will continue.
And Susie Of course. There she is. You're muted, Harold, but you just said something funny. At least you thought it was funny.
No, Sandy wanted to know. Do you need a computer? Or do you need a chair?
I need both are both?
too. I'm too busy to get a chair.
Well, no, that's part of what No, this is all my this is all me manipulating everyone to get off this. I hate the computer meetings. I can't wait till we're back together. Yeah, absolutely. All right. We're all back. All right. So Aaron, I just went ahead and pointed out that that last that last motion passed. I was dissenting. That's it. Number nine resetting the Home Equity second mortgage for subsequent sales. All right, Kathy. Yeah.
So if you remember, in the CO counsel determine that the amount of equity or the value difference between the affordable sales price of a home and the market value of that home, sold under the inclusionary housing program would be placed in a second mortgage held by the city to avoid a home buyer selling the home outside of the program and reaping a large profit. This is something that habitat uses to control their home resales as well, holding the second mortgage to be repaid upon sale or transfer as a precaution to losing an affordable home And per the current code language, we just discovered the amount would remain the same initial amount through any resales. So the question is, should the code be changed so that the second mortgage is revised with a new equity amount at each resale based on a market rate appraisal at the time of the resale. So only when a home sells under the program, we would have a market rate appraisal at that time, which would determine the new equity difference between the affordable the new affordable sales price and the new market value. This allows for the second mortgage to reflect any additional equity if the market has appreciated, or it allows for a decreased amount of equity if the market is cooling, which would protect the new buyer from ending up with a negative valuation.
So Kathy, what you're saying is if we want to, if we want to be careful and keep the precaution in place, do the the second the second mortgage? You don't you don't suggest it but you're saying to keep the home in the affordable housing tier. Use the second mortgage option?
Yes, and just reset it with each resale so that the equity difference adjusts with each resale, positive or negative. So it protects the homeowner as well as the program. All right,
I'd actually move that.
All right. That's been seconded. I moved. It's been seconded by Mayor Pro Tem. Anybody opposed that? All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Right.
Hey, all right. So that's the end of the easy ones, so to speak, or the ones that we needed. direct feedback on. So if you go to the two more slides, number 10. So this starts, actually, actually leave it there for a second. Sorry. So these are no, I'm sorry, the next one, sorry, 15. So these upcoming two areas are concerns that we've identified, we would like to look at them for further examination, consideration and discussion at this point, maybe get some further input from the community. And we'd like to have your feedback on that. So any kind of direction or thoughts you want to share at this time would be welcome. But we're not necessarily asking unless you really want to provide it specific changes to to these items. It's really more to start thinking about it. What additional information do you want us to capture, etc. Okay, Susan, sorry. Next slide. So updates to the sales price formula. So what's happened is the current sales price formula that was updated by council with the approval of the inclusionary housing program did not change the amount that we set aside within the formula for mortgage insurance, property taxes, property insurance, and HOA dues. So what it did was it kept those four items at 9% of the 33% that you guys approved of total income. So if you remember, we set the sales prices so that people would not be paying more than 33% of their total income for all of their housing costs. And those four items would come from 9% of that 33%. What we are finding is that this does not allow for sufficient amount to be calculated for these expenses, which results in more income that's available for principal and interest than really is available, which results in sales prices that are too high and ultimately requires homebuyers to pay more than 33% of their income for their home, because they're paying the actual mortgage insurance, property taxes, property insurance, and HOA dues, which we aren't taking enough out of in the calculation.
So, my my earlier comments, I want what everyone else wants. I just believe that the results of what we're doing will be adverse to what we want. But given a council, six of us have decided to go down this road. I also believe that what is what is in alignment with what council wants is to actually take into into consideration the expenses that come along with the home purchase, and that we should update the code to take into consideration the true cost of of all the items that go into purchasing a home specifically mortgage insurance, property taxes, and HOA dues and property insurance.
I said I would move I would move that
All right or not? Looks like we then I moved. So Councillor Christiansen?
I tried to second and I'm sorry. But I do have something to say no, I agree with you. In addition to which, of course, as we all know, once we buy a house, there are all kinds of things that need to be replaced. And so hence the term money pit. But this is I really thank you for Cathy for going into great detail here. Because these are all the things when you first buy a house, you've never bought a house before you have no idea what you're doing. You just want a house and then you get all these things come up and you go, Oh, no, that, you know, this is a these are the things we have to consider. And it it makes sense for for you guys to reevaluate this and adjust the Adjust the affordable sales price formula. So thank you for doing that.
Yes. So I'm clear. Kathy, what you're talking about doing is is resetting What the What a market rate, what an affordable market rate would be for buyers within a certain percentages of repeated income, right so that the purchase price is going to adjust down? Or we're going to or the I guess, eligibility? How am I going to say this is not 80%. But or 80% of ami would buy a home at a lower market rate in order to keep the total percentage of 33%. With the rest of it acute counting for no more than 9%. Is that what we're suggesting here? That we that's the market rate adjustment or purchase rate? purchase price adjustment? We're talking about?
Yeah, so I guess my follow up is, do you want to see those before we we do the formula? Or do you want us just to go ahead and redo the formula, we did research around averages and industry standards around these four items and came up with I think some good justifiable cause cost that they're closer to being what is actual, it does have a fairly significant adjustment to the sales prices, lowering the affordable, and then it tears up into the middle tier is going to lower those as well. same formula, it's just a higher ami. So.
So that would be Personally I'd like to see him but I get what you're talking about now. And my next question was going to be does that have the same impact on the mid tier? And obviously it does? I would assume it would. So yeah, it'd be good to see those. So at least working with him when you know when asked, and we know what we're talking about. So thank you.
All right. There's a motion and it was seconded by Councilmember Christiansen in order to make an adjustment so that they let's go ahead and Councillor Peck.
Thank you very badly. I just
whoops, happy Did you ask if we wanted to see that before we made the motion? So we know what we were talking about? Or do you want to bring that back after we make the motion? I just want to make sure we're doing what you you want. I mean, vote on the motion, not make it? Uh, do you want to bring back those examples before we vote? or after? And I guess, Councilman waters? Is that what you were saying as well?
We are begging man respond.
Yeah, that we would be good to have that information. I think I think it's the right path. But but there's like a, there's a pretty important body of information that would be helpful to know what we're actually doing here.
Yeah, and my question was really around,
I'm gonna go ahead and
implement it, or do you want to see it before we implement it to see what the ramifications are?
I'm, I'm all for seeing the data. It's not a big deal. It doesn't need to be right now. So I'm gonna go ahead and withdraw my motion. That's fine. So can you bring back some data and ramifications, please? Yep. All right, cool.
Let's john. Okay.
All right, then number 11. Is the next one for some direction. So this actually is a situation that came up when we opened up the I think it was the fourth quarter 2020 application round for affordable housing funds and habitat applied for some additional funding to support the mountain, their mountain Brook project. So the TRG, the technical review group, and the housing advisory board, both had quite a discussion around whether the city should be providing additional funding subsidies to a nonprofit that received some assistance from a developer in order to fill that developers inclusionary housing requirement. So if you remember on mountain Brook city council approved the developers land donation to habitat and veterans community project as part of meeting the overall development's inclusionary housing requirements. The affordable housing approved was still below the minimum inclusionary housing requirement, which is fully Council's prerogative. And the two nonprofits are agreed to provide the affordable housing in lieu or on behalf of that developer, which allows the developer and the entire development to comply with inclusionary. Housing. So is the master developer entirely fulfilling the inclusionary housing requirement if the nonprofit still needs additional city funding to complete the project is basically the question they were asking. The current inclusionary housing code does not prohibit additional city funding into an inclusionary housing project. Next slide. So for instance, they're, they're eligible for fee waivers and for additional incentives like that, because they are providing the affordable housing. But when you get into additional financial things, like affordable housing funds, or if we added CDBG funds, they just felt they needed some direction from Council, whether that is really what we were wanting to do. So if a development receives special consideration by the city to lower the amount of affordable housing, they provide under an inclusionary housing program, should the city also be required or consider providing additional subsidies to ensure that affordable housing is built? Or should the developer benefiting from the reduced inclusionary housing requirement being required to ensure the affordable housing can be built? So that's a question that they had. And that we're bringing back to you again, you know, any thoughts that you have or additional things you want us to research or find out?
We're happy to do.
Alright, Counselor, Christian said.
Well, I really appreciate Kathy giving examples. This someone is such a an anomaly that I'm not sure it's a But well, it's a good example. But this is why you can't really make policy very well on anomalies, but you need to consider them. Both of these charities are really excellent. And I want them but we all want these just development to have the inclusionary housing with habitat and veterans community project to happen. In Kansas City, when I went to the groundbreaking for the veterans community project, I had a chance to talk with the Kansas City, city council woman, and she said that the Kansas in Kansas City, the veterans community project was solely funded by the city. There was no private public partnership involved in it and all. One of the difficult things about this particular instance is is you may recall that we changed we put something in our inclusionary housing, or maybe it was later, whereby a developer and a charity can work directly with each other and not have any agreement goes through the city. It was thought that it would save time and it would save resources. I think this is a good example of why that is a problematic thing, because here you have something that has repercussions that hadn't gone through the city might have been noticed, and somebody might have asked more questions. I don't think there's anything at all shady going on here at all, but I do think it's problematic to have a the developer and the charity talking without involvement with the city. You cuz then we wind up having to donate a whole bunch of money that. Yeah, it's very questionable whether this should whether we should still be pumping money into this. But we do want this to happen. So I think it's obvious that you're going to
tell us real quick. Thank you, Mayor
badly, I feel that if the developer donates land for affordable housing, and at that point, the affordable housing project owns that land, they have a deed that has actually been transferred to them for that land, then that project can work with the city. But if the developer only allows some affordable housing from another nonprofit on their land, but they don't actually give that land donated, give the deed to that nonprofit, than the developer is still responsible for that I don't think the city works with them, I think the developer because they still own the land, whether even if they lease it to the nonprofit. So I don't know if Habitat for Humanity actually got a deed for the portion of the land that was donated to them. I don't have any idea. And I don't know if the veterans project actually got a deed for that land. Or does the developers still own it? Because I think that there's that's where you get into conflict. Only if it is the land is owned by the nonprofit, then the city should work with that nonprofit, but not if the developer still owns the land, but donated it for to the nonprofit to build on. Does that make sense? Hopefully that makes sense.
So to answer part of your question, I think on this one, the land will be deeded to VCs, VCP and habitat upon finalization of the plat that are there, it's in the agreement where the property will be transferred to them. So they don't necessarily have it now as they're going through the development process. But when they finish it, it will be transferred to them.
And then excuse me, if I can answer you at that, at that point, when they when they have the deed to the land and actually belongs to the nonprofit, then I think they can work with the city and are no longer working with the developer. That's that's my opinion.
Or in that case, they could come and say we need this to finish it and council could say on the condition that you own the land and have deed to it or something like that. As a condition.
Get into a shady, shady spot at that
Mayor Pro Tem
Oh, thank you, Mayor Bagley. First of all, because of comments made by Councilmember Christiansen, I have a little bit of a ear worm, so I got to get it out. Everything's up to date in Kansas City, they've gone about as far as they can go. Anyway. I could I could go on, because I was in Oklahoma at one point, but not the point. What I really am concerned with is making the city whole at a 12% level, which is I believe what we we have decided on as a percentage. And so I do want to see nonprofits penalized or reticent to apply for city subsidies as nonprofits based on agreements they may have made with a developer, as we're talking about right now. And so I would like to say, a 12%. caveat, I guess, if you will, where if for some reason, the developers using these nonprofits as their 12% litmus test for inclusionary housing, and one of these nonprofits decides to apply for subsidies above and beyond whatever agreement they've made with the developer, that at least the city level, there is some sort of inclusion in the developers agreement that they, I guess, make the city whole, or you know, something along those lines, obviously, that goes well above my paygrade as I'm not a lawyer, or especially a real estate lawyer, but that's what I would like to see is as long as we can make the city whole at the 12% level and be consistent with that. That's what I really like to see when We're talking about this specific issue. I know that this probably isn't going to this is again, not going to be one of those often occurring items, as I think many of these 11 items have been not necessarily going to be all of it. But that's just where I'd like to see us land is keeping keeping us home, if you will.
So can I ask a clarifying question, then? Are you saying that, so using this, for instance, for for mountain Brook, where I think they're actually providing between BCP and habitat, a percent, it was below nine, it was like a point something percent of affordable housing, that in order to subsidize either one of the nonprofit's you would want to see that brought up to 12%. Somehow.
I guess my point is, if they're if they're needing subsidy to actually construct these units, that the developer hasn't met their 12% criteria. And so I would like to see that the developer be responsible, if they're using a nonprofit, to make that 12% hole, one way or another. I, again, like I said, above my paygrade, I am not a lawyer this and I believe, as was stated earlier, these are considerations to be made, not actual decisions that council needs to make at this time.
All right, Doc waters.
Thanks very badly. Kathy? Well, just let me clarify one question to start with. Since we're talking about this particular project. Yes, if that project, there were how many were Meteor units were proposed in the mountain road project were to like 200, or 100 or 200. condos, that we're going to be mid tier. And whether it's mountain Brook or any other project, that 12% do we count? We don't go we exclude if they're mid tier exceptions, don't we exclude those from the 12%? requirement?
Yes, once they actually happen?
Yeah. And so I remember asking that question, what if, in that project, they don't deliver 200 condos, then the answer was, then they're going to be responsible for at the time of approval, right or permitting, they're going to be responsible for that payment in lieu, I just saw the percentages vary based on whether or not they actual delivery, I would assume for this or any other project that has mature exception. Just to clarify, let me let me go beyond when whether the next time we have a chance to review an application or a proposal seems to be I should have thought to ask or we should have thought to ask or maybe maybe it was there and I just didn't see it. That with whatever the percentage is, but this plan for these donating eight, eight lots and what would it be 26 Tiny Homes as a way to meet their obligation? Did we know at that time, if I'm sitting here feeling like I should have known that it was going to require another x $120,000 for habitat and $100,000 for the veterans community project. If I know that time, is worth reviewing that I think I would have had some other some other questions. So I would say when we're viewing when we're reviewing proposals, if there are going to be other costs that the city is going to have to incur, after checking the box that whoever the developer is has met their obligation would be really helpful to know that at the time. You know, if I should have known it, I apologize. If it was an unknown, then I'm thinking well, are there other examples where people got credit for the 12% through a go and land donation, or working with a nonprofit, and then that and then the nonprofit came back to the city, and we had to make them whole or subsidize their their investment right to build out what we were expecting in terms of affordable units.
So there hasn't been another one coming forward yet. But the sugar mill development would be an example where they are donating land to habitat at the full 12%. But my guess is that habitat will need additional subsidy beyond the fee waivers that they would otherwise be eligible for. And that we're likely to see that as well. I don't know that Fact at this point, but that would I mean, just because of their
When I think to give you an example of this, what sort of piqued my thoughts on when we need to understand unintended consequences actually, as you all have put me in Executive Director role of the housing authority, if somebody meets their 12% requirement, when they donate land to the Housing Authority, we know that when we fund these Housing Authority projects, we layer the capital
of which we need only utility fees and this other piece, and then if that's not available, you develop the properties on the Housing Authority, then that creates a gap in the capital stack, in terms of getting those units. And that was a piece just by nature of what we're doing now, or so we just need to think through this a little bit to make sure that we're not creating another issue that when we that, that really impacts these nonprofits that develop housing units. And I think that's why we just said, here's the issue, we want you to talk about it, but we probably need to look at it in more depth. So before I before I yield the floor back, just so I'm clear.
This is as we're learning our way forward, this is one of those that were saying, you know what, that's a new question. Or a deeper analysis on given this packet, right? donation of land, and, and or just straight up donation of land? What are the other costs? What's the capital stack going to look like? When that profit when they build this out? How much are they going to need from us? And that may be a question that we need to build into the process on the front end? Because I don't know if we really got into that depth. I don't recall that we did. And could we could are those were those answerable questions when we were reviewing that application that we just didn't ask?
mean, I think to a certain point, we did ask it, and we pushed the developer as far as we felt we could on some of those items. And they, you know, they were they added in the cost of the infrastructure. So that was good, that was a real thing, you know, so that otherwise it would be more subsidies that they'd be asking for. But I think it's really, how can we on each individual deal? Because each one's going to be different? How do we analyze, like you said, the full development costs, and help the nonprofit, negotiate that or push the developer more around that. And they'll get more sophisticated as time goes on and know what they can ask for or push for. But I think we did somewhat of a disservice, you know, for this particular one, and and we'll have a learning curve around it. Yeah. So well, I
So so I just thought, when I did this, my might I remember my thinking was, whether it's the developer paying the 12%, or whether it's a nonprofit, who cares if a developer can convince a nonprofit to partner with them to pay the 12%. That's what's important. And so if there are developers now coming forward, and then partnering with a nonprofit that's not producing that 12%, but then the nonprofit turns the city and says, Hey, give us 12%. That defeats the purpose completely of what the inclusionary housing ordinance is trying to accomplish. Would it be possible to put figures on it that basically says, Here's your 12%, you can either go out option A is go find a nonprofit that is willing to partner with you that's going to build it all on its own. Or in the event that it does not equate the value they bring if it is not worth that 12%. The developer needs to reach 12% before the city provides additional funding to the nonprofit, it doesn't seem isn't that the solution? Would that be hard for city staff?
I think it'd be hard for the nonprofit.
What I'm just saying that if the nonprofits bringing land or value, they should be able to quantify their sub service or product. Because So for example, if there is a lamb, if there's a developer, and they say we're not going to put up 12%. And if Habitat for Humanity comes in and says we're going to give it that 12% is $6 billion. Habitat comes in and says this is the amount of the services we're providing to this project and then turns the city and says we Need an additional 1.2? We don't give 1.2 unless they've hit that 12%. I think I think that would be the solution. That way the developer is prohibited from pushing the burden back onto the city. Does that make sense? Am I being clear at all? It does,
I think so the example I would give you, so if somebody or 12% requirement, I'm just use the housing authority as the example. And they give the land to meet their 12% requirement to the Housing Authority. And you go in and you build a development project, you have, you know, horizontal infrastructure, water tap cost, I mean, you have that fully burden cost of the development that you have to build. And let's say, you get the light tech tax credits, let's say you don't get 9%. But you get 4%, nine and four, right, Kathy. So if you don't get the 9%, and you get the 4%, now, all of a sudden, you've created a gap in your financing model, that you may need to go for some of the fee waivers to start shrinking that gap. Technically, they've met the 12% requirement based on the amount of land because that's built in. But then, on the other side is as the developer of it, then you're still having a gap to build in terms of bringing all that money to bear that correct, Kathy?
Yeah, yep. So we take, for instance, the Spring Creek and Fall River projects where the land was donated to the Housing Authority, and they set for a number of years until development was ready to occur, we still ended up putting funding into both projects. The city did beyond fee waivers. So there was the gap that couldn't be covered just by the land donation, and all the other affordable housing financing available.
So we're gonna keep calling on people. But I would suggest we actually, Kathy as you originally suggested, as you're hearing our comments, as we wrap up this portion, go back, take what you've heard, and then come back with a with a proposal. We're going to go with Mayor Pro Tem, then Councilmember Christiansen, then council member pack. And if I don't call on you, after the person stops talking, just pipe up in that order.
Thank you very badly, I just guess this is more of a clarifying question. When we say 12%, are we talking specifically just 12% land or 12% of developed units. That's where I'm starting to get a little bit confused right now is that saying, Oh, they can donate 12% land? Well, 12% of land, if it's not got taps in horizontal infrastructure, if you will, is way different than, you know, a developed piece of property with 12% of units actually built into place. And so these are very different concepts of 12%. So I just want to get a clarification on.
So Tim might have that language, I think it says that they have to donate land, that is can bear the number of units that they have to provide, whether it's rental or for sale in the the donation of that land can't require any kind of a change that the nonprofit or whoever is going to have to go through. So it has to be already appropriately zoned and
And just to clarify a little bit further, that this is coming in a few different ways. And and we use terms a little bit interchangeably that maybe aren't so interchangeable. So if you're choosing the land donation option to satisfy you, Kathy was exactly right, you have to have land that it is sufficient to support the quantity of affordable housing you would be required for on site. So if you would have been required for 12% of onsite units, that number of units has to fit in the land that you're donating to us. And it has to be accompanied by the infrastructure and that and everything to get the off site infrastructure to actually develop that land. But if you're doing land donation, there isn't actually any guarantee that a unit is going to be built that that goes to the city. If you are doing an e6, kind of sometimes called bloods make a deal or they go to Council for the alternative voluntary alternative option. That's when we're going to see donations to a non Profit who's going to be doing the building? But not instance, they are guaranteeing, or at least what we've seen so far they're get they're guaranteeing that we're getting affordable housing bill. But the land donation is just going to the nonprofit who will do that building?
Will that developers obligation? Okay, thank you. And just to revisit something that I heard, housing community investment manager feathers, say, was that it would be no additional requirements to the organization for which the land donation goes to. To me it sounds like if we supply a subsidy to a nonprofit, that's an additional requirement on top of the land donation. And so to me, that would require some sort of provision, a clawback or some other additional provision to actually make us fall for the 12% if the land donation requires an additional subsidy on top of the land donation to meet 12% for the developer. Does that make sense? I mean, that's what I heard. When this feather was was talking. She She outlined this definition. And at the end of it there said there if there's an additional requirement to meet, this would be an additional requirement.
Like Councilmember Christiansen, or do we say I believe it was Aaron, Polly, Joan, and then we'll go with Marsha. Yeah.
Yes, I agree with what Aaron is saying is, the point of this is affordable housing. So if you're just giving land, you know, historically, what happened is when we formerly had this, most people did not most developers chose not to build anything, is it's a, whatever, it's a lot of trouble. So they just donated land. And then the Housing Authority built on that. The housing authority funded that with childhood friends and federal funds and different funding all over the place. So it wasn't, it wasn't. It was a different funding kind of mechanism. Now we're talking about having private developers actually build affordable housing. But if they have nonprofits do this, and they're giving the land directly, as this is what I was trying to say earlier, they're giving the land directly to the charity, and not having it go through the city, then, then we, we really don't know what's going on until we get hit with this bill for like, $100,000. We want 100 tests, you know, so it's very problematic when a, a, what we've allowed is for the developer to give land, not to the city, but to the to a charity of their choice. And then proceed along with a project. And then at the tail end, we still don't have that affordable housing, unless we put in a whole bunch of money. And that that kind of sets a very difficult precedent, I think. So I am glad you brought this up. Kathy, I just I think there are a lot of things that we need to think about what we're gonna think about.
you're muted, Joe.
Thank you, Mayor. bakley. Um, so for me, this brings up a question and we're going to be using the same project or I am, it depends on what the habitat is coming to this city for to subsidize because it's my understanding that the infrastructure is going to be built by the developer and will include that part of their donated land. I do you know, after looking at what habitat wants to build, it's going to be incredible, but they are putting some solar in supposedly in a walk path as an experiment or whatever. So what is it they want subsidization for, and does what they want it for actually meet our goals of affordable housing and if it is, if it is something that is outside our our expectation of what affordable housing should be, should we be subsidizing it and I expect staff to be able to make that decision as to whether it is but this is why I think that it should be noted donated to the city. And, and then that that nonprofit is working with the city. I feel like we're a third party in this trying to make the whole development, the whole development whole on this on the 12%. And it's very tricky. Doing it as a third party when we when you worked with Longmont Housing Authority before. That was pretty straightforward on what they were coming to us for. And we worked with Longmont Housing Authority period. But now it looks like we have three different parties here that we're working with. And that is very confusing. So I'm going to stick with it if if that land is donated to the city, and then we can partner with that nonprofit. And help them make it that's what our affordable housing fund is for really, is to help bring affordable housing into the city. But I just have a problem with it being a third party type of a deal. Again, I'm not a lawyer or an accountant. So that's just the way it looks to me.
Right, who is next Councillor Martin? Or do you want to return something stuff want to respond to that?
my response so a couple things. And maybe this is what Aaron is, is getting to as well. So when the Housing Authority received the land donation, they were able to build more affordable units than what was required. So the two acres that they got, I think the requirement was that they would have to cover I want to say 80 units in in the prairie village neighborhood using Spring Creek and Fall River as an example. And we actually got 120 rental units at pretty low incomes. Same thing on land was a land donation, it was a below market land sale at overcrossing. Where Hearthstone and lodge are. It covered that development and got way more units, 100 units, and those are very, very low income. So the nonprofits can do a great job with land donation. But I think this might be getting to Aaron's point, would we provide additional subsidy beyond the land donation only if they're providing more than the units or lower incomes perhaps than what would otherwise be required. So there's an added benefit to the city for the additional subsidy. And what habitat requested was 120,000 to support the actual construction of the units. So and then they'll also get fee waivers as well. But that's that's allowed. That's in the incentive. So
this was in addition to that.
So that's the two points I had.
Right? Councillor Martin?
Does it have to be this complicated? It seems to me that as at the time of the transfer, whether it's to the city or to a nonprofit, we could simply value the land as compared to what the fee in lieu would be if they didn't do the land donation and expect that it's going to come out in the wash.
Kathy, Harold, somebody wants to say something before I say what I'm gonna say.
I think what what I was gonna say is I think so we've looked at land donation, you hit you then have the alternative agreement. And so you have these different components, which I think makes this conversation complicated because you have so many roads that you can come down to that still get back to this point. And I think if we could take this conversation and let us model some scenarios for you, that I think will more completely outline all of these different things that we're talking about because land donations one issue. Alternative or you know, section k alternate agreements, another issue and how he lives through it on site units and partners. I mean, we just need to work through some models for you all to give you examples of this. And I think that'll also help us make sure we're not creating any unintended consequences, where we then get six to nine months down the road and we should have thought of this to the point where we're learning and evolving in this process. Okay with counsel.
Alright, so We'll just bring this back. All right, when can we expect it? Not not just just in general, when can we expect that? Kathy?
How much time you need?
Remember, much of this is also the Housing Authority team.
I'm not I'm not, I'm not saying this to push you for next year. I'm saying it so that if you say four months or five months
or six months, we don't know, I don't know, let us figure it out. And what to say right now.
Fair enough. And my
first section, the first nine that you gave us direction on, we'll start working on that with codec and come back to that much more quickly than probably this one. And also, we can probably bring the sales price went back fairly quickly.
All right. Cool. All right. And going on to believe that's it? Come on, check. Okay, let's Can we talk about now let's move on to 12. b, the update on the homeless outreach referral efforts.
Evening, mayor and city council. So, last week, counsel had asked for an update on what is happening, what we are doing out. And if you can't hear me, I have my my partner in crime, Alberto Mendoza. Because I'm having trouble with a microphone.
Karen, you're kind of coming in and out on me. I don't know about the rest of them
here and make sure you're not on teams, and you're not on the VPN. And jabber is not running.
okay, I'm back. Is that better? Can you hear me? Okay, great. So, so anyhow, council did ask for an update on the work that we have been doing. For Pepsi ordinance, starting
public property, so we can, so I'm going to pass it. So I'm going to pass it on to Alberto. What we have in your council calm is the identify the work that we have. And the way to summarize. outreach is really the funded efforts that we are putting.
All right, good evening, Mayor bag, we have members of council any better than those that committee services Project Coordinator? Um, so yeah, so I think what I'll start is just give an overview of some of the work that has been done on the outreach piece in in November, we started working with our partners at hope and boulder shelter, and of course, code and public safety, to really start an outreach and education program around the upcoming change to the ordinance, we created a bilingual flyer that all those groups were sharing with folks that provided information on what the ordinance was, what the change was. And also, in particular, we talked about what, you know, what the services were available for folks to engage with coordinated entry, to try and access services to move to more permanent and stable housing. So that started really in November, and we in by December, we had the, we had the fire created and out and about. And we've continued to check in with our partners and they've been they have engaged with several people who are in RVs and trying to assist. And then I also want to talk about the funding opportunities, and particularly the bridge housing, opportunities that we're trying to create and also the outreach that we're trying to do. So for for Ridge housing funding, we worked with our hspc partners to apply For ESG, or emergency solutions grant funding that related to the cares act, and we were able to get 40 $40,000 for bridge housing and, and this is going to happen via hotelling. That could be used for folks that are engaged with coordinated entry and living in RVs, or other super vehicles. Then we also received 25,000, from Boulder County, in lieu of being able to necessarily assist us with the fairgrounds, they still wanted to help. And they provided $25,000 for bridge housing via hotelling modelling options as well. And we are working on that IGA currently. And then finally, we had $240,000, from our 2020 budget, that due to COVID. And other issues, we're not able to use to fund ongoing housing vouchers that we could use in one time dollars. And so we have worked with our partner at the in between to create these bridge housing opportunities through a contract with them with those one time. All to say that we are trying to provide opportunities for and this is beyond people who are living in RVs. Of course, this this is much broader than that. But we do want to, you know, to Council's direction A while back that said, you know, we want to help people who are connected to long line and are wanting to engage with the coordinated entry system, we want to give them some options. So we are working on these options now as we speak. And at the same time, we are through coordinated entry outreach and this new outreach model that we're going to start that also came via the cares act and HSBC, we got $151,000, to put a team out there that's made up of a mental health professional, a homeless services professional, and a person with lived experience to engage, again, with people in our views, but also broader than that just folks that maybe have not engaged or have chosen not to engage at this time. We want to we want to build relationships, and hopefully get them engaged to the coordinated entry system. So those are the funding and efforts that we've done, I think you saw in the in the communication, some of the some of the work that's been done. You know, when I talk to our nonprofit partners, they have been, they have received calls, and they have engaged and, and they have had some success and engaging folks into coordinated entry. And there are some folks that have chosen not to or have other other thoughts about the ordinance that are not willing to engage. But overall, I think that that when you look at the work that our partners are doing, they're out there and trying to connect people with services that will move them into into more permanent housing.
And so I think too, I want to So in general, when you when you look at the Council comm they've brought together $456,000 in all, to deal with the bridge, the bridge housing, and in working with people who are who are homeless, both in RVs in vehicles, or just an individual in bringing the sin into coordinated entry. If counsel will remember when we started this conversation, we were in the middle of the fires. And so we have the issue of Boulder County Fairgrounds as well. The other thing that's changed since then is now you have the fairgrounds also being utilized for testing site. I know there are conversations in terms of what we talked about earlier with COVID in terms of the broader vaccines and where we do it. And I know that's a site that's being looked at, as well for this. There's a lot of demands on that facility that are also coming into play. And so we're hoping that with this bridge funding, virtually half a million for bridge housing. And again, it's conditioned on coordinated entry. As counsel indicated to us, we can work with a number of individuals to Le bertos point that I wanted to emphasize is we are seeing people who don't want to go into coordinated entry. And then that's a different conversation that we that we have to have. As we continue moving through this.
Elsewhere back and then Mayor Pro Tem
was I unmuted.
Can you hear me? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Council Member pack. You were on mute, but no long.
I was but what I was saying Mayor Bradley's that Mayor Pro Tem was had his hand up first. So I will yield to him.
I call on you. If you'd like the floor, you may have it. Okay.
So I have a question for Alberto. Um, you said that we were given a contract. I think he said 145,000 unless I got those figures wrong for outreach. Is that correct? Yes. 161,000.
Okay. Was that the emergency relief grant from COVID?
It is connected to eat see v2 estc? v2? Yes.
Okay. My question is, was that grant awarded to the attention home in Boulder?
Yes, the county did go with attention homes.
So my frustration is that it was for outreach in Longmont. Why would boulder be doing outreach in Longmont, when we have the community? doing outreach we have? We have hoped doing outreach every single night. And if this is always frustrated me with being part of the counties that we get information from them on who we are, we get information from the county and from Boulder, about our data. When this data is being collected constantly. I know I can't change that. The grant has already been awarded. I'm just frustrated. And I think it was a misuse of federal funds, that money could have been used in a lot of different ways. Um, I like I like what we're doing with this ordinance. But I really want to stress that I I personally do not want this to be punitive against people who live in RVs, which was the whole point of having some subsidy either in a place for safe lots or and I know that that's off the table at the moment. But I just wanted to voice my frustration with why aren't we using our own resources to outright do outreach in our own town? It makes no sense to me at all. So that being said, I will yield.
Thank you, Mr. Bagley. One of the big things that I was very interested in about having this ordinance come to fruition was the ability for people in RVs. And of course, we we became somewhat hamstrung by coordinated entry and in the Boulder County housing issue, where they wanted to be coordinated entry where these folks could, and I realized that the fires happened and COVID is that it restricted the County Fairgrounds. But one of our original concepts of passing this ordinance was to allow for people in RVs, to still reside in them at the County Fairgrounds, at least until they get into coordinated entry. Now we're asking them to get rid of the RVs go into hotel housing, I guess, if they're going to access this particular pot of money, which I believe was around $150,000. That was, as mentioned, is there is because the County Fairgrounds are not available. Is there any way that that money can be used to allowing our bees who people in are these who would still like to go through the core data entry process to use that money for say, vacation places in RV parks, like the one at 15th in Maine, for instance, that I know there's one out and I think like Johnstown or something like that. But the point being is to access same money that is given being given to us in lieu of the fact the County Fairgrounds are not available, at least that was at the beginning of the presentation, something I heard was in lieu. And so if somebody's still willing to go through the coordinated entry process, can we still provide them a subsidy if they find a place to park their RV while going through said process?
So I'm going to try to answer that. If you can hear me So I think, you know what, what we really are focusing on is not investing finances in outdoor sheltering, and so there are two there are limits like with the grant funding, grant funding through to Boulder County did not allow funding for outdoor shelter. So and so that's Money is so funny. I think the other thing with, again, what we understood action at are that we were for folks who are choosing to live in their RV, not because of circumstances because their own voice, those were individuals that were weren't necessarily helping you or helping people to work within their circumstances. So that's really what we were what we have these three types of funny how people who are living in their vehicles really are looking for permanent housing throughout a way that we find a system in housing either.
I think we lost our return.
Karen. Yeah. If If your microphone is on your cord of your headset, I think it's rubbing against your your clothing, and we're not hearing you. Can you move the microphone to your mouth?
What can you hear me this way? Yes. So okay. We'll try it this way. Okay, can you hear me for a while, and then I go away. So. So our intention really was to have different pots of money with this gives us different flexibilities to help not only people who are living in their RVs, looking for permanent housing, help them and other thing is that these dollars are also helping our in navigation services. And they are waiting for permanent housing as this bridge housing. So while they're waiting for permanent housing resources, that we have rich housing, or for them, so we're so it's really about helping individuals and working with them to help what's your situation to be in the RV? How do we help them get into a house?
We're still having her I actually have no idea what you're saying, Karen, that I mean, not because just because the I know, I know. So so let's let's, let's try this, Dr. Waters.
But just just real quick, since it was an answer to my question. Quick question I had really was that if these people are still in the program, through the coordinated entry program, can they still receive some money if they would like, while being in the program to stay in their RV at a potential actual sanctioned RV sites? That's my question.
I would say, if you can hear me that, with some of those funds, that we have some flexibility, I think we would look at what options would we get them into bridge housing is maybe a space a lot temporarily, I think we could look at that with some of the options. Really, how to find permanent housing, that helps.
In some of
the answer The answer to that? Yes. And that's something that I've asked Karen and Alberto to work on is can we help fund a spa, if it's available, it's a big if, and, and keep them in the project, keep them in the broader program so that we can transition into more permanent housing solutions, because it's where you really want to be. And so yes, that's part.
All right, Councilman Walker's Councilmember waters,
but just to just to clarify the council con, based on how you've gone through your analysis, is it correct to conclude that we have six six occupiers, I know, residents of Arby's who have chosen to who are in Arby's by choice, who are still in the city and choosing to park somewhere that have the eight that you identified to resolve, but we're talking about six or B's or six
customer waters, that that was a that's a point in time type of report. I did have a follow up and I have heard that several of those have already self resolved and there's still a couple out there. But again, this is a very fluid situation and fluid number, but I did hear that of the six that were in there. My understanding is several have self resolve they've they've moved on or they have found a place. And And so yeah, I guess to your to answer your question in that point in time when I asked that question of our partners, that's what I heard. And that may have changed. Since I since I asked that question.
I just I was I was surprised pleasantly at the, the number was fewer than I thought we would, we would see, I think and what,
yeah, what I have heard from from public safety, I talked to deputy chief Saturn and David Kennedy, is that there has been a huge decline in the amount of RVs in their typical hotspots, and I don't know where all those hotspots are. But that's what I that's what I've been told. Thank you.
All right, Councilmember Lago fairing.
So thank you. Um, so, in looking at the coordinated entry, what were some of the reasons that were cited of why people did not want to follow through with that? Or why did they decline that service.
So in there, I can bring back more information. But off the top my head, we actually have done a recent survey of folks that have not, and this is beyond our folks in our V's and zebra vehicles. There was, there's been some concern, so it's confusion, some of it is being unaware, some of it is not necessarily willing to follow some of the the the, the rules that are associated with the different programs. So for example, navigation, you have to if you are in navigation, you have to be seeking employment, you know, so, multiple reasons, everything from they didn't know about it, it seems complicated to you know, they don't necessarily want to follow some of the behavioral rules or some of the expectation within the programs.
Okay. And then what can we do as an organization to help clarify a lot of that confusion, misconception, and, and reaching out to folks, because I see, you know, I'll be, you know, Roosevelt parts in my ward. So I go out there often I check out, you know, there's been graffiti, there's been all kinds of trash and and it's, you know, what could our folks going out to the areas where homeless people are to say, Hey, you know, we have this stuff, we have these programs, we have these resources. So really, it's a matter of getting out to them, and what could we be doing as an organization to be bridging that that gap?
So, Karen, I'm not sure I have an answer for
you talking about the team.
That's what I was going to talk about. But if you haven't, so I so one, I think that that one of the biggest things that we can do, and this is part of what this team that is coming in, and particularly I'm excited about having a person with lived experience, be part of this team. And that is relationship building. We that that is a big priority for us is to increase that level of engagement to build relationships to build trust. One, you know, a couple of years ago, when I first started with the CDA asked, you know, what were some of the challenges to coordinate entry and a big part of it was somebody The answers are not are not new. There, they've been a constant struggle for a while. And that's not knowing unaware. And also mistrust of any system, in particular, any system that's connected to government can can create some mistrust. So I think I'm really excited about having this team out there that will provide, you know, that connection, both with the mental health and with the people with personal lived experience. And so I think we need to continue doing that. And I think we already do some of this work, and it's something that we just need to continue to enhancing is that relationship building to get people part of the challenge is that you all just had a huge discussion about affordable housing. And, and and some folks, you know, got word enrolled in the program, and we're disappointed or discouraged because it wasn't available right away. And we're hoping that this bridge housing work will help stabilize folks and get them closer to that as we work to increase the amount of affordable housing available. So I think that's what we should be doing as an organization is is really increasing that engagement and relationship building and in engendering trust in the coordinated entry system to help folks Move forward. And many folks are just not at that point in their life. And I've had this conversation with Joseph as well. And, and sometimes it just takes some time and trust building to get them there. And so that's what we're hoping that this team will, will do and get us closer to?
And is there support in giving in filling out the forms? So when they have to fill up the bar, they just hand it out? Do they? And then they have to go and fill it out and then bring it back? Or is are there people there to help them? And
we have really, so hope has really great case managers and sodas, the shelter that will walk people through this process, you know, everything from doc getting document, getting document ready, which includes, you know, getting the identification they need and paperwork, they need to be able to access housing. So, you know, our partners have really good people in place to, to assist, and they've done good work that we have housed. You know, there's a recent article, that boulder house 1000, and that includes Longmont, we've housed quite a bit of people. In since this coordinated, you started. So yes, there is there is a lot of support from our partners, to those that are engaged and, and, and working toward housing.
Okay. And the only reason why I asked that is when I'm connecting with folks, I can tell them, well, you will get the support or you will have, so it was more for just information for me as I need information as well. So wasn't trying to insinuate anything,
I think the thing that I went bad is that with this three person team, we will have that team out in the community at least four hours a day, for five days. So we are adding to that we already have available that will help really connect people.
That way we lost, you
know, we lost her. And I think it's also connected to the work that they're doing. You know, Sarah and David have been doing their part of that group, but then also the in, you know, connecting to VCP. So they're starting to engage. And then I know, all of this hope is working with all of these groups. I know they're working with VCP at least in my conversations and and really connecting people to the right spot if you're a veteran. You know, they're that's where they go. And you know, it's interesting their financial, because of the Alberto's point connection to government. That's very specific as to why VCP doesn't go for these broader CDBG funds or things. It's all self funded as they're moving it. And as they move through it, and they're obviously talking about doing more to but you know, it's it's the broader system. There's not any one group, but every group has to come into play to bring their skills and expertise to the table because the problem is so large. Thank you.
All right. Harold, Do we have anything else on this topic? All right. So that said, let's move on. Thank you very much, Alberto. And Karen. We always appreciate hearing from you but more importantly, we appreciate your efforts. They go a long way to helping the people who need it most. We appreciate it. All right, let's move on to final call public invited to be heard. Let's go ahead and take a three minute break and then we will come back to conclude our meeting.
Right Is there anybody online? mayor, we
have no one that has joined our meeting.
All right, let's move on to mayor and council comments. Actually let's wait for Councilmember Peck. All right now what? So anyone? Would anyone like to make a comment? We'll go with Councilmember waters to Councilmember Christiansen
two things one quick and one not so quick. Um, I think it was maybe it was Saturday, Sunday morning, I got an email, I think probably we all got an email from a resident who was frustrated by a city plowing crew coming along and throwing snow on a sidewalk after he had shoveled it. And not knowing and I was, so we got this email and somebody asking for us to send them out. I forwarded that email to Bob Allen said, I know what you could do about this, but you at least be aware of the concern. And in the next 36 hours, Bob or his crew, went to the neighborhood check the sidewalk made certain it was it was cleared. And followed up with the resident to let him know that they'd been out. They appreciated his diligence in shoveling the sidewalk. And that they'll do what they can in the future to make sure that they continue to put snow in the sidewalk. And the only reason they mentioned it, I mean, the city is full of high performers who go extend themselves above and beyond the Service Call of Duty. But I just thought on a Sunday into Sunday night into Monday morning, to be following up the way they did, I think was such a credit to the kind of commitment, especially under these circumstances. So kudos to Bob and his team. I know that would be true of almost anybody in the city who was who was to whom we turned for some kind of response. That's the that's the short one. I'm gonna I'm gonna read a statement and I and council members, you can just mute me if you want to. But I feel like I have I need to make a statement about what happened on January 6. And I wouldn't presume to write something for you. But I will say if what you hear if I'm going to send a copy of this on if anybody wants to turn the i and this to me and sign on to this statement. I would welcome anybody who would join me in making the statement that I'm about to read. So indulge me if you will, in the capacity of reactions to and declarations about what the world witnessed in our Capitol on January 6. It's impossible no if one more statement from a salt small town, city council member or city council, if others would want to sign on is anything more than just noise? I hope not. Because I believe that long term residents deserve to know what their elected officials think and where we stand on the insurrection that erupted in Washington DC on January 6. Sad this outrage and foreboding. Were my initial emotional reactions. What I observed I'm still angry I'm still sad. And I'm deeply worried about the willingness of Americans in the name of patriotism, to desecrate principles, ideals and institutions for which literally millions of patriotic Americans gave the last full measure of service. How can it be that so many of the Americans who stormed the Capitol on January 6, failed to understand that their right to assemble and express themselves on that day and cast their votes to the election they were protesting exist only because of the sacrifices of generations that preceded them? How can it be that as we anticipate the inauguration of the next president of the United States, we do so under threat of more violence and terror in our nation's capital, and in every state capitol, American democracy and our system of government with all of its flaws in doors from one generation to the next, because of Americans committed enough the values articulated and codified by our forefathers to honor and protect them. This great experiment in self governance, known as American democracy only continues for generations to come. But those of us to whom it is entrusted, accepted both our rights to challenge it, and our responsibilities to do so within its norms. In a moment when it feels like the fabric of civic society is fraying beyond repair. Our civil discourse, which has become so strident and volatile, needs to be reset at the local level. I call an all online residence to stand for the principles upon which our democracy was founded. To acknowledge that whatever questions we are debating, or problems we're attempting to solve, violence is never an answer.
When we find ourselves disagreeing with our political opponents, we will not turn them our neighbors into our enemies to use our energies in search of both common ground and higher ground. The model for our children and grandchildren, what responsible citizenship looks like, sounds like and feels like. This starts with ensuring all Longmont residents, the city will do whatever is required to protect your health and safety. I denounce and condemn the violence unleashed on Americans in American institutions by Americans who've lost faith in our democracy. I denounce and condemn the damage inflicted on our constitution in our democracy, by people elected in sworn to protect both. I appeal to those disappointed in the outcome of the presidential election, direct your energies towards the next cycle of elections, rather than the next cycle of violence. It is what Americans have done for 240 years. It is what Americans will continue doing for as long as our republic endures. Thanks for indulging me.
Thanks to customer more.
Technically, I don't have anything to add with that. But I'd like to say that I concur with
Mr. Christiansen and then council members.
Thank you, Councilman waters. I appreciate what you're saying too. I wrote up my own shorter version about what happened at the Capitol. These this was not a revolutionary act. It was not spontaneous. It was it was not a spontaneous act of patriots. It was a predictable, pre planned, branded and violent act of insurrection by traders intent on overthrowing the democratic vote of more than 80 million Americans is a stain upon our nation. And those who incited supported and participated need to be held accountable and punished or it will happen again. And again. And again. We cannot have a doggy dog future. We must have a shared future.
All right. I guess the only thing I would like to add is that the the only thing that I could even fault. Anybody for saying is suggesting that there might What I don't understand is how anyone could think that what happened on the sixth was even remotely appropriate, meaning that that people have to take a stand is shocking to me, because it was so
It's not what we do in our country. All I know is I was glad I quit the Republican Party four years ago. I'm aware of many politicians who have served on this council, who that very day, quit the Republican Party.
I don't care what you say, I have great faith. In the district court judges, the state judges, the appellate judges, the federal judges, the federal appellate judges, the United States Supreme Court. And they all they all said the same thing, which is there was not sufficient evidence to warrant any type of of finding that there was any type of mass shenanigans that went on with the federal election. And so as I, as I've said before, on social media and in private and in public forums, people keep declaring that, that they feel that they need to stand up, that we the people, when the consent of the governed has been violated that we need to rise up. Well, not if you're in the minority. When the majority says we go north, and you want to go south, if you're the minority, whether you like it or not armed insurrection is not that not the way it go. And I would hope that the new administration, stupid, I mean, trying to trying to overthrow or be violent against someone like President Biden, when when your side has just lost the presidency and the Senate and the House, and it happened in Washington, DC, a federal jurisdiction, if you don't think you're going to get in trouble. You're just stupid. And I was embarrassed to be an American that day, because I didn't realize there are so many stupid people in our country. So Dr. Waters, thank you. It was much more eloquent. Councilmember Christiansen far more eloquent than my word that my words just were, but I stand with you. Council Member he Duggal fairing
so I to stand with the statements that council member waters has stated. Um, yeah, I just I was beyond, you know, I have my kids, they do have their current my third graders, they do their little current events. And they're coming in Thursday, and they're sharing out these events. And as a, as an educator, trying to explain that and rationalize that you just you can't. The other issue that came up and people have challenged this, or comparing it to the Black Lives Matter, movement and protests. And in some cases, where things went out of control, there were riots, okay. The difference between the two is that one was protesting, and fighting against 400 years of racism and oppression. And the other was trying to overthrow the government, because they were not happy that they were in the minority. And so and so looking at that part, and it was it was it was shameful. And I was embarrassed to be called an American that day, talking with family, overseas and in Mexico. You know, that what's going on over there? What's I mean, it's, it was unreal. And I, I would like to see Councilmember waters statement brought forward in a resolution or some kind of statement that I would be happy to, to sign on, because I think they, they encompass my feelings as well. And and I also echo Councilmember Christensen's comments, as well. So thank you very much. Mr. Bagley. Can
I just say one thing, I'll edit this and change it to re I'll send it to Don right after this meeting. And then anybody who wants to own it, hold it.
We'll just Harold. Let's just put it on the next next Tuesday's agenda, please. And we'll just we'll just vote on it as a resolution. Anybody opposed that?
Just a question, as in next Tuesday is a public forum. I believe
we can do it right before we start
putting on special when we get with Don tomorrow.
Yeah, just just let's just I'd like the opportunity and I think it should be done in public, because I think it's important enough that we do it.
Thank you very badly. My son texted me today that my two year old grandson has a new word impeachment. And that's because I find that very sad in one sense, but very funny. And another as he's lining up his little cars and keep saying impeachment, he has no idea what it means. But that tells how much this conversation has taken over the household that that word has become a household word. Now, I do have to say regardless of ideology, regardless of everything, I'm very proud of our judges, our supreme court, because they follow the Constitution. They followed the they followed our country agrees what we're made up of and, and what our elections are all about, and that Congress is really the one that controls the elections, not the president. So I'm in the States. So I have to say, I'm very proud of that. And it makes me very, very sad that even at the highest level, we cannot get through to some people that this democracy is, is solid, that we totally protect it. And we're built on, they cannot chip away at this pedestal of democracy and expect us not to rebuild it, repackage it, and and stop them from chipping away at it. So I thank you, everybody who made statements and Councilman waters, for your statement, and I will be glad to sign on to that. And hopefully, we can go forward but off of this topic. We all got quite a few emails about the ice pavilion at Roosevelt Park this week. And I To be honest, I'm kind of clueless about what has proceeded this. So it would be really nice if we could get an email so that we can answer our constituents as to what has brought this forward, where we are in the funding process, and does buying a Parks and Recreation pass or a pack? Will that does that pay for it when they buy a pass? Is that paid for them? or allow them to use that facility that pavilion? So I don't expect an answer tonight. But I would like an email to all of council explaining that so that we can answer our constituents. Thank you.
All right, probably not necessary. But I moved the meeting extends beyond 11pm.
all in favor, say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Harold, do
you have anything else?
You're muted. Harold.
went along with a couple of things, actually. So one? No, I did send something to counsel saying here's why we are with ice rink. And but you know, just to give you a sense, the cost to extend it to the end of February is going to be around 40 $30,000. If we go bid Jen, mid March, it may be 40,000. And just talk about remember when we did the budget, we have the issues, we actually had to cut the recreation fund my 1.1 million because of the reduction in revenue for all the programs. Those issues, we're still working it well. You know, we'll bring something back to. To Council, I would say at this point. It's financially we're still early on. And we think that based on where vaccine rollout is today, we're probably not going to fully operate recreation to the point where we were as early as we hope we hoped and so we may continue to have financial issues in that section of our budget. The one thing I wanted to talk about the council's I heard something tonight in public invited be heard that troubled me greatly regarding a statement that a contractor may have made in one of the submissions concerning the ucrete project. I don't know if your card that I did. It was not representative of the conversation that I had with Jeff reasoner. In terms of being a good neighbor. It was not representative of something that we were concerned with in terms of essentially it's a neighborhood compatibility issue and increasing the cost of the facility at that site. And I had a really good conversation with Jeff and had a really good conversation with the neighbors. What I wanted to let council know though, is I've got a meeting set as government and especially at times like this, we need to own these issues. And so I will own it as an organization based on that comment because it was made by the contractor in the submittal. And we will deal with it, and I will deal with it in the morning. I'm making a public statement like that is not how we communicate with our neighbor, neighborhoods. It's not how we communicate with the residents of our community. And I won't tolerate it. And I'll deal with it tomorrow. But I wanted to let you know, I caught the comment. I verified that it was made in the document. I'll deal with it tomorrow. And that's not how we approach these things. But I will own it as the organization and and we'll continue moving forward and to the residents. I apologize to them for the comment that was made in the middle. There in the future.
All right, Counselor Beck.
I would just like to apologize here. Oh, thank you for forwarding that email on the ice rink. I guess I didn't see it.
It may have been on my email too, because I'm Who knows?
But thank you.
And then Mr. May.
No comments, Mayor.
Thank you. Good, sir. All right. Do
we have a motion to adjourn?
Move? we adjourn.
I'll second that.
All in favor say hi.
Opposed say nay.
All right, great. I
appreciate everybody's help tonight. We're adjourned. Thank you. Bye bye.