Longmont City Council Regular Session January 26, 2021
3:23AM Feb 4, 2021
short term rentals
All right, thank you very much everybody the mayor is currently unavailable to join us. Hopefully he will be able to join us at some point this evening. So at this point, I would now like to call the January 12th 2021 Longmont city council regular session to order. Could we please start with the roll call? Yes.
Mayor pro Tim. You're here. Councilmember Christiansen
Councilmember Duggal fairing,
Mayor Pro Tem you have a quorum.
Thank you very much. All right. At this time, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm not going to call on anybody. I'm going to do it myself. All right, here we go. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
Thank you. As a reminder to the public, anyone wishing to provide public comment during public invited to be heard must watch the livestream of the meeting. And call in only when I open the meeting for public comment. callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time. When the screen goes up, it will give you the toll free call in information starts with an 888 number. Please watch for those instructions and write down the meeting ID when it's displayed. When I say to call in dial the free toll free number enter the meeting ID and when asked for participant ID press the pound sign. callers will have three minutes. And please give your address when you call in and once done speaking please hang up. At this time, I'd like to move on to the approval of minutes. Can I have a motion
I'll move approval of the January 12. Meeting.
Thank you. We have a motion by Councilmember waters and a second by Councilmember he doggo Fairing for approval of the January 2021. regular session meeting minutes. All those in favor say aye. Hi. All those opposed say nay. It appears that we have a six to zero vote with zero no members dissenting at this time. We shall move on any agenda revisions and submissions, documents and motions to direct the city manager at agenda items to future agendas. Councilmember Christiansen
a week after George Floyd died, was killed by police, I asked for us to vote to bring back
chief of public safety or the chief of police to read aloud so that the city of Longmont the citizens of Longmont know, what our use of force ordinance was and including use of drugs such as ketamine.
I've asked for it repeatedly, and it hasn't gotten on the agenda. So I would like us to and we all voted to put it on the agenda. So I would like this would only take five minutes. I would like this to be on a future agenda.
Yet, Don, what date is that scheduled?
have to look out again, but I think we scheduled it in late February.
I thought it was earlier. work to find it. I know. It's in a February agenda. So let me
it is scheduled for an upcoming agenda.
Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. All right, thank
you very much. Any other items at this time? Seeing none, we'll move on to the city manager's report and update on COVID-19.
So Mayor Council, I'm gonna show you a couple of slides. In terms of where we sit today with the cdph e cdphp. Dow mitigation, you all can see that we're now below 300 at approximately 290 5.3. If you go on the website, it's probably 294. So so we are moving in the appropriate direction if you can see compared to where we were. There's definitely more counties in the true sense of orange in terms of meeting those numbers. So making progress. When you look at the current Boulder County to week testing positivity rate, you can see that we're at 3.5%, which is again we're moving in the right direction. And then also on the hospitalization status. We're in green at 13 days of decreasing or stable admissions. When we compare that to Broomfield, Gilpin, grand Jefferson Larimer and weld, you can see that Gilbert and Jefferson are both in orange, the rest are in red. And other than Gilpin, I think we have the lowest positivity rate. And doing really were well on the hospitalizations position. So, again, moving in the right direction, that's what you're going to see is a theme of this data, we are going to show you the wastewater data, which we're going to be interesting to see what happens with that. Again, the hospital surge Mac metrics, this is really related to level purple, you can see that, again, we're doing really well. No hospitals are reporting anticipated staffing, shortages. 430 in the region are anticipating it. And then also 05 Boulder County hospitals are reporting anticipated ICU beds shortage on the transfer capability, one to five is tight on that position. So again, doing really well, when a 26 report on the hospital ICU bed. Okay, regional availability. So again, another good metric to look at. When you can look at the number of cases, you can obviously see that we are continuing to decrease as we move forward. This gives you a sense of those cases that were associated with long term care facilities. You can see that from late December, really through. You've seen more cases in long term care facilities and so that is something that we're getting better but it's something we're still watching and you'll see that related to unfortunately the number of deaths. You can see the five day average is continuing To turn down, we kind of spiked up, move down. So we're going to continue watching the data on this one. But then when we look at where we, Boulder County sits compared to the other Metro counties, in the seven day moving average, you can see them, Boulder County is a bottom in terms of where we sit from a numbers perspective. Again, when you look at this on the cumulative rate per 100,000, logmar, it's still the highest. On this metric, when you then look at the number of cases, you can see that we're actually looking more similar to what it did early on, compared to this range where we were generating the majority of the cases. And you can see the breakdown by age, again, really in that 18 to 34. In terms of the majority of the cases, and what we're seeing in Boulder County, when we look at COVID-19, among children, in the last few weeks, zero to four, we actually are higher in 29 cases, relatively stable five to nine, we did decrease in the 10 to 14 in the 15 to 17. So did see an increase at this age range. Again, when you look at this trend, in terms of the number of cases, the big pieces that everything's going down, we did see a slight uptick in 18 to 22. But it looks like it's leveling off and continue down like the other numbers. And when we look at the Hispanic population, in number of cases 35.4. Now in the county, it is lower than it has been. And you can this is a really good chart where you can see the number of Hispanic Latin x cases versus white, non Hispanic. And while we still are disproportionate, you're seeing that it is becoming more in line with the percentages than it was at this point in time.
When we look at vaccinations, the numbers that they provided 21,000 people in Boulder County received their first dose 3900 have both doses of the vaccine. This gives you a sense of the number of people that are able to vaccine by day and really targeting Dan Eamon and Shannon mcaveeney and are working with the county on their vaccination plan. You know, really the the issue right now is the limited number of vaccines, we actually have the ability to, to vaccinate a lot of people, when we look at the existing structure within the county, it's really just the limited vaccines, they're also working plans in terms of creating surge capacity, if we if we get more vaccine that our ability to put out in the community. So it's a supply right now, that's the big issue. When you can look at by age group, you can see that the 70 Plus is the majority. But you can see as you as you move down in age, it is smaller percentages on this. And then when you look at COVID vaccine among 70 plus year olds by race and ethnicity. This gives you a sense of what it looks like in the county and how well they're doing. What I can tell you is this is also a source of conversation and the vaccine planning in terms of really getting into those underserved populations. And that is something that's a particular focus and all of our conversations and conversations that Dan and Shannon are part of. And then when we look at the testing, you can see that on December one, we are 7.6. Today, we're at 3.2. Again, good movement. This is a really good data set that shows how many tests were performing, and how many are positive. So you can still see a lot of capability of testing a lot of individuals. And then you can see where we're moving. And again, the trend is what we're looking for. Again, this is a trend by age group, you can see everything really moving in the right direction. This I think is it's hard to tell what it is to the two I think it's 23 to 24, where we can see that uptake that we talked about earlier. And then this is a positivity rate by various age groups. And you can see that really where it's high is that zero to 918 to 22 and 23 to 24 compared to the other age groups. And then when we look at hospitalizations, again, this is a cumulative number. You can see that everything is in green. Med search beds is actually in yellow has been right in red. And then ICU is again pretty stable. At this point, this is really the good side, when you look at number of hospitalizations, and where we are today in that continuing trend, it's hard to imagine that and, you know, around the end of November, December, we were at 130. Mark in terms of hospitalizations in Boulder County. This is what it looks like for the state. And again, really mimicking the trend that we're seeing in Boulder County. And then finally, this is what it looks like in terms of the deaths that we've had in Boulder County. And again, Orange is those associated with long term care facilities. I am going to now show you the wastewater data.
It's given me
so you can see our wastewater day there. Are you seeing the wastewater data? graph? Yes, we are. So you can see what we've really been seeing. I mean, there's some outliers in terms of the numbers we've seen. But generally, this downward trend in our wastewater is actually what we've been seeing in the case loads. What we're going to pay particular attention to in the next few days, is we're seeing this now. So it sort of bounced around a little bit. But now we've had three testing cycles in a row where there's a increase, we're going to be watching this pretty close to see what that really means for for us as a community, in our hope is that we see something where it occurred here where it sort of went up, moved and then started trending down. But we'll be watching over the next few days. Because we do know that this generally means that we will see more cases in the next seven days. And we have in the previous seven days based on this trend. So we're going to continue watching that as well. And we'll hopefully have some more data to talk to you about next week in terms of what we're seeing as a result of our wastewater study. I know that was a quick overview of this, but generally moving in the right direction. And that's the you know, that's what we wanted to see, in our admin calls that we had Mike seen is still a priority. We have a lot of capability. It's really just actually having the vaccine available to give to folks. There's a lot of conversation regarding the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. What I read, and what I've heard is that I think Dr. falchi indicated that they thought within the next two to three weeks, it should move through the process. That's really going to be a big change in that as another supplier, but be it's also one dose vaccine that folks can get. And so that that's where everyone's really looking at making a lot of progress. President Biden did stay. I think his original goal was a million vaccines a day. And I think he raised that to 1.5 million. And a recent statement yesterday or day before yesterday. So everybody's really focused on this. And I think there's a lot of plans that are being developed. And what I can say is there's some really good plans where if we get more doses than our system can currently handle. We've got plans to get those going via other facilities. Some of those facilities are actually in Longmont in terms of getting that surge capacity move forward.
All right, Councilmember pack. Thank you,
Mayor Pro Tem. Um, Harold, thank you for that update specific to Longmont. What can you tell us what facilities are going to be available? And as far as the marginalized communities, especially the our ethnic communities? Do we have sites on the east side that are walkable that are available? Do we have also through I guess it would be our I don't know what organization would do it. But do we have any kind of a mobile unit to be able to go out like to the safe lot to the homeless? To meet all those specific needs in Longmont and I did reading I think it was the new york times where President Biden is is going to by 20 20 million more doses, he's paying for 20 more 20 million more doses. So I think that those you're right that those vaccinations will become available that medicine will be here. So how are we in Longmont? Not necessarily Boulder County, so
well and so when we look so a when we look at this, I will get that. We will that plan in terms of the admin group next year. They're still finalizing it right now.
all of the things that they're talking about, I would, at this point anticipate the fairgrounds being a major site. Okay, for just because of access and moving people through it. I know we're looking at some of our facilities. And when we say we're moving through it, we've looked at a few things that they're looking at is really high ceilings ventilation, ability to really separate and isolate folks, because you still have to have the physical distancing in this. So they've, I'm hearing of a couple, and then this concept of really, that mobile clinic is something that they're really starting to work on. Even actually, we've talked about utilizing our folks that can provide vaccinations in that mobile environment. And I know in our admin call yesterday, we're supposed to get back next week in terms of here's the plan, and here's what it looks like.
Perfect. I also have one more. Okay, this was from a constituent and I think it's important. He is a retired medical person who gave shots throughout his profession. He wants to know, where can they if if Longmont opens up, or even Boulder County opens up to wanting more personnel? Where can they sign up to volunteer? Is that being made available?
So Karen may have to help me on this one, but I forgot the name of it is through Boulder County Health and their health. I want to say Health Corps. But I need to contact them because that's where the volunteers go in. And they have to do all of the training because Dr. Urbina is the providing the physician oversight under this, so it falls under his license. And so that is being done through Boulder County Health. For example, even if we were going to use some of our paramedics, they have to go through their training protocol because it is under his license. And so Boulder County Health, and we will get you the name or I can I will get you all the name of what they need to volunteer for. I just forgot.
Yes, fine. Thank you very much.
Karen. Did you. So oops.
So hair on my other suggestion is that, you know, the hope light clinic does. I mean, so most of their providers are volunteer, retired medical providers. And so, you know, so I would also say that that could be a great avenue for volunteerism for the person that you're speaking about. So the hope light clinic. All right, thank
you, Councilmember Martin.
Actually, I think Councilmember it'll go fairing list first. Okay, sorry.
Just you know, where you fall in my screen. Sorry. Councilmember doggo Ferry. Thank you, Councilmember
Martin. I appreciate that. So I have a few questions. One is a follow up from Councilmember pecks. Question around the vaccine and volunteers. What is the criteria? if people wanted to volunteer? Do they have to? You had mentioned a training? But do they have to have medical certification prior to the training in order to be considered as a volunteer? Um, so
I know, and I will tell you about what we've talked about in terms of repurposing our staff. So probably the biggest thing is consistent being able to consistently serve in that function. Because, you know, as we talked about repurposing, for even looking at facilities, it can't be the one off, we have to really you have to be able to consistently do it on a regular basis, are then different components in this and so say, and most of probably the admin functions, that they're looking to other cities to provide and repurpose staff just because it's consistent. We know the systems in terms of the health care providers, but they indicated to me is, at least at this point, they would like people with experience in terms of, you know, actually giving shots versus training up what you're hearing in other places, that it's a pretty short course if you need volunteers, but but in terms of what we have, they really want people with that experience, but we can take a look at that from the gist and we will provide you with information.
Okay. And do you feel that we have enough personnel in the event we get more vaccines. So I know like for me, I've already put in my request as a as a teacher as an educator. For through Boulder County through Kaiser and through the district, and I haven't received any word. So, so I, you know, I know there's the vaccines aren't there for us yet.
yes, what I'm hearing in terms of I think the numbers around 20,000 a day. They have the ability to do and that's including all the hospital systems.
Okay, so right now, we just don't have the vaccines available. Okay. I
think we requested 20 plus 1000, and received 800, in Boulder County. And so so yes, I'm hearing we have the capability in Yes, they're building it to go beyond that. Mm hmm. To answer your question, so still in one be above the line?
I am hearing that there's conversations in terms of getting ready. Mm hmm. Statewide in terms of one view, the below the line, which is where the educators fall in, but that's, again, down the road, because there's still one be above the line and really focusing on 70 plus
I guess, for me, you know, being in the trenches, like right now, our preschool and kindergarten are all wiped out, they're on quarantine, we have buildings where whole grade level are in quarantine. So, you know, just to have I, you know, I understand that, you know, we need to acquire these vaccines, but just to create the sense of urgency. So who are listening, whoever has the the whoever the powers that be, you know, the vaccine gods. You know, we need to start the people who are out there in the trenches, and not just in the education field, but our grocery store workers are people who are trying to service the daily needs of our residents of our children of our our most frail, we need to get the vaccine in the hands of these people. It's it's just, it's been insane.
I'll just tell, I mean, everybody's focused on that. And we continue to make those to send those messages. And we'll continue doing definitely pass it on. We're really, I mean, everyone's really hoping the Johnson and Johnson moves through. Because it's, you don't have all of this thank, you know, you don't have to keep it as cold, it's easier to transport. It's one vaccination. Really, where we think we can make some moves. And then I believe AstraZeneca. Okay, my father's coming down. So we'll let you know.
I'm glad you mentioned that Johnson Johnson, because that was the other question I had, what was the effectiveness of that particular vaccine? So we won't know until they
put their formal proposal in. And I know that was supposed to come at least when I'm reading as I'm hearing, it's as effective that that'll come out before they issue the emergency approval.
Okay, and then my last question is in regard to COVID, the positivity rates affecting communities of color, and even looking at that slide with the vaccine, how disproportionately, you know, we have, what 5%, Hispanic and even less for other communities of color, who are the vaccine? So to me, that is concerning. I know, in the past, we've talked about what are, you know, we see these trends, but what are we doing as a community to help address that disproportionality? And, you know, I don't know what you know, I haven't really heard like a definite answer as to what have we discovered? What can we do to support this Thursday? I am part of the National Education Association. We're going to be in a fireside chat with Dr. Fauci. So I did my question, that same question to CDC. So it was I found out today it was accepted. So I'm hoping that I can get some answers at the national level. But bringing it down to the community, what are we doing at this level? What have you found? What can we do to best support our communities of color.
So a couple of things that have happened, so I know that Boulder County and now I'm gonna, I'm going to talk county first and then go local. So they have created, they've adjusted their structure and hire some folks in terms of really working in the world of cultural brokers and social equity. And so they've, they've began hiring staff. And I just dropped the name of the guy who works for the county that they just hired. He lives in Longmont really connected with Carmen in terms of the work that we're doing. And then really getting I mean, it really is about connecting with our cultural brokers and getting into the community. And I'll ask Carmen to join me next week to really talk about that. work more in depth. Because she can get she can give you a better sense of that. But you know, generally, I think what we're hearing, there's just so many issues and it's so different. It's, you know, when we talk about things like, what did we learn, I have to work, there's a Berto being. So when we did the testing sites and we heard from them, it's it's as basic of I don't want to get tested because I can't afford to be sick and I need to work. But then it's really talking about what resources are available. It's also when you talk about the multi generational households, and the inability to isolate there. So then you see more cases. And Alberto can go more in depth in this even to the point of it's really then just getting into communities and having the conversations and then when you when you hear the national dialogue on vaccine, how people traditionally see vaccines in this, there's a lot of history in that and culture related to how people receive vaccines in the past. And so it really is about that face to face connection. And so when we talk about the fire Star Program, He really said, Where can we use volunteers, it really is in that bilingual world and helping us really getting out and communicate with with businesses and people to try to spread the message, because I know from the folks that we have, so when I talked about Alberto and Carmen and Adriana, and the cultural brokers, we've really taxed them a lot, and it's adding capacity there. Let's communicate, that's probably something we could look to you to build even more resources there early Bertha.
So I'll just add a little bit, I think, I think Harold has covered most of it. But as far as the cultural broker network, gamma stuff, for me, has been hitting up this thing called Red that cultural brokers is really a social network of both formal and informal cultural brokers in the community. He's created, along with others, a resource list for, for immigrants, with a predominant Spanish speaking residents. And so there is a lot of work in the community. And a lot of our trusted organizations like ekomi de intercambio, sintomi star in Boulder, El Paso, you know, they there's a lot of good networking happening at the organization level. So that's a good thing. But to Harold's point, it's the challenging pieces capacity, are also doing there in particular, are our trusted institutions or interested organizations, they're still doing the work that they're doing, and trying to promote this this network and provide the resources, though it is it is a building capacity issue. One person is doing amazing. But yeah, I think we need to continue to support those efforts. So So yeah.
have le bear, do
I have one question for you? And you don't have to answer right now. But you could think about it. What do you think you would need for the city city council? What would you need of us to ensure that we can build that capacity in order to reach out people who are who are typically not interconnected with a lot of these organizations, these
So you don't have
to answer now? Yeah, I'll
have to think about it. And I'll have to connect with Carmen. Carbon is at the forefront of that work. But I'd be happy to connect with her and come back and provide a well thought out answer, because it's a great question. Let me let me take it back to Carmen and come back.
All right, Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Mayor
Pro Tem. My question is pretty simple. We have a lot of ways to sign up and get in the queue right now. And for the effectiveness of the distribution process, what's the best way for people to approach this? You know, like, if your provider has a signup? Should you just use that one? It should you sign up for every portal you can reach? Should you wait to sign up until they announced that you are that your group is is getting scheduled? Or should you sign up immediately? Nobody really knows the answer to those things.
So I'm trying to find this page. So I can share this with you all So let me share the screen with you. So if you go to Boulder County COVID-19 vaccines you go here. And you can see where they're talking about the vaccine locations and you have the different the different locations here. And it says can go to clinica.org. You have the Kaiser, where you sign in and you log in on Kaiser, ng super safe way, the lewd cu medical or CU Boulder medical services, you see how they. And then you have this prioritization here. Those, go to this page and sign up on everything that they have here is what I'm generally telling folks because the reality is, you don't know who's going to get the vaccine in where and and there's also a call a number I know they're working on trying to bring these into a common platform. But what I'm telling folks is to sign up on the platforms that are listed on this website. and sign up on all of them. maraca, I know you may be online, are you hearing any different from the just at this point?
I am not Harold.
And so go to this page, click the links go to it. We've all we're also putting information out in terms of the phone numbers that people can call because we also realize the digital divide in that component. And that's getting moving in where the state's doing it. So the answer would be sign up at all. The other piece that I wanted to say as a follow up to a question earlier is when we've looked at some of these other sites and really talking about 70 Plus, and other populations within our community is I've had a chance to talk to those people that were evaluating sites, it's you really need to look at locations that are trusted within the community in each individual community. Because what's a trusted location in Longmont is going to be much different for location in Boulder or Lewisville. And so when we kind of talked about our 70 plus population or Hispanic population, you know, we really did spend a lot of time looking at the area our facilities around Roosevelt because it's known and trusted. And it's also has access to bus bus system there, and transportation. And so those are the things they're fine tuning now in terms of looking at that additional capacity. And I just wanted you all to know, when we have those conversations, those are the things that we're talking about, because that's what's going to get us into some of the disadvantaged populations in our community.
I'd like to welcome Mark Bagley to the meeting. And
thanks. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. So anyway, I was out of town I supposed to be back at 11. But my flight got delayed and your roads were terrible. So apologize. Councillor Christiansen? Thanks again, Aaron for for covering.
You do great job.
And thanks, Mayor Pro Tem, Mayor Bagley and council members. I'm Harold Have you thought about speaking about trusted resources. Having a discussion with ministers, many people in the Latino community do go to church, mostly Catholic church. And if they're if they had discussions in the church or flyers in the church, it would be I think, a very helpful thing. And perhaps we could also send somebody to talk to Casa de la esperanza. There are a lot of people who live there. We had a very good discussion during the kind of crisis a few years ago with DACA, and different things like that. And the chief of public safety and County Public Defender, I'm sorry. Anyway, we went out there and had a very good meeting. And so that's another kind of trusted resource of where people feel comfortable. And I'm just wondering if you know, it will require people going to where people live when they're not taking off extra time to find out about this because, you know, if you're working all day long and people tell you, you got to take up some more time and Take off work, and it's not going to happen. But if you do it when they're at church, or when they're at their home, it makes it a little easier.
That's the mobile clinic concept that they're working on and trying to figure out, and what I'll probably do. So I get we get briefed Monday, and then Thursday and Thursdays, typically the better briefing for us. And I know there's more information coming back to us. Let me work with Alberto and Carmen, and really pull that back for next Tuesday, because we will have a more formalized plan across the board. And we can speak to those issues specifically. But I will say that is the concept of the of the mobile clinics actually going out and trying to do that.
I get one last comment because you weren't here married back very badly. So
you don't know everything.
You've not commented at all counselor pack. We're all at 0.1. We're good to go.
So just talking about sites really fast. Have you thought about using high school gyms. Those are in walkable high schools and middle schools are in walkable neighborhoods.
They did. I know in the admin call they did make they did talk that will offer was made by St. vrain. Valley. challenges is that it's only a couple of days, it could do it like a Friday, Saturday. And the pieces they need these to be able to go on a daily basis. In so again, all of it depends on the type. Okay, yeah, no, that's actually being that actually came up Monday yesterday.
All right. Anything else?
No, I think we're good. Again, the big piece, there's a lot of plans being made, what I would say is, there's a lot of capacity in Boulder County to provide vaccinations, what we need is vaccine. And they're building even more capacity, if we get enough vaccine to exceed the number that we can provide. And so there's just a lot of work being done on that right now. Obviously, the focus is the one B above the line. And so generally, that's the second tier of some of the health providers, it's COVID-19 response personnel. And then 70 Plus, and you really saw that number in the percentages. And so that's what they're going to continue working on. And next week, we will we will have a more detailed presentation on what we're doing with the cultural brokers.
All right, great. Thank you. All right. Let's go ahead is Jessica round.
right? And we're gonna turn the time over to you for a walk at Walmart Economic Development Partnership quarterly update, specifically for quarter four of 2020. But so Councilmember Martin has a cat, you have way better, you have something way better than the cat, and we never see it. So where's your child? Where's?
I'm at my office. People weren't working out.
All right. Okay. Well, next time.
We'll be sure. All right. Well, thank
you, Mayor. And thank you members of council. Start with a quick apology. I don't actually have slides for you tonight. Although I don't know how disappointed you're going to be in that. We just ran out of time to put slides together. So you all have my report in your packet and have hopefully had a chance to take a look at that. And I'll be speaking to some of the highlights of that as well as make myself available to answer any questions that you have about the contents of the report or anything else on one EDP related. Part of the reason that we ran out of time is that we have been focusing much of our energy and resource on getting the five star certification programs stood up for the county has some good news that our application was officially submitted to cdph II on January 19. actually expect approval by the end of week this week. So simultaneous to getting the application submitted and waiting on our approval from cdphp. We are working on the infrastructure of the program so that we can hopefully begin to take applications for five star certification as soon as February 4. And hopefully start to actually issue certificates, safety search certificates as soon as February 8. So within the next couple of weeks, we expect to have that program fully up and running. And we do have some significant resource needs related to that program. The number one resource need is actually people and we talk about volunteers and we are in need of volunteers to serve and be trained. To be trained and then served as safety certification inspectors. So if anybody's interested in that they can reach out to me. We have had some early conversations with some private industry folks that have expressed an interest in repurposing some of their employees, and or utilizing Corporate Social Responsibility volunteer hours for that. So we've had good response, but we can always use more.
Just again, in people that are bilingual.
bilingual employees, thurs volunteers, it's really,
yeah, bilingual volunteers will be very important. And we also do have a financial resource needs. So the program itself, we've identified funding for and much of it, as we've talked about, talked about before, will be paid through the application fees that businesses that are able to pay will pay, and that we are looking to set up a scholarship or grant fund, both for the purpose of paying the application fee for businesses who are unable, as well as to provide some resource to help businesses that can't afford to pay for any changes or safety mitigation. Factors that they'll have to correct in order to receive their certification. And so we're going to set up a fund for that as well, so that anyone will be able to contribute to that we've had great response to our early requests for interest both on the site of businesses interested in certifying, as well as businesses, saying, Yes, I can pay for my certification, I also like to contribute to somebody else's certification. So we've seen some kindness, which really gave us the idea to reach out to the larger community to see if there are others that are interested in, in supporting businesses less fortunate than than their own, to be able to get this certification. And we really think it's and continue to hear that it's going to be a lifeline for a number of businesses within our hardest hit industries. I do want to speak to the equity piece, the very first kind of subcommittee task force of our administrative committee, our required administrative Committee for the Five Star Program was an equitable deployment Task Force. And so that consists of Carmen Ramirez, as well as Marisa from my team and Ricardo from the Latino Chamber of Commerce. And they're really working on building an infrastructure, or equitable deployment of our program, including the use of cultural brokers and addressing some of the cultural challenges that we know that we'll face in getting into businesses that maybe I don't know to trust us or to trust the safety certification program. So I think it will be a valuable conversation to have to see how we can possibly lift and shift that infrastructure that will be built through this program to some of the other things that you're talking about vaccine deployment and improve testing. So we'll be happy to participate in that conversation. Alright, so
with that, I will get into as I mentioned, some of the highlights of our the 2020 q4 report that you've been provided, of course, much of 2020 was consumed by a COVID-19 response and recovery. And that business response team made up of our advanced summit partner organizations does continue to convene and collaborate on a number of efforts. Certainly the Five Star Program has been an all hands on deck initiative. We're also working with the Longmont downtown Development Authority and along one chamber on potential development of an online platform. We're calling it et CIE for Longmont businesses. Basically, we we've had an offer from Well, we actually reached out and local software development for real where has agreed to donate the development and ongoing maintenance and management of an online platform. We're just trying to assess interest of our local businesses right now and participating in something like that. And but we're ready to go and get that developed and launched. Assuming there is interest, we also continue to support businesses and their ability to connect with all of the other resources that are available to them from grant programs at the local level to the federal new round of PPP funding. ERC credits, all of the things that are available to them. We continue to be a connecting point from our business community to and really all of the partner organizations continue to be a connecting point for our business community to those resources. I'm going to talk really quick because it's in the report about one one EDP funding and certainly funding for nonprofits is has been challenging over the course of the last year and long one EDP is no different. And so it just wanted to speak to what you see in the report, which is that from a total revenue perspective, one one ATP in 2020 was down about 5% from the previous year. We're and our private sector investment or private contribution was down about 20%, which we anticipated, we were actually anticipating or projecting closer to 35 to 38%. And so 28% down, which will not great, is certainly better than what we were originally projecting, and still up 6% from where we were at in 28. Or I'm sorry, in 2018. And I, so I do want to just make a point of saying thank you, to city council and to our city leaders for continuing to support the organization and the work that we do, because that's really been critical to our ability to have even been a part of response and recovery, or COVID, will also continuing to do the normal workload of an economic development organization like ours. And going into the talent objectives section of the report, our national marketing campaign continues for talent attraction. 2020, was really about launching the campaign as an awareness campaign. So starting to generate the following, and the audience of talented individuals across the country that we would like to consider long launch and the career opportunities that we offer here, looking forward to 2021 will be really focused on how do we convert that kind of top of funnel awareness into a more bottom of funnel marketing funnel transactional benefit for our community and for the businesses that still have labor shortages and need to identify talent. We've had over 3 million impressions on that marketing campaign. And so really think that the time is right now for us to start to work on transitioning that into really more transactional benefit. also mentioned the loan monster to Home program that we have talked about a number of times, which is really our effort to mitigate reduce, eliminate some of the barriers to entry to homeownership for our local labor force, understanding that we can impact the price of homes. So the start start to Home program, we've had six completed transactions today. So six people have entered into homeownership that may not have otherwise been able to, if not for those program, and we expect that number to go up to 15 by the end of February, and we now have over 100 people registered with the site in pursuit of homeownership here in the Longmont and the immediate region. One of the one of my favorite statistics from the search to Home program is that the majority of those transactions are in that 300,000 to $500,000 price range. So really hitting the target that we want to hit, which is the largest percentage of the workforce, pursuing workforce housing opportunities here in Longmont.
From a talent pipeline development perspective, you'll see in the report that much of that work, like a lot of our advanced than what 2.0 work was has been deferred to 2021. However, we did successfully complete and submit a grant to the Economic Development Administration in partnership with the st. Green Valley School District, that if we are successful with that was submitted in October, if we're successful in winning that grant will help to find a partnership between long run EDP and the school district around innovative approaches, approaches to work based learning and engaging private industry in work based learning opportunities. We expect to hear by the end of q1 of this year, whether or not we've been successful in winning that grant. Talk a little bit about the North Metro Enterprise Zone, which has also been a great resource we've seen more use of that program this year than we have in previous years, I think people are looking for any source of either cost savings or capital infusions to support their businesses. So we actually had 83 businesses take advantage of tax credits through the Enterprise Zone program. So over $700,000 in tax credits claimed amongst those businesses, so an average of about 80 $500 per business and tax savings through the North Metro Enterprise Zone program. Our prospect pipeline remains active, we have worked with 45 prospects primary industry prospects for either expansion or relocation. Though I will say in 2020, we can't check a lot of those off as wins, not because they're not still active or not, because they've chosen not to locate in one month, there's just a much longer timeline. And companies suddenly have a lot more patience for some of the decisions in terms of where to locate and even what those locations are going to look like. Considering the potential all the possible theories around what the future of work is going to look like, especially from an office environment. We had a handful of primarily retention and expansion projects that resulted in either the retention of many jobs or the creation of dozens rather than the hundreds of jobs that we would normally see any year from relocation and expansion projects. But we continue again to have a very active pipeline that has a lot of positive potential for 2021 potential out to 2022. We have completed the real estate market assessment that we did in partnership with Longmont downtown Development Authority. And we'll be presenting that to our leadership over the next couple of weeks at both the downtown Development Authority leadership, my board of directors, my leadership council, before we release that publicly, although we're happy to share it with you all if anybody's interested in seeing that, or you can come to our February 8 board meeting where we'll be presenting that information on the entrepreneur side with innovate Longmont and to be on what continues to actively support local entrepreneurs and startups and and throughout the year, except it's 13. Companies into the accelerator, seven of those have graduated, the other six are still actively going through that accelerator program. Oh, with advanced on web 2.0. As you know, we've hired collective impact coordinator, Marisa bilangan, at who and with a very intentional effort to start to reconvene the working groups and push forward some of the strategic initiatives of advanced 112 point oh, you have all been invited to and hopefully many of you will be able to participate in our annual advanced one month Leadership Summit on January 29. Historically, that's really been focused on the strategy itself. This year, we're shifting that to a focus on the collective impact framework, and how we operate within that collective impact framework and the implementation of advanced on what 2.0 so we're kind of calling it collective impact one on one, so hopefully many of you will be able to join us for that. So then when we look at the broader economic overview from a jobs perspective,
they're currently an estimated 54,545 jobs in the Longmont area. To remind you, we look at an area that is a bit bigger than the city of Longmont itself, because most of this is most of this data is available only at a zip code level. So we have to incorporate all of these zip codes that are in Longmont, but 54,545 jobs which accurately represents a point 4% increase in the number of jobs across all industries in the city of Longmont over the previous year, November unemployment in Longmont, which is the most recent data that's available that at 5.8%, which is in comparison to 6.4% for the state of Colorado, and 6.7%. For the country as a whole. Of course, different industry sectors have experienced this pandemic very differently. And so when we break that down, some of the numbers related to specific industries, especially those most heavily impacted aren't nearly as positive as as what I just reported with make it sound. And so just to give you an understanding of that within our targeted industries, our targeted industry clusters of smart manufacturing, food and beverage, business catalysts and knowledge creation and deployment point 2% increase in employment compared to the national negative or point 4% loss in employment across those industries. So relatively good news, slow growth, but growth still in the number of jobs within those industries. But then when we look at the most heavily impacted industries, by the covid 19 pandemic and the public health requirements associated our restaurant industry here in Longmont saw a 9% reduction reduction in jobs in comparison to eight and a half percent across the country. Our retail sector saw a loss of 2.4% in jobs as compared to 3.4% across the US and our personal services sector 4.1% job loss versus 5.2. I'm sorry, 5.27% loss across the US. So obviously a number of industries that we have a very strong concentration of here in Longmont severely impacted one of the initiatives that we're looking at it through our advanced Longmont 2.0 plan and the collective impact framework is recognizing that some of those jobs are not coming back for a very long time, if ever, how do we help to transition those displaced workers into some of these industries that continue to see a very serious labor shortage, like the construction industry like some of our manufacturing industries here locally. So that's one of the things that we'll be looking at in 2021 and beyond. And with that, I'll also remind you all you should have received a invitation to our 2021 economic summit event which will be virtual this year, over the course of two mornings February 25 and 26th. I will have slides then and will give a very detailed at impact report as well as forward look at 2021 and beyond as part of that event. And with that Or any questions?
All right, Dr. Waters.
Thanks very badly. Jessica,
lots of data in a great report, even without slides. Um, I am curious, as you, you've spent so much time and effort with your membership your investors to, to work your way through and work them through the pandemic, at some point your conversation and it may already have turned towards what will be a debt, what will be the differentiators in the post pandemic future for communities that that recover quickly, that are resilient, that can sustain their recovery? And what role there might be for their elected officials or none to play or none? Not to play? In that future in in that recovery? Is there a perspective you have on this? Is this a Is this a conversation? It's active? And any part of that would be? Would it be part of that be
present presented or facilitated in your conference activity coming up? Just curious, what what what should we be thinking about as elected officials, as we anticipate the post pandemic future and what part we play to help with differentiating Longmont from all others?
Thank you very Councilmember waters. Thank you for that question. I don't know if exactly the answer you're looking for at one of the things that we've seen. And that suggests that you're looking for a specific answer, but I don't know that I'm answering exactly the question that you're asking. But one of the things that we've seen as kind of a silver lining of 2020, all things 2020 has been this higher level of collaboration and alignment across organizations, both out of necessity of the necessity of limited resources as a result of the pandemic and some of the fiscal impacts of that on our organizations. And certainly, when I talk about collaboration and alignment it's been across, and organizations here, both locally and long left, but also across communities in the region. And so it's part of the North Northern Colorado region, the noco. Ready, which I can't remember the it's an acronym, but it's that the northern Colorado recovery initiative has been a collaboration amongst communities all across northern Colorado, the work that we've done with the boulder Economic Council in the boulder chamber on the Five Star Program, continued strengthening of regional efforts through the metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, I think one of the things that we would like to see happen and we've heard is going to be necessary both from private industry as well as we just know, because of the fiscal limitations that we face as a result of what will be a slow recovery from this economic related economic development downturn is stronger alignment and stronger partnership between the public and private sectors. And we have to recognize that our biggest challenges as well as our greatest opportunities as a community and as a region, aren't going to be answered by the public sector, they aren't going to be answered by the private sector alone, there's going to be half going to have to be answered by strong alignment partnership and cohesion between public and private sectors who both share the same interest and recovery of our local economy.
All right, Jessica, thank you very much. You appreciate all your work and effort and customer Christiansen was that a wave or was that a? No? Okay, that was just a friendly wave. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you, Jessica. All right. Let's go on then to first call public invited to be heard. If you don't mind. We're gonna go ahead and take a customer Martin.
Oh, I was just raising my hand to address the consent agenda. Oh, well, why
don't we do that after after public invited to be heard? And then we'll, we'll come back. Alrighty. So let's take a three to four minute break.
Alright folks, for those of you who are watching the live stream, now is the time for you to call in. If you wish to speak to city council. You're going to want to dial our toll free number 1888788009 again 1-888-788-0099 when prompted You're going to enter the meeting id 82823739212. Again 82823739212. When it asks for participant ID press the pound sign. When you're led into the meeting, you're going to want to mute the live stream. We will then you'll be entered into the waiting room and we will admit you into the meeting. So again, there is a delay on the live stream, you're going to want to listen to the instructions through your telephone
All right, we back.
All right, give me just a minute, let's make sure that we get caught up on our live stream in the screen shows us back in session here. And there it goes. I believe everyone else we're missing. Councilmember Christiansen
it looks like
for those callers who are now part of the meeting, please mute the live stream. We will be calling your phone number by the last three digits. I will ask you to unmute, please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes. All right, Mayor. I'm ready to begin. Are
you ready? Okay.
How many people do we have?
Six looks like
All right, the first caller, your phone number ends in 271271. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Are you there? There you are. Hello.
Yes. Hi. Hi,
you may begin.
Okay. My name is Diana Chaldean. My address is 1850 princess drive Longmont. And I wanted to comment tonight, I've sent emails. So I'm going to comment again, about the five star certification program. And I continue to be opposed to it. As I'm opposed to any further government type of overreach into our businesses, small businesses and such. I think that based on my observations, and what I've been experiencing and paying attention to, I just don't see any valid reason to incorporate more hoops for our business owners to jump through. You know, this, the virus, although real, has, obviously better than 99% survival rates are no different than the flu that we've been dealing with for hundreds of years. And I just don't see any valid reason for the government to be involved in one more aspect of running a business, opening a restaurant and getting back to normal. And I wanted to let you know that I am opposed to this contract with businesses. Thank you.
All right, our next caller, your number ends in 488488. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you are. Can you hear me? Yes.
Okay, my name is Scott Cunningham. I live on South narcissist in Denver. I would like to address the council this evening on the subject of long months published goal of achieving 100% renewable energy by 2030. I suggest that if you want to reach this laudable goal, you have absolutely no time to waste. And you must begin this important pilot immediately. In fact, I suggest that you invite without delay, a renowned team of renewable energy consultants that I'm familiar with to present their proven plan to make long months own Habitat for Humanity community this region's first 100% renewable energy pilot. This pilot would resemble the neighbor hood of assault VISTA on the western slope, a renewable project led by the local habitat chapter in cooperation with holycross energy and inro. Each home has an eight kilowatt rooftop solar panel system with storage batteries with a wired control system that automatically enables houses within the neighborhood to share power in real time, creating reliable energy for everyone within the community. It bears pointing out that the bi directional controllers used utilized in basalt are much different from the more limited ami smart meters, which provide only a metering function, but no means of distribution or storage. As is invariably the case with emerging bleeding edge technological innovations, Longmont would have really no hope of implementation of a system like this. Apart from securing access to insiders to the field, with demonstrated ability to complete a project of this magnitude. Fortunately, I can provide you access to a small group of seasoned practitioners within this field, holding a track record of successful project completions who can place your goal of getting to 100 by 2030, within reach. In summary, for the first time in human history, we possess the tools to reliably generate, store and distribute energy directly from our environment without the scourge of environmental pollution, and without health and safety risks. I suggest that as custodians of long month's future, you harness this historic opportunity by inviting this elite team of renewable energy consultants to present our detailed process to give Longmont the region's first 100% renewable pilot at your first opportunity. Thank you very much.
All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 499499. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
There you are. Oh. Hi, this is Joe Kelly of barberry Drive Longmont Good evening to you. We've been in a month long conversation on the pros and cons of rolling out advanced metering infrastructure or wireless smart meters here at Longmont City Council. And a discussion on whether or not non ionizing radiation poses health risks. And whether or not wireless tech broadcast over microwave frequencies, poses health and security risks among other and although this wireless threat as many of us directly experience it affects all biological life. human children are shown to be particularly at risk. And kids are increasingly being willfully exposed even addicted to wireless tech from an early age to their detriment. And yet, since 1996, the Federal Communications Commission has made has remained entrenched in its position. That biological harm occurs only where there are thermal effects. 24 years on from those antiquated rules and standards, science shows this to be patently false. Today we have some very good breaking news on this topic, at least from my perspective. Yesterday, oral arguments in a landmark case against the FCC were hurt in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit brought by the children's health Defense Robert Kennedy Jr's organization. in concert with the environmental health trust headed by debt Dr. Deborah Davis, Nobel co laureate, and various other plaintiffs including Fort Collins, resident Virginia farver, a name you all know, seeks to adjudicate whether the FCC needs reevaluate its 1996 rules to potentially include damage caused by non ionizing radiation that is found in cell phones, WiFi and wireless smart meters, and many other wireless devices. An article from the Kennedys ch D states. The judges asked excellent questions and showed in depth knowledge of the case the Honorable Judge Henderson, a chemical engineer by training, told the FCC I'm inclined to rule against to a rare and strong statement from a judge. The Honorable Judge millet consistently pushed the FCC to answer why the FCC and or FDA didn't review the evidence on non cancer effects of wireless technology, why they addressed only cell phones when there's evidence on effects from various other devices and infrastructure, and why they didn't address the cumulative effects from the chronic exposure of numerous devices. This reporting should give city council pause with an impending wireless smart meter rollout is Longmont really want to gamble its 16 million ami budget on this. A very real potential spanner in the works. The ruling from the DC court should come in four to eight months they will will they remand these antiquated rules back to the FCC for a long overdue do over? Stay tuned. Thank you for your time.
All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 648. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you are.
Can you hear me?
I can. You may be Good evening. My name is Paige Lewis and I live at 805 knots on Park Lane. I'm calling to strongly encouraged your support for sustaining that ice rink and the associated programs at least through February and if possible through the regular season ending in mid March. The ice pavilion and the associated hockey and ice skating programs for us have always been a really unique Valmont resource. And that has been particularly true during this COVID time when opportunities for recreation are so much more limited. My son participates in the youth hockey program at the ice pavilion and I really can't overstate how valuable that program has been for keeping him active in a safe and healthy environment this winter. The program leads really not a tremendous job of adapting the program to keep it growing despite limitations and the need for a lot of adjustments. As a family we also enjoy going to open skate and have so appreciated having that option available. I understand and support the city's need to be fiscally responsible. And in this case, based on conversations I've had with other families that are associated with the hockey program. I believe that much of the 25,000 to 32,000. Costs indicated in the staff memo could be covered through additional registration fees through the hockey program along with additional private rental that could further supplement this. And there may be other external resources as well to help with the cost. Ultimately, I think it's likely that only a small amount if any of the council's discretionary funds would be needed to sustain this truly valuable resource. While the benefit to the community would be tremendous. I'm sure that during COVID, the city has had to make other difficult decisions about maintaining recreation resources such as the recreation center and senate Centennial pool going despite the challenges of generating revenue as in previous years, that I hope you will do that for this unique resource and allow it to continue at least through February for the benefit of Longmont, kids and families, including mine. Thank you very much for your consideration. I really appreciate it. All right, our next
I thought was six. Go ahead.
We have two more. The next caller your phone number ends in 700. I'm going to ask you to unmute.
Hi, good evening Mayor Bagley and city council members. My name is Shelley deer King. I'm the executive director of St. Benedict health and healing ministry. Our address is 665 Aspen Ridge drive in Lafayette. We're a nonprofit organization that provides free health care clinics in Boulder County. And my purpose and calling in tonight is one to share a bit of information about who we are, but also to appeal to the city council and to the Health and Human Services Advisory Board to please include us in this round of funding. We were one of only a handful of organizations who were notified we were receiving $0 in this round of the Health and Human Services funding. And I'm appealing to you because we need your support to be able to deliver on our comprehensive COVID-19 vaccination initiative. So before we get into that, a little bit about us St. Benedict health and healing ministry was founded in 2003. And we have been providing free clinics for the uninsured, the under insured the homeless and undocumented in Boulder County. All of these years in the city of Longmont. More than half of the patients that we see live in the city of Longmont and we partner with the center and with help. Currently, we have over 30 volunteer licensed professional clinicians providing care on a weekly basis. Those include physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and EMTs. And we provide an array of services, everything from blood pressure checks and glucose checks to treating acute illnesses and wound care. on a regular basis this fall, we also get flu vaccines. And we are registered with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to be a COVID-19 vaccine provider. We have a mobile clinic unit that we have acquired in the past year and already put into service and we are ready to get out there, and vaccinate. So why are we important in this system of what Boulder County is planning, more important, because we already served the folks that are under representative under represented in the state's current state's vaccination plan. And that's what you folks have been seeing, which are the ethnic and racial disparities and among the homeless, and these folks have higher risk to developing severe disease from COVID-19 due to poor health and nutrition, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, heart disease, lung disease, and so forth. When you were talking earlier, about COVID-19 vaccinations, we're going to be able to help get folks vaccinated because we see them every week, and they trust us. And we've already built a rapport. We're going to register people on the spot, they don't have to have an appointment in advance, we're going to be out in the neighborhoods where we normally go and add sites during our vaccination initiative. To reach even more folks, we already go to the churches. And where folks are receiving their soup kitchen lunches, at the our center where they're getting their food boxes. And so we're there and we're ready to provide those vaccinations. But in order to do that, we need your help, and we need your funding. We know that this is going to be a prolonged vaccination period. It's going to require boosters against various strains that pop up and re vaccinations. And we're not a pop up clinic or somebody who's been solid in the community for 17 years. And we want to continue to deliver on that and just need your help. So thank you for the opportunity to share information. And we ask you to consider. Thank you.
All right, our last caller, your phone number ends in seven, zero to 702. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you are. Can you hear me? Hello? Hello?
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can. All right. You
may begin, sir. Please state your name and address for the record.
Sure. My name is Paul Sakura. I live at 3651 clover Creek lane in Longmont. It was calling to talk about the ice hockey rink at the pavilion in Longmont, my daughter, please, in the midget league over there. And we discussed in the previous meeting, that a majority of the parents were looking to fund or pay the difference to extend the season. And that would actually, you know, help cover the cost to keep the ice pavilion open, at least until the end of March. I know there was a lot of discussion about that causing a ripple effect or opening Pandora's Box about maybe other sports not being able to stay open at the Rec Center for their activities. But, you know, we kind of thought that if they were willing to pay the difference to have their seasons extended, then perhaps that would work out well for them as well. That's all I have. And thank you very much.
Mary, that was the last caller.
All right, thank you. So let's go on then with the consent agenda.
Let's read it first. And then Councillor Martin all upon you.
Thank you, Mayor. item nine a is ordinance 2021 dash 10 a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 15 point O two point o d and amending chapter 15.0 4.030 D 23. And chapter 15.10 point 010 e of the Longmont municipal code on short term rentals, public hearing and second readings scheduled for February 9 2021. Nine B is ordinance 2021 dash 11. A bill for an ordinance of conditionally approving the vacation of 11 right of way and utility easements within the planned Northstar subdivision generally located north of plateau road and east of Mount Audubon drive. public hearing and second reading scheduled for February 9 2021 90. Is resolution 2021 dash 10. a resolution to the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement among the city Lewisville Police Department boulder police department, University of Colorado Police Department Lafayette police department, Netherland police department, Ward Marshal and the Boulder County Sheriff's Office for the memorandum of understanding for law enforcement response. 90 is resolution 2021 dash 11 a resolution in Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement among the city, the 20th judicial district attorney and a law enforcement agencies in Boulder County for the memorandum of understanding to continue to participate in the Boulder County investigation team to investigate officer involved shootings and in custody deaths involving peace officers, nine E's resolution 2021 dash 12 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement among the city, the 19th judicial district attorney and the law enforcement agencies in the 19th judicial district for the protocol governing the critical incident response team. Nine F is resolution 2021 dash 13 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the memorandum of understanding between the city and Fort Collins utilities. Pardon me for electric peak demand notification and nine G is approval of housing and Human Services Advisory Board recommendation to fund two projects from the 2021 affordable housing funds available.
We have Councilmember Martin, the really good Councilmember Kristen then we're going to go with Councilmember Peck. And Dr. Waters wants to say something I thought I saw him Nope. Okay. And then when you're done talking, just speak up.
Thank you Mayor Bagley, I would like to pull item f which is our 21 dash 13
Okay, Counselor Christiansen
I would like to pull Item A which is ordinance 2021 10.
So A and F Councilmember Peck,
like to pull item nine g
gonna have to start taking notes A F and G. Would you like to make a motion joke? Yes,
I would like to move the consent agenda minus items nine a nine G and nine F. Second.
Go ahead. Councilmember Christiansen
and just a second.
All right, then.
Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, consent agenda passes unanimously. Let's go on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. Let's go ahead and take a brief three minute break to allow people to get into the queue should they want to speak at the public hearings. So that said if you are on the line, or if you are not in line, but want to get on the line, we're going to take three minutes to allow anyone who wants to speak at the reading of the second ordinances and express your views or thoughts or questions during the public hearing. Now is the time
Thank you All right,
we got anybody.
Mayor we do not give give me just a minute let the live stream catch up
because it's still displaying the slide
that'll give council time to get back. And you should be good.
All right. All right, let's
go on with ordinance 2105 a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities to the city Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2021. Any questions or concerns or comments? From council? No Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing on this particular matter. We have motion please.
I'll move ordinance 2021 dash Oh, five. Second.
It's been moved by Dr. Waters counts. Seconded by Councilmember Christiansen any further discussion or debate? Seeing none All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, ordinance. 2021. Dash Oh, five passes unanimously. Item 10. b ordinance 20 2106. A bill for an ordinance approving the modern West concept plan amendment general located north of Nelson road east of Airport Road south of Rogers road in west of Anderson Street. there any questions? Any questions from council? All right, seeing none. We're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing on this matter since nobody called in. Can we have a motion please? counselor waters.
I see Brian
is turned on scammer. You want to say i and i think i think we have some some folks here from Israel, or the Rocky Mountain Institute. I
I do have some questions and I'm interested in aspects of that project.
Then that's fine. If you got questions. Let's go ahead and do it. So Dr. Waters, go ahead and
ask your questions. Well, Brian, I'd be curious, given Israel in the Rocky Mountain Institute's roles in this in this project to get a little bit more information. I read them in materials. I know there's a there's a lot of attachments. But I didn't find how their work is being funded. And if I start there and and just understand how their work is being funded in this project, I may have another question or two.
So mayor and council member waters. I really don't have a presentation this evening. But I'm happy to respond to any questions you might have. I know David Slater. The airport manager is also available. If you have questions for staff, Barb Bronk, is here this evening, as well as there's representatives from other representatives from the applicant, as well as representatives from Rocky Mountain Institute, as well as the National Renewable Energy Lab to respond to any questions that Council has. And so with that, maybe I'll turn it over to Barb and see if she wants to make a few preliminary remarks and then kind of go from there.
I guess the only thing that'd be great, but Dr. orders you have any specific questions that you want to ask is what? Yeah, well, my
specific question was they play? It looks like you're playing significant roles. Is that funded by the developer? Or is there is there another funder of the work that in rail in Rocky Mountain Institute will do in this project?
Right, so So, exactly, so what I want to do is let's address that question. But I don't want an impromptu presentation, if that makes sense. So, so if whoever is going to answer that question, let's do it. But there's no need unless there's a question from counsel to talk about it other than the questions, but go ahead.
Mr. Mayor, BB Bronk. Mesa conservation partners box 1522 Longmont. in deference to your comments, we are going to forego our presentation, I hope that you've all had a chance to see the video presentation, because in the video, both Kara Carmichael and Shanti PLAs talk about their role in the in the project. So we were going to ask you to show the video this evening. But I get from your conversation that that's not on your list. So what I would like to do is ask first Shanti and then khara to talk about how they're integrated into the project. And
the short answer is yes, they are being funded by the developer. And they are have their own work plan that brings them to the table in their goals for their organization. So I'm going to ask first, Shadi, if you could speak to Dr. Waters question and then we'll ask follow with Cara.
happy to have a few comments there. Yeah. Shanti plus, I'm a researcher and REL. I'm in the communities and urban Sciences Research Group. And so my day job funded through the Department energy is to do research in zero energy communities, you energy development, how these developments can integrate with utilities, with all the stakeholders to deliver on the promise of 100% renewables for communities like this. And so that's that's what I do as a researcher, right. And so we're projects like, like the modern West are available for us to participate in, we engage because it is well aligned with the with the research goals that we have. And so we can really understand the real barriers that are out there in the industry, and then document those and try to solve those for the greater all the other development that he was hopping around the United States with similar goals.
Cara, hi, Cara
I'm a principal in our mind is buildings practice. And I'm really excited about this project, I have to say Rmi, we don't typically get involved in developments or consulting arrangements like this, we are operating as a fee for service consultant to the developer. But as Barb said, we have we have a larger scaling plan. And we really hope through our involvement to make this project a lighthouse model for great interactive buildings and communities and take this model and scale it elsewhere. So we're fairly selective on what kinds of projects we get involved in. But I see real potential for this project to impact others across the US so we're we're not only really excited to make this a shining example in itself, but we want to help other developments replicate the successes.
Just one follow up then.
Oh, absolutely. And then we're gonna go with after this. We're gonna go with Councillor Christiansen then Councillor Peck.
Yeah, just one more just in terms of dissemination. If it's an army, the official As an r&d initiative for Rmi, and for Israel, the developers funding the work. Will will there be a dissemination plan or or education and public outreach effort? as you as you learn your way forward?
I would add, I think it's going to start at the beginning of the project really in shaping, kind of putting the right bones in place so that it can get carried through throughout the development, and then we'll have a period at the end of kind of reflecting on what worked and what we maybe need to shift and do better.
Go ahead, Polly quit the job.
Just chime in what she's done.
Okay, this is a question for both car and shanty. Because you have a nice, big piece of land, there's a great potential to use geothermal, which is such as was used at the Kestrel development in Lafayette. Will you be doing any of that on this project?
I think, you know, ground source heat pump systems are certainly a technology a key technology that's gonna advance decarbonisation. So it's absolutely kind of on the shortlist of key technologies that we're going to be looking into.
Okay, I'm going to chime in there. So I'm getting a lot of texts from people who are very unhappy that they're not that we're not showing the video, they are saying this is exactly why they tuned in because you know that we have a large population that's interested in green buildings. So I am asking that we please see that video.
And that's fine. All I was saying is that staff did not have a presentation. And I just didn't want to have an impromptu presentation. But if you if there's a member of council has questions, comments, or wants more information, that's why we're here. So why don't we go ahead and show the video for council member pack and the rest of council. Thank you,
it might my overall. And I always say this to developers, if you're on second reading, a lot of times just developers make it more difficult than it needs to be. So you're just not going to notice I'm just saying I'm trying to help you meaning here we are now talking about project. So here we go.
Mayor Give me just a sec.
You can design and build an amazingly beautiful architectural masterpiece. And if there is no human element and soul invested into that you feel an emptiness. All the different building types and experiences I've had for going on 30 years. It's all being culminated into this project. Modern West is a new way to do land development brings in a mix of uses commercial, industrial, living for art play, expression, home
intention, the goal of modern West is to provide flexibility and opportunity to use spaces that you wouldn't traditionally use, who are really trying to capture some of this maker entrepreneurial spirit, if you want to bring some of that or industrial equality and spaces that are more natural filling, big openings, positioning trees, framing views to the mountains, getting to interact with the seasons.
This project was really interesting from the beginning, because I've worked with a lot of developers. And Derek is a special type of developer. He's a very intentional person in everything he does. He's really, really engaged in the online community because he lives there. He's concerned about the future for his kids, where they're gonna grow up and live.
Our partnership with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Rocky Mountain Institute will help us put sustainability at the forefront. There are a group of the brightest minds with Building Science in the world of innovation,
maybe too nerdy,
cost effective decarbonization, it sounds like some
horror movie recommend Institute is excited, we're playing a couple critical roles on the modern West project. We don't get involved in a huge range, but really focused projects that are pushing the bounds of innovation. The modern West team is composed of the biggest nerds in the energy space. And so our goal really is to put all of the right pieces in the right order so that the sustainability part is just embedded in the fabric
of the development.
The building sector is the single largest contributor of co2 emissions in the world right now. A big part of our role is integrating all of these technologies and concepts and ideas in conjunction with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and making them cost effective.
So I've been at enrile National Renewable Energy Lab for 20 years. Get to work on projects that are really moving the industry forward. And modern West is one of those. It's going above and beyond where most developments at this stage go and REL represents objective science based third party participants. What modern West is attempting to do around xinji communities is well aligned with our research trying to deploy and demonstrate large scale net zero developments
The way we look at net zero energy is a set of buildings that produce more on site renewable energy than they use from the utility of the course of a year. In places like Longmont, where we have over 300 days a year of sunshine, we can take advantage of that to be our primary energy producing resource. And a lot of the research that's happening is how to best integrate those solutions into the grid. Because everyone put solar on their building in the middle of the day, the utility would not be able to absorb all that extra renewable energy. So having a small municipal utility that will work with developments like this, as an active partner, is a key opportunity for this type of project. projects like this for the state are critical to prove that it can be done,
and we have to figure out how to do it affordably.
Studies have shown that netzero energy doesn't cost more upfront, if it's done right. We've been learning
lessons about live work for a while now we find that people have a space to go like a makerspace or a collaborative space, then they'll go there to work as well. And it's more of a communal effort.
With our live work rowhomes we want to create a space where micro business can thrive.
So we thought it'd be a great idea to start to provide these industrial bays that a little bit bigger than something you would find traditionally,
all of this commercial and light industrial use envelops
the residential portion of the site. From a utility perspective, the mixed use amenities that it has on site, they're quite complimentary. And when they use energy over
the course of the day live work component also helps
build community. When you have artists and entrepreneurs and makers living together, it creates a spirit of vibrancy and a lightness.
You think there's not a place like this
in the region, it's all about
privacy, if you want to be part of the community,
have multifamily buildings, they're all
connected by these green spaces and pathways, more pedestrian friendly environment. And so the container collected itself by creating a space together, we're able to take this really narrow strip and integrate these two ideas, Tiny Homes and community garden
shares of common interest. You
oftentimes don't see
art woven into
projects. So that's where modern West is. Well, it's more on a human level. The materials
are gonna be pretty raw in nature, concrete, still
we can actually design buildings specifically for
certain age groups. We want
to appeal to Generation Z, all the way up to baby boomers.
The modern West Side meets a lot of the guiding principles that are laid out in the Envision land land plan, and that's
kind of where we found our alignment with what longmans trying to do
affordable housing, we're going to create economic development, green space, the idea is to preserve what's succeeding in Longmont right now and to provide direction for the future. Creation of smaller production facilities is a need that Longmont sees.
How can we leverage the opportunities in this community to support Longmont power's goals of clean, reliable energy, the grid in the US? There's a lot of municipal utilities that are asking the exact same questions. How can we decarbonize our grid and our buildings in unison.
Modern West sits just east advanced brand airport. And we're on a flight path, we have to be mindful of that relationship and partner with the airport. We've actually designed our buildings to relate to the air traffic
with the intention being that everybody that lives and works in this community is going to celebrate the airport and not think of it as a nuisance.
Anytime you have lots of solar systems by an airport. It's always a challenge, right concerns about glare from planes being able to see the runway. That being said you can do modeling to prove when that would happen. And line that up with where the sun is where the solar is what type of film The solar panels have. Most of the air traffic
isn't a landing pattern. So it's more of a quiet relationship than a takeoff. So it's actually pretty enjoyable to be sitting there and watching a plane fly over.
We're working on the fringe of innovation here. This is a place that I would want to live that I want my kids to live. And this is a place that really fosters the sustainability values that I cherish.
We're hoping that modern West becomes a pilot project for new ways to design and develop, but I want to feel that it adds a level of human connection.
Right, john? I'm gonna turn the time back over to you. Do you have any follow up comments or questions?
are no questions, but I am glad we watched this, because it did answer some of my concerns about the airport, and the way they aligned it. And, and without this, I wouldn't have understood, since there was no concept plan outlined in our our packet, as such, so thanks for letting that happen.
Because we're Martin. Oh, thank
you, Mayor Bagley, I see Don burchette does become invisible. Are you still there, Don?
It'll he's getting back on Casper Peck? It's it's a I just run the meeting, you asked for asked for the info. I'll be glad to throw it up.
What I wanted to ask about was, we've had a couple of comments about the impact on the Nelson road traffic. And, you know, I want people to drive cars less. But my question is, was the housing that is, you know, the live work housing that is central to the to the development factored in, in terms of what the impact on the the impact on the on the surrounding arteries would be? Because I would think that that would would lessen the impact quite a bit.
I'll take a stab at it. Sorry. No, no, that's fine. So as part of the concept plan amendment, there was a, a traffic impact analysis that was done. And it identified, you know, potential and future improvements, I'd be required, obviously, the primary axis initially with development of this property will be to the north to mom Brook drive that'll connect to the east to Anderson Street, help them connect down to Nelson road, then also to the west over to Rogers road. And so as part of that traffic impact analysis, it did take take into consideration the mix of uses that have proposed. And, you know, it wasn't anticipated that there will be adverse impacts associated with this development on the surrounding transportation network. There will be the need for some additional improvements and, and some participation in a traffic signal future traffic signal near Rogers and Airport Road. But the level of service was in compliance with our, with our benchmarks in our code.
Thank you. And then also because of the proximity to the mountain Brook development, there's going to be the additional reliever road that's being constructed as part of that development. Correct.
Correct. You know, mountain Brook drive will continue to the east connect to dry creek drive, that'll Connect over and ultimately over to hover street where there'll be a traffic signal at that intersection as well. And I'll also provide that connection Dry Creek dry, which has access down to Nelson road and hoever. Also.
Thank you. And I want to thank our Councilwoman Martin for bringing this up, because this is a good question that should go before the transportation advisory board. Every time we have a development that is on Nelson road, we get the same answers that it that there will be no impact to Nelson or to the intersection. So I think that we need to push with the long range plans are for Nelson road. So thanks for bringing that up. I think that we we really need to pursue that.
All right, so can we have a motion?
I'll move approval of ordinance 2021 dash 06. Okay.
All right. It's
been moved by Dr. Waters, seconded by Councilmember Peck any further discussion, dialogue or debate? All right, seeing none, go ahead and vote say aye.
Aye. Hey. Nay.
All right. So the eyes habit unanimously. Let's move on. Thank you very much is
Brian Kennedy mayor. Thank you, Council.
Alright, let's move on to 10 see ordinance 2021 dash oh seven a bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city Longmont and Patricia Eckel on eco property. there any questions from council? All right, seeing none, we'll go ahead and close out the public hearing.
Do you have a motion
I will move ordinance 2021 dash oh seven.
All right. It's been moved and seconded. I moved it. Councillor Christiansen seconded.
All in favor say aye. Aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right. 10 d ordinance 2021 dash o a bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city Walmart Thomas Seaman and Diane Seaman on the bolender property. Any questions from council? All right, seeing none let's go ahead and close the public hearing. Can we have a motion?
I'll move approval the mortgage 2021 dash 08
All right. It's been moved by Dr. Waters seconded by Councillor Christiansen. All in favor say aye.
Hi. Opposed say nay.
All right, Motion carries unanimously. can eat which is ordinance 2021. Dash oh nine a bill for an ordinance approving the third amendment to the lease for Vance brown Municipal Airport parcel SW dash p one.
Any questions from council?
All right. We're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing on this matter. Nobody called in. We have a motion.
ordinance 20 2109.
All right. It's been moved by Councilmember Naugle fairing second, seconded by Councilmember Martin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. That's it for the second ordinances on second reading, let's go ahead and go back to items removed from the consent agenda. I believe it was a F and G.
Is that right?
All right. So let's go ahead and who pulled
a consumer pack?
Thank you very badly. In this ordinance, I disagree with the paragraph on page two, line 16 of the ordinance. This states that ad use can be short term rentals. And my my concern is if that ad use are short term rentals, we are pulling those from our affordable housing stock as long term rentals at us or historically have not been really made for the rental market. They were they were for families, friends, who were coming to stay or children who came home. They recall different things, a mother in law houses, etc. But I also am concerned that if these are considered short term rentals, then how does that affect only having one str per block? If it has, if it happens to be somebody ad you does that exclude everybody else on that block? Who has perhaps purchased another home as an investment property as an str because an Edu is smaller. And so I would make a motion that we take at us out as short term rentals from the ordinance.
Just Just a point of clarification right now, Joanie, this would permit short term rentals if you if you are the it's your rent, if you are if you live there, right, it will allow you to rent out your primary residence and a secondary residence in Longmont correct. And that would include ad use,
correct. However, you do have to either live in your house or your ad you as a precursor to having an ad you and any subsequent ad you on the same block face as council will recall has to go through a conditional use permit process with planning commission to get their license. Right. So there is a process for that and we currently have about I think 11 or 12 at us that are licensed short term rentals.
And so so for example, that ad you like in prospects, those one bedroom apartments out back, for example, that's an Edu that would be covered by the ordinance. Correct.
Mayor Begley actually, the short term rentals while they're licensed at Prospect, the PD for prospect actually by right allows me to use and would continue to do so absent a short term rental ordinance.
No, no, but what I'm saying is that but I'm saying I'm not talking about whether or not ad use are permitted. I'm talking about the use of the Edu which is the short term rental.
That's what I mean. Okay. Yeah, that's
what this ordinance is saying that they can be used, and that's what I am objecting to that should be long term rentals.
I was just making absolutely sure that we all were on this same page, I get it. All right, Councillor Christiansen,
I would second that the whole point of having ad use of us in the last few years encouraging ad use is to help with the housing stock, not tourists. And we really do need housing long term rentals. And if we turn in if people are turning that I think prospect is a different example. Because that has to be grandfathered in, because that was part of their whole agreement. But if we allow ad use to be turned into short term rentals, were back to square zero with increasing our housing.
I just need to have clarified. It sounds to me like if there were a dozen at use on a block, you could have a dozen short term rentals on that block outside of outside of prospect
near Begley and Councilmember waters. So the way that the ordinance has been written is if there is more than one short term rental doesn't matter if it's a house or an edu, on the same block face, they have to go through a conditional use site plan to get a license. So there's there is a way to regulate how many on each block. And that approval goes through our planning and zoning commission process. So if you and I are next door to each other, we can't both have one, unless one of
us can stipulate right one ad per block or one short term rental per block. Correct. So if so what would be the conditions for approval but have a second one, given the ordinance says you can't have a second one on the same block.
So the ordinance actually states that you can have a second one, if you go through the conditional use site planning process, and you go to the Planning Commission, and they approve it. So there's a higher standard of review, to make sure that we're not getting too many short term rentals within any one block in the neighborhood.
So we can have multiple short term rentals on a block if they're at use with the second or third or whatever being approved by planning and zoning. Correct.
So I'd like to ask what the reason for such an exception would be. I mean, when we were first very first, considering short term rentals. We heard from a lot of residents who said, if you don't let me do this, I'm going to lose my house. Would that be one of the reasons for a variance that would allow a second one to be on the same block? Or if not what other exceptional conditions might do that.
Mayor Begley and Councilmember Morton so it's not a variance process. It's a conditional use site plan process. And there are specific criteria within that site plan review process that would have to be met. The conditional use process also allows additional conditions to be placed on site plans. If the Planning Commission saw reasons why they may want to put limitations to date, we have never had anyone apply to have a conditional use. So this hasn't actually come up yet. In the we have 103 short term rentals licensed and so far haven't had this session.
All right, there's a motion on the table where Councilmember Peck The motion is to remove the paragraph in the proposed ordinance stating that ad use would be permitted to be used as short term rentals. And that was seconded by Councilmember Christiansen there's no further debate. We'll put it to a vote All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay nay. All right eyes carry it for two three.
Mayor I'm sorry who was the
the I'm sorry the the mayor Councilmember waters and Councilmember Martin opposed the forum majority The others were were the eyes so I move that we table this till legal is able to remove the paragraph and then bring it back.
All right, all in favor say I'm sorry counselor Christiansen.
I had one more thing that I want. Add.
All right, we've already voted. So it's over. All right. So let's go ahead and cancel the waters.
Just to clarify, we voted to to amend one part of what's in front of us if we have other questions.
The motion right now is just to table it until the ordinance comes in. So to table it until legal can remove the paragraph, make the adjustments, and then we can vote on it without Eugene having a coronary. Alright, Councillor Peck?
I guess I do need clarification if someone else would like to make a different motion on the same ordinance. And it also has to go to legal don't we want to have everything on the table at the same
hour? I'll withdraw my motion. Is there anything else from people who want to change something in the ordinance? Councillor Christiansen?
Yes, that's what I was trying to say I'm on page two. Number line 22. It says that the person who lives there must be a natural person.
one page over on page four. He it says that the primary dwelling it's allowed if the primary dwelling is in the name of an LLC or a trust, or any other legal documentation deemed sufficient by the director, which opens it up to a whole can of worms because we have no way of knowing. Because our Secretary of State does not list any of the principles or entities in an LLC or in any business. So we have no way of knowing who these entities would be. I thought we had agreed that this was just going to be these we're just going to be allowed by natural persons.
I guess I guess the thing is that the only thing an LLC does, or any other type of legal entity is to just protect it from financial liability, meaning you go to the loan, you go to the bank, and you get a loan for the property. And then you put it in, you know, Paulie LLC. Yeah. And then if you default on the mortgage, then the bank can't come after you personally. It has nothing to do whether or not I mean, there's absolutely zero. Or if I put it in a trust, because if I die, and I want my kids to have my house, but their children, then it's now in the Brian Bagley trust, but they I still want them to have the house, but I don't want them to be able to sell it. And I want it to be managed. And they're the I know that there's this, this prevailing thought corporations are bad, etc, I get that. But in this particular case, I don't I don't see a downside to just allowing people to put it into a business entity in order to conduct business with their financial institutions.
I do understand how that works. But in fact, most churches and, you know, many, many sole proprietorships or LLC s and all that stuff, but nevertheless, it makes it impossible for us to tell whether this is a person who actually lives here or not, whether it is a natural person, or whether it's one person, one guy who lives here, or whether it's a consortium of doctors who are buying up houses in Longmont. I mean, because they we do not have access to who owns these LLCs. Okay,
yeah. And I think that we can probably appeal to deputy Tate on this, but it seems to me that when the ad U is permitted or when this short term rental is licensed, you have an opportunity to require the the LLC holders to disclose who they are. Do you not does that need to be in the ordinance or can we can that just be part of the operation of licensing? Yes, Miss Kate, please. Go ahead.
Sorry, Mayor Bagley I was waiting to be acknowledged
No. So go ahead. Go ahead and stop usually just jumps in. So go ahead.
So Mayor Bagley council member Martin, certainly we could require that we should write it in the ordinance if that is a that is a desire of this council. We can't have both of those provisions existing at the same time. And, and so it's we're looking at whether the person is a Longmont resident, right. So the person applying for the license, but the house could still be held in some other form. And, and and that would be permissive.
which would allow us to know if that's a natural person who's applying and therefore tells us who we are what we need to know,
is that what you're saying? That's correct.
just wrote back.
So that makes sense. But if the person that is applying, does not actually own that house, it's owned by an LLC, that may be in a different because you can register LLCs in many states. That doesn't necessarily mean that even though the person applying lives in Longmont, do they actually own that home, or are they just the an agent that happens to live in Longmont? And then I think that's where the loophole gets a little, a little shaky.
So, bear and I'm sorry, Councilmember Peck. I didn't mean to interrupt you,
please. No, that's okay. So that is my that is my concern about the LLCs.
mayor and council member Peck. I think that that's a useful clarification that Councilmember Peck you and Councilmember Martin bring up. And certainly if this council would like to make a motion. for clarification, we can bring that back.
counts were picked up by Casper Christiansen.
I would like to make that motion that. clarify that point. We have a second.
All Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
All right. Dr. Waters.
I do have a question. I wouldn't I wouldn't have pulled this off in this question. I would have followed it up. But since we're in the conversation, on page four, line 20. Number eight, it's off street parking. It reads unless specified as a condition of approval. On the short term rental license, no additional parking is required for short term rentals. It should I interpret that to mean that a short term rental must have sufficient parking arrangements or space to not have renters parked on the street. Parking must be off street.
Mayor Begley and Councilmember waters. So just like with with any residents, we would allow on street parking. What we're saying here is you're not required to provide an additional on site parking space beyond what already exists for the home for your ad you.
So how many do we have any, any constraints? How many how many vehicles could be associated with a renter of an ad, you are about short term rental.
So we do not have any parking constraints for short term rentals. Right now?
Well, I interpreted that line differently than what I obviously misinterpreted, is I thought it meant something else. And and I will tell you, in a in the last member group leaders meeting, I was asked about this in a concern expressed by residents
the streets occupied by the vehicles of guests renting your short term rental. And I and I interpreted this to mean that they had to be parking on site, not on the street. So I have to say, if I do personally have a concern, I'm not certain what kind of a motion to make here, or what the constraint should be. But if we have two people, right, and the two people per bedroom, um, you could have you could have four or five vehicles associated with a short term. renter and I that's that's a problem for the neighbors, I think. So I'm curious what what we can we do to avoid the entire street being taken up with or, you know, too much of the street, the curb? side parking being taken up with guests of short term rentals.
you only I guess that's a question for you.
So I think that that would require us Changing the ordinance to get it to dedicate parking spaces specifically for short term rentals. also increasing the amount of parking either on site for anyone that did have a short term rental, regardless of if it's in their house or in there at you, because we're talking about short term rentals in general. And so the parking requires requirements would apply to everything, not just one or the other.
And I guess, just a random comment that I'm the thought that I'm having is I could understand if we don't want to do short term rentals, because we don't want people coming in and out, in and out in and out, and that we want a community where we all get to know our neighbors, etc. but I personally don't think that I mean, if somebody has an edu, if it's their property, it's not art, we shouldn't be dictating the citizens of Longmont that they use their property in a certain way to accommodate our needs for affordable housing. I also don't think that it's we I mean, if it's public parking, you know, it's a city street. And so I'm just, I know, I'm in the minority, but I just get frustrated. We have these conversations, because I don't think it's cool that in local government tell people what to do with their houses in with their parking.
so on. So I still have
the date. Go ahead.
I'm not listen, I I'm supportive of short term rentals, and much of what you just said, I agree with in terms of the property owners having some property rights that they ought to be electrifies. And I, and I do think I favor allowing, which this ordinance includes the carry, carries over from the existing ordinance, or is continued from the existing ordinance, that property owners can own a second property that they use it as an ad you. But I do have a concern, when that ad you potentially creates parking problems that didn't exist, before there was a short term rental. It seems to me that in deference, in fairness to the other property owners in a neighborhood, there's some there should be some consideration. And I'm not certain what the what the language should be. But it seems to me that that there ought to be some of responsibility. If you're going to offer short term rental, that you also provide the parking necessary for your guests, it doesn't become a problem for your neighbor,
there may offer a clarification. So I'm hearing the council refer to at us as if they function somehow separately than a main structure for short term rental. And so I just I just want to clarify for the group that Well, first, that 80 years have been in our short term rental ordinance from the beginning. So this is not something new that we added. This has been here. In addition, it you'll notice that the main structure and or ad you could be rented out. So you know, it doesn't require that someone live in the main structure and rent out the ad you they could flip and reverse that. So I just wanted to offer that clarification, because I'm sort of hearing it as if there's a difference in there's not in the same way that if there is one short term rental on the block than any other short term rental on that block is a conditional use. So that and that is not limited to AD use. That is true of any short term rental.
Been that back to my question about parking, Teresa. I mean, I understand what you just said, what does that have to do with how many parking spaces or parking that you'd be accommodated? by the owner of the
mayor, council member waters? I don't believe that it actually does have particular bearing on it. Other than I think your parking concern, while you are referring to it as a concern about a bu parking, it seems to me that it's a it's a concern about short term rentals.
If I if I said that I misspoke. I meant short term rentals, not the ad use I mentioned return note. So I said that I want to appreciate the clarification. And I just want to point out so in my ad out back, if my daughter and her husband,
I'll get you right to the accounts remember Martin I see who you're next. So I was gonna say I have an ad you right? If my daughter and her husband live there and I rent to them there Gonna have two cars. But if I decide to use it as a short term rental, if a different person is in there every day, they're still only gonna have one or two cars. It's not like it increases the parking. It's a queue that just flips it might be a Volkswagen one day than a station wagon than a Buick or whatever. But the parking is going to still have the same amount of cars, unless they have like eight people show up to the one bedroom apartment to the party. But um, but anyway, I can do it. Let's go. Uh, it's been a long weekend for me. Councillor Martin?
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, I think that we are in this discussion completely ignoring the idea that Longmont has a vision and a policy about on street parking, which is that we don't reserve it. You know, just because you own property on the block. You can't necessarily find a place to park near your house, you know, them's the brakes. And I don't understand in this whole discussion about lots of people being in a short term rental, regardless of how its configured. How that's any different from a property owning couple, having five children who all enter their teen and college years in time to have five extra cars associated with that house. The neighbors aren't going to like that. But there isn't anything that they could do about it would be completely unprecedented for a municipality to regulate something like that. And I don't see any difference. So I think we should stick to our guns and say on street parking is on street parking, and we don't regulate it.
So just Just a quick question. So we have we passed the motion or move the paragraph about that Councillor Peck referred to? And then did we did we have a second motion to direct staff to bring something else back?
What was that one I don't remember. Because it helped me out.
Mayor, it was Councilmember Christensen's motion to clarify, for staff to clarify a point.
Or I would like to make a motion. But before I do that, I'm gonna get a move to again to table it so that the city's attorney's office can bring it back with these two changes. Is there anything else that you want to discuss Johnny?
Near Begley. Thank you. So I would also point out that the motions you've made will create some non conforming issues that will have to be dealt with for those that we have already licensed, that are in AD use. And just a reminder that anything in prospect in Mill Village will continue to be allowed to have short term rentals in their ad use because that is how their p DS were written. And that supersedes the code in terms of this section of the ordinance. So I just want to be really clear that that that will not eliminate all ad users short term rentals in the city. And it will create some navigation from a non conforming use standpoint, that I will need to talk to Teresa and Eugene about
limiting the supply of ad use. And I got one. Ouch. All right. That's right. Peck.
Thank you, Mayor badly. Joanie, I don't have a problem with that at all. But that to me is no different than an HOA having completely different standards and rules than other parts of the city. So that's fine with me.
um yeah, i don't i agree i i mean at us have to be rented. It's just that they should be rented long term. Anyway, I would second the mayor's motion to table it and send it back to Eugene to and Teresa
tomorrow. So part of that motion is to a part of it is to point out non conforming uses Johnny and present that to us so we can deal with those things. Okay.
Yeah, just one more thing to correctly answer council members waters parking question. Luckily, my staff is helpful and feeding me some code answers. So for an ad you an accessory dwelling unit and we're not talking about his short term rental ad user required to have a minimum of one parking space and no more than two. So they typically have some form of off street parking associated with them by code. Sorry about that. didn't have that on my.
Alright, I'll doctor waters.
Just to just to clarify, that doesn't apply to a short term rental. That's not an Edu right.
So a short term rental that's just in a normal house. would have whatever parking spaces were allocated to the house be in a garage or the pad in front of your garage.
And and just just to clarify one more point, the limited number of people who can occupy the short term rental are two people per conforming bedroom. Plus two more. Correct. That would be for a three bedroom home. You could have eight guests.
With the associated number of automobiles.
But there's no limit on the number.
Yep. I think that's a problem.
All right. There's a motion on the floor to bring it back with these changes. When legal hasn't ready? All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, Motion carries unanimously. So Eugene's back there somewhere. Have fun, guys. All right, let's go on to item F, I believe. That was Marcia Kazmir Martin.
Yes, um, I just really have a statement to make this information sharing agreement is very generous of the city of Fort Collins. To do it, it's not going to cost us anything they've been very enterprising in terms of, of developing software to do this, I'm going to vote for it. I just want to say, it shouldn't have to be this way. Because it is not the job of the cities to put together some kind of skunkworks software to try to estimate when our coincident peaks are going to happen. That's the job of the Platte River Power Authority. And I want to say that, in the Climate Action Task Force more than a year ago, the Platte River Power authorities liaison, Andy butcher, who's no longer with the authority, as I understand it, or on his way out, I'm not quite sure which held with us a very cogent discussion of the necessary necessity for signaling of this sort. I have a statement from him. In writing that I will be happy to share that says there isn't any, we aren't doing any. And in that analysis that the Climate Action Task Force did, Mr. BUTCHER was presented with an analysis of a good and studied algorithm for doing this kind of signaling. So this means, you know, Platte River Power Authority is not doing their job. They owe us this data. And while it's lovely that we're going to have this short term workaround, we certainly should not consider it a solution. And we should keep the pressure on Platte River powered authority to do their job. And I'm done. And I move adoption of item FO second.
On favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. All right. item nine g approval of housing Human Services Advisory Board recommendation on two projects for the 2021 affordable housing funds available. Councillor pack.
Thank you. I just want to make a statement here.
You wouldn't meet john.
During the COVID presentation, I asked Carol specifically about the mobile unit to see what Longmont was doing because we've heard from the st. Benedict's Smith ministry. So I would like to I'm pleased that Longmont is considering having their own mobile unit to supply the vaccine. But I would like to hear from as a clarification from Karen or Kathy as to why they weren't funded. So the public and the rest of council understands
it's a This
item is not the Human Service Agency funding recommendations. Oh, general business.
That's right. I'm sorry.
Yeah, so this is a different item.
Okay. I want that answer later. Thank you. Okay. I'm 19.
All right. That was Moved by Councillor pack and seconded by Councilmember Naugle fairing. favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right. Let's go on to 12. A Well, it's only two 930. We're doing okay. We've got two items. two items Left. Right. All right. So 12 820 21, Human Service Agency funding recommendations.
you look happy. So go ahead. What
do you want to say?
I'm just gonna cut since I already made my statement, I'll just ask Karen for an explanation as to why that was not funded.
So mayor and Councilmember Peck, Alberto Mendoza is waiting in the wings to make a brief presentation. So would it be fabulous if if you go through with that presentation, and then we'll answer any questions you might have. Okay. So Alberto.
Good morning. Good morning. Sorry. Good evening. Mayor, Bagley and council. Yeah, I am going to go through a short brief presentation on the proposed human agency services funding. And then yes, we'd be happy to answer questions about that. whatever questions you may have about the human service agency funding, so thank you for bringing up the PowerPoint. Susan. There's a 10 slide presentation that we're going to go through if you want to go to the next slide, please. Next slide. So you saw this in your council packet. You know, we are really the board is very appreciative of the fact that I think it was in 2019 for 2020. This Council, you know, committed to increasing the Human Services Agency funding to reach 3% by 2022. And it went from 2.05 to 2.37 in 2020. And then it went up to 2.5. To for 2021. in part due to the pandemic and the concern around the budgets of but we are the board is still very appreciative of the increase. And we hope that commitment to increase the set aside to 3% from the general fund continues. This year, we were because of that increase the rate able to set aside 877,435 for our our agencies, that's an increase of about 87,100 and some 1002 base. And it increased, you know, over the 2020 number, we hope that it continues to increase as we move into 2022. And for the first time in since 2017, I think we switched the percentage of funding going to the aid agencies versus what's being dedicated to address the issue of housing insecurity and adult homelessness weird last year, it was the other way around. And this year, it's 51% of this agencies and 49 to adult homelessness and housing insecurity. So that's also a positive trend as well. Next slide, please. So, just so you understand very quickly the framework of how it works, we really do. We put out a an application process, we contract with agencies that are working to improve the situation and bar low residents with low to moderate income to ensure that they meet the basic physical, social, economic, or other needs. And we do fund a wide variety of safety net services. Of course, those are those services are connected to our priorities which are listed there. Housing stability, food, nutrition, health and well being self sufficiency, and resiliency, education, skill building, and Safety and Justice. And the process is also directly connected to our human services needs assessment that we just did this year. And then we we work together with our Human Services Advisory Board to coordinate the process, and we make these recommendations to Council. Next slide. So the way the process works, it's very much a formulaic process that would even within a formulaic process, you cannot remove human subjectivity. That's just impossible. But by doing it in a formulaic process, we try and implement as a as much as possible a an objective measure of the applications and the agencies to give ourselves just a good way of of scoring and providing the most reasonable recommendations possible counsel, so it uses the average scores of both staff and board board looked at different questions instead Looks. And then finally there is a weighted piece based on addressing the priority area and or activities identified in a needs assessment. And there is the total score determines how much of the requests will be funded, what percentage of the request is funded in and applications this year and it has changed has been different from year to year. Because we always take a look at the funding matrix and the allocation formula every year. This year it was 72.5 was the was our ceiling to restart allocating our floor, you have to get at least that to be funded. So you can go to the next slide, please. So here is our just you know, our priorities and our ceilings. So of the 137,000 that we had, we wanted to try and spend 25% of it on housing, and all the way down. One caveat on that that is a
guideline, and something that we aspire to. We don't control who applies how much they asked for. And so sometimes we don't meet these Exactly. So for example, I think we go to the when you actually see the actual percentages, we got closer to housing stability, but we went over an education and skill building. And that is primarily due to the fact that we have a lot of education providers, childcare and early childhood education providers that apply. And so because they apply because they score, well, scoring is very important to score well, then we will on occasion go over even though it's our priority, but what this priority does is it helps us set the individual agency ceilings, in other words, you cannot get more any any individual he cannot get more than 50% of the priority ceiling. And that helps us set a total amount that any agency can receive. In this year, there were a couple of agencies that hit that ceiling and could not be funded more than what the ceiling was. So that's why these are important. Next slide. So we received 40. We received Emmys, and 40 agencies to fund 46 programs. And their total requests was 1.3 4 million. We only had 177,000. We did the agency's agency hearings are very interesting, because like you all meeting virtually, we we did ours virtually to and it's very it was a very interesting process, because we typically had those in person in the past staff and board reviewed and scored application according to the criteria and allocated basically on the other formulaic approach. And so there you see we fund 31 agencies in 37 programs. Next slide, please. And so just to show you what I was talking about education and skill building, we went over it was supposed to be at 20%. We're at 23% housing and skilled talent, obviously 25, we were 23. And again, that's primarily due to who applied and how much they applied for we don't control or tell people what to apply for how much to apply for it. Next slide. So, of course now we want to turn it over to receive questions, and then ask for counsel to give us guidance on whether to adopt the 21 recommendations for funding.
All right, can cause repec without a raise hand or a swap.
Okay. Do you have something to say? Yes, actually,
would like an explanation for the st. Benedict's Miss ministry. But I first want to say congratulations, I think it is h h s A does an incredible, incredible amount of work. And all the effort you put into it and all the people that you help. So kudos to to you. And just for our for our education. Let us know why you didn't fund this group.
Okay, mayor and council member Peck am I'm ready to answer that question. And le backto might have something to supplement that so. So as so when we looked at the the scoring so obviously they didn't meet the threshold, the 72.5% and the at least from a staff perspective, which is really what we can we can address the the the lower scores were related to the collaboration. We didn't see The level of collaboration with some of the other, you know, clinics that are offering services to some of the same population. So hope like clinic I had just talked about. They didn't mention any collaboration with hope, like clinic had just gone through an expansion and is doing some pretty amazing work with providing, you know, medical services to uninsured and underinsured individuals. And at the point in time, when they applied, they had not acquired their, their van or their mobile unit yet they were in the process, they did, you know, they weren't able to provide the the two days a week clinic at the Art Center because of the COVID pandemic. And so, so they were providing some service in the parking lot. And there, they, they just, you know, didn't have all of their plan for how they were going to do the mobile outreach. So. So those were, I think, some of the primary reasons, I think there were some questions about the financials and the amount of money that they wanted to rely on from the city was a pretty was was over a quarter of their budget, their operating budget. So those were some of the reasons that went into the scoring. And, and then if I, then what I would, and then we had some change conditions, right. And so, so change from St. Benedict's, they did get their, their vehicle and, you know, they're on their way in terms of their plan. And I think the other thing is that we did and Carmen Ramirez and I did meet with Dan Eamon, you know, from public safety, and, and they talked about their, their community health program, and, and that now that they do have a nurse practitioner on board, that is there, you know, two days a week, that nurse practitioner is also an employee with hope, light, so they're doing the collaboration with hope, light. And, and we now have the capacity internally through our public safety Community Health Program, to to basically be available seven days a week, they are, and we started to work on a plan for mobile clinics, they can do those on demand, they also can set up, you know, mobile sites based on where the need is. And so, in my opinion, because we have this change condition, you know, we really are in a position to, to, to be able to provide that service, they are a enrolled in the they're in a role provider for administering the vaccinations. Whenever they get the vaccine, they're just waiting on the supply. So we we, we do believe we have that covered without an additional, you know, investment. So, so, again, things did change from when we scored and made our recommendation. So I hope that helps to answer the question
does and I appreciate the fact that I appreciate the fact that you use our on site, nonprofits, within our community to to work in our community. So I thank you for that. And with that I moved the recommendation for the funding also
was Moved by Councillor Peck seconded by Councillor Christiansen Councillor waters? book?
I have three questions. Good. Good. I,
you may ask to No, just kidding. Go.
Thank you. First of all, I want to say to Karen and to Alberto and to the to the board. I'm proud right to be able to cast a vote on this. That this that this municipality has this commitment toward these kinds of does give back to the community. It's it's money, right? The money we collected from the community, give it back in this way for these purposes. makes me proud as a member of the Council that wasn't that's a statement not a question. Here's the first question. For for the St. Benedict, health ministry or any other proposer? Do you provide them feedback as you provided us feedback tonight in response to Councilmember pecks question on what they can do in subsequent years to become more competitive with their proposals.
Marin, Councilmember waters we we do provide that feedback and and and usually it's upon request and this year, the advisory board members suggested that we reach out to the agencies that did not receive funding, and and offer them that opportunity to discuss the, you know, the score, and what were the areas that we saw could use some improvement. So to really continue to build that relationship with. So I think that's a process of doing that. Right, or the part of the process.
So I'm, I appreciate that, number one, number two, as we look at, we don't look at the whole proposals, but as we look at what you provided in the objectives that are going to be addressed with this funding, in my view, and the time I've been on the council, I think, has come a long way. And I appreciate that. But it does leave the question about evaluation, right, the data that are collected on those objectives, and you know, what kind of conclusions you can reach? Or they can reach what how do you what do you how do you receive their evaluation, evaluation of their work based on last year's funding.
So Mayor Bagley comes into waters, we we received two reports, one is in middle of the year, so by July 31, we need a mid year report that is based on the scope of work in their contract and the agencies funded ages contract, that scope of work is is drafted via negotiations between usually me and the and the agency based on those objectives and outcomes that are in their applications. So we take those outcomes, and if I find it, and we have a conversation about them, trying to make sure that they are something that they can reach something that is measurable, basically, kind of going through that SMART goal process. And then they check in in the middle of the year. And then we get our final report on January 31. And we work with our partners at the city of Boulder in Boulder County to create a form for them to fill out and try it. Let me see if I can find a better place. Not so dark.
All right. still dark? Okay. Sorry.
We can hear you. That's what's important.
Okay, so we work with a boulder county and city of Boulder to try and we do a form that we track all of the data that we get. And then we have a place to share data with our partners to see if we're getting the same kind of data, there's issues. And then if if, if the border find something or if I find something, and we deem it necessary to reach out the agency to ask about a Are you going to be able to meet these outcomes, then we have this conversation with them. So that that is at this point, the level of evaluation that we're doing. We're always looking to try and improve our evaluation process, we're always trying to help our agencies improve the development of their logic models, because that's what their contract is based on. And we want to make sure that it the contract reflects what their logic models in the work they're trying and wanting to accomplish in this year is reflected in the contracts. So that that's how we approach evaluation
that we get to see it's obvious that that work that you come, we've come a long way with him with that work. So it's good to hear that you were serious about the evaluation. My third question is this. Alberta, I think you've identified 37 agencies that have recently received funding. And that we saw the percentages, numbers of dollars or percentages of dollars, however, whatever the best cut of this, of those dollars are going to agencies, what percentage of the agencies or the amount of money or percentage of the money serve children?
So that's a great question. And it's it's, it's, it's a hard answer to give because so for example, you could very quickly determined from Jenkins
I had a heads up that you might answer asset question council member water. So,
so I did. I did some calculation. You might be answering this differently, Alberto. But in terms of the the dollars and that we are allocating, and I and I indicated that would be to children and youth programs serving programs, and it's a broad, a broad array, but that's about $240,000 that we've allocated through this year's human service agency process. That is that allocated toward agencies that serve, you know, children and youth. And, and then that on top of the, you know, the amount that we are investing through the cares Act funding, which was 700, roughly around 700,000. And then the other funding that we have allocated in children, youth and families budget to help with early early childhood education. You know, that's about another 250,000. So there's so so if your question is who so that's really the answer to what we are providing through this grant program, through our cares Act funding, and through the special dedicated early childhood education funding? Well,
that's really good to know. Because last week, we were criticised for under investing in children, as a city and as a council. And what you just shared is in addition to what we've done with parks and BMX tracks, and skate parks and ball field, soccer fields across the city, 10s of millions of dollars invested in recreation facility. So I appreciate that information, because it gives a more complete answer than then my my weak attempt at it last week, in response to a caller who is criticizing our underinvestment in children in this community. Thanks. I'm happy to move approval if this is the time to do that.
I think it was already moved, was it not? I think it was, yeah, it was already been moved. But yeah, Counselor, Counselor Christiansen.
Um, I would add on a little bit to that, that anything that we are doing that benefits the housing for families, benefits, children, and anything that we're doing with food, and if it's children, and I mean, all of this, mostly does benefit children too. And I would hope that when the budget comes up this fall, we can increase the housing and Human Services, restore it to the funding level, which was 3% that we had in 2018. Anyway, um, but I wanted to thank Karen and Umberto, very much for your leadership and your staff evaluations. And I wanted to thank the housing and Human Services Board for the incredibly hard work that they do every year. And their thoughtful and intelligent discussions and the pleasure of their company are a terrific group of people. And they put in a lot of hard work. So and I as the liaison, I heartily endorse that we pass this as presented.
All right, Harold, once you make your comment, then we'll vote.
Yeah, Mayor Council, I just want to say you saw this in the Health and Human Service funding piece, and you saw us touch on cares funding and these other things. But I wanted to say and actually, in this case, is a big thank you to Karen Alberto, all of our staff that was involved in this, because in the middle of doing this normal process, we threw $700,000, add them late last year and said, you to put this to early childhood education, and we need it out by the end of the year, we need your help on the business assistance. And so, you know, when you look at that amount of time and that much money that they moved through, I just wanted to personally say thanks. When we gave them that charge, they did blink and they just did it. And that's a testament to the work that they do on a regular basis. And I just wanted to take this opportunity to say thanks, Karen, Alberto. Molly, everyone that worked on this because it was a phenomenal job that really is helping our community in a time when our community needs.
Alright, right. Thanks, Harold. All right. We've got a motion on the floor approving the 2021 human service agency funding recommendations. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Thanks again, Karen. All right, let's move on to 12 be an update on Aloma ice pavilion operations. So I believe the issue is Harold, what is the current status of the operations? And what do you intend to do moving forward? And then as a result of us putting on the schedule, I suspect on you You made some changes or
just those basically three questions. I think Council has
this Karen and Jeff on here. Yes, Jeff. So I want to kind of give a bit of a brief history on so and I put this in an email for you all, but this is a good time for me to kind of give you the overview of this. So as we were getting ready to move into the opening of the ice rink, obviously we were in a much different situation with COVID. And we were actually looking I believe the number was at 50 or 75 people in the rink. We were talking about was it 75 or 50? Jeff, I think it was 50. It was 50. So we were talking about bringing them on and move it. So it was a larger number. When we were actually doing, really, the pro forma on this. Things changed number went from 50 to 25. We're still working at that number as we're looking at this. And that really created a financial issue for us as we were looking forward. If council remember when we went through our budget. The difference between 2020 and the 2021 budget was we had already budgeted a lot of these expenditures in the 2020 budget. And we were covering it through our overall budget adjustments for 2020. When we presented the 2021 budget, we actually had to reduce the revenue coming into recreation based on the limited activities that they were going to be able to do. We said and remembering this, we had to cut 25%, correct, Jeff?
Yes, and 30% of 10
pages template just to make that budget work. To very clear on this. Because of where we see this moving in the capacity and it occurring a little bit slower. We actually think there's a potential, we may have to look at it again later in the year if things don't open up as we anticipated. So there's still going to be an ongoing budget issue for recreation. At the time, because we had already began preparing to open up the ice rink, we made the decision that we could open it through the end of 2020, and then carry it with one month and 2021 and still manage the budget issues that were in play. And in order to continue this, Jeff, it will cost how much to the end of February and then
putting 5000 to go the end of February and 32,000 to get through mid March.
And and so for us from a budget perspective, we know that there's other budget issues coming at us in the end of the year. And so that's why we made the decision that we did, because we just don't know what's going to continue coming in the recreation world. So what we would need to continue this is 25,000. So keep it open to the end of February 30 to mid March. That's our normal closing period.
Can you clarify those numbers? Is it 25 for the to the end of February and then an additional 32,000? Or is the total to get to the mid March closing date 32,000
the totals 32,000. It's an additional 7000 that will get us to that.
So I moved that we use council contingency funds in the amount of $32,000 to fund the Roosevelt pavilion ice rink for the rest of the season.
I'll second that.
I'm wondering if Councilman repack would do an entertainer friendly amendment to the motion. And established the reason for this is the covid 19 pandemic, it because of the pandemic we would allocate funding from the from our contingency fund to support the ice rink. Since we're setting a precedent with this, it's a precedent for me that that the next time we have a pandemic. I'm comfortable with the spread of this precedent, if we do it every time we have a pandemic, but i but i think that's an important consideration. So
if you would, if you would accept that amendment?
Can I Can we just move forward with it that
So, um, add that amendment on to the motion.
Did anybody second?
I believe I believe it was saved by Councillor though fairing. And All right. Any other questions, comments or concerns? All right, let's go ahead and all in favor the motion to it. Was there a number? An exact amount?
And how much is in the contingency fund right now?
$155,701 All right, I guess. I mean,
I guess I'm gonna vote again, though. I mean,
let me clarify that Yep. you currently have 155,701 you're also carrying over 102,052. Someone's the carryovers. There. It's 50 102 257
I guess, I guess the given I'm gonna vote against it only because given how much that sounds like a lot, but given the amount of time this particular council meeting is discussed about, you know, telling people what to do with their private property for their ad use and short term rentals in order to help the affordable housing. What we heard from the Human Services Advisory Board about our priorities. I don't think ice skating should be one of them. I think we have other needs that are far more pressing. And I would point to every conversation we've had tonight, but that's my opinion. All right. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay nay. All right, the eyes have it. Only I opposed. But I've got weekend keys. I don't. I don't escape anyway. All right. Let's move on to final let's take a two minute break or a three minute break and move to final call public invited to be heard. Alrighty.
All right. Are we back?
Mayor Give me just a second so I can see that. The slide has updated on our live stream
All right, is that all of us? Who we missing? That's all of us. All right, cool. Is there anybody in the you said, Is there anybody in the live stream? You said?
we have no callers. You may continue.
All right, perfect. All right, then mayor and council comments, anybody? All right, Councillor pack? You shut up first.
Thank you very badly. Actually, I'm going to give you an update on ITV. Don't you just bear with me for a couple of minutes. We had a meeting in December where Randy we had a presentation from Randy growl Berger, who was the project manager for the Front Range passenger rail commission, and the presentation was on the southwest Chief, and the Front Range passenger rail. And I'm really sorry to say that Randy growl Berger is no longer with Front Range passenger rail, his engineering expertise as well as the one the procure of our Chrissy grants from Dr. cog will really be missed. I don't know who is going to be in charge of that fun those funds from the grants. But I'm really confident that this council and staff along with the stakeholders on the northwest corner will continue to work with the Front Range passenger rail and the governor's office so that we can bring rail to the Front Range. But this weekend, I was really busy I conversations with both of our RTD directors, Lynn, Geisinger as well as Eric, for from both of our districts, the Northwest quarter financing is a huge conversation. But I my conversation with them was that this is RTD is looking at it as a huge project and that we should break it down. And the first thing we need to do is to get that engineering and design study from the northwest I'm sorry, from BNSF. And then once we get that we can discuss what that entails break it down into segments, and that that should be financed out of Pfizer, Lynne Geisinger said she thinks she has the votes to do that. So that was very promising. However, during the council meeting, I got a text from Eric will be talking tomorrow. And he said, It was announced at the board meeting tonight, that RTD is going to hold a special study session on the northwest rail, it's going to be a deep dive on where we stand and the chair of the board invited the governor to participate if he would like. So in my conversations this weekend. Also, I told him because it's public record now that we would, we're either going to get the rail, or we're going to get out that it's no more playing games with anybody. So that conversation, that message has gone out to the directors to to everyone. And I just have to say, from some things that cannot be made public at this point, that this is just political. It's totally political. It is not really much about financing at all. So I want any information or any help or anything that you want to go back to the directors to the CEO of RTD, please chime in, let me know because it's going to take all of us to make our message heard loud and clear. So thank you. That's all I've got.
And Councillor Beck along with that I've sent the same message in when are we set to have that executive session? Harold? Because I've gone one step further. It's like I would I would I've been said what i what i My opinion is we should move forward on legal options. And if they can shut me because my concern is that they get four and a half to $5 million from Longmont every year of course, they're going to spend 750,000 to a million to do a study. At this point. It's just I think it's just all lip service. I don't I don't think we're ever going to get the train. And so if someone convinced me if they can convince me otherwise, or us otherwise great. But the meantime we need to start so once that Executive Session scheduled, Eugene
so mayor and council, I will have to say we have we have capacity issues. You know, getting out of RTD is no small matter. And we have a lot of high priority items going at the moment. We've started looking at it, dusting off the stuff that we've done before you know I think we are meeting with Phil Greenwald. Next week to get the history and current status. You know, this is something that we don't track on regular basis. So, you know, I could see maybe at the end of February,
all right, because my if you've got capacity issues, maybe we need to think about I mean, it's not your we I understand all too well, what it's like when someone comes in and says, I need this done. And it's not your, you know, it's not you don't have the expertise, you don't have the history here. And so maybe we should consider outside counsel, you know, we're absolutely
decentering that we need a funding source,
because what I don't want it because at this point, what I don't want, there's a difference between getting at RTD. And having having an executive director of RTD. And the board now saying in public, we are not doing the rail. And it's a it's a it's not an appropriate or efficient use of tax dollars, when the only reason why they have the tax dollars to begin with is because we voted for the purpose of bringing the train. And so the it's it's a it's a I'm not talking about it, I've just saw fast tracks. And, and I don't and if we send the message of weakness, well, we're not we're I mean, we're under capacity. Maybe we'll get around to it, I for one, want to, I want to get on it. And so go ahead, Counselor pack.
Um, I agree with you. But I wouldn't rush into it at this point. And the reason I won't is that finally have other organizations that are willing to bat for us, like Dr. cog and computing solutions. Jared polis, let's face it, the these c dot works for the governor, we are also going to have transfer, patient funding coming down the pike. I don't want to jump the gun I am I think within 15 months to two years, that we should, we should see what we can accomplish with with, with this new administration with the new vision in the state, and let them do their job as well, I think that it would be wise to get the information. But to move forward on a lawsuit at this point,
again, I would argue that we shouldn't be having this discussion of public This is all Executive Session
topic. Meaning that
I don't want to have any conversation about what we should or should not do legally in public. So to me, we talked about last week about having an executive session on this matter. Okay, you know, I think we should have it agreed, have the executive session, and we figure it out from there. So Eugene, just whenever you can, I hear you.
Alright, so and then mayor, you know, I certainly support your direction not to discuss legal strategy in public. It's a balance, you know, we can come back with conceptual ideas, probably by the end of February, to do you know, actual research and dig in is a much bigger project.
Well, I mean, because let me be clear. So it's like my whole take on this whole public service thing. Now. I mean, if nobody else cares, I don't, just to be clear, meaning that I'm not going to carry any more water for anyone or anything, or any topic where I'm alone. So if we don't hear me, just, that's just a fact. So if we're not willing to actually move forward and do something, I don't want to talk anymore about RTD. I don't want to talk about any more about fast tracks. So if we're going to wait another 15 months to two years, let somebody else do that, but I don't want to. So that's my final comment for the evening. All right. Anybody else? Mayor council comments. Councilmember Christiansen?
Yeah. Um, I wanted to really urge everybody who's listening, if anybody's listening right now, to get their shot. I got my shot this week. I know. Councilwoman Peck got her shot. I presumed Councilman waters got his shot. Probably. Yeah, good day. So um, that's because we're old. But they're I know people are waiting, thinking now that's a lot of trouble. I'll see how it goes. Don't wait, because the sooner we can everybody get vaccinated. The more we can put this behind us, the more we can get everybody moving again. And I'll be very happy when we get to point one B and start getting the teachers cursory workers and the all the other people who are helping with everything. And I would like to point out to the people who think that vaccine is a lot of hooey. I'm old enough to remember that when I was a child, there was no measles vaccine. My good friend, Sherry got the measles when she was about two and she became profoundly deaf. She built a good life for herself, but her it was a lot harder for her than for anybody else. My dear friend Joan, who has an identical twin, contracted polio because there was not a polio vaccine until about 1957. She also built a good life for herself. But every single day, she looked at her twin and saw what she should have looked like. But she didn't because her leg was one leg was four inches shorter than the other and a third the size. So vaccine has saved this world so much misery and for people to be spreading rumors about how vaccine is it's bad view and it's suspect. I it's just irresponsible and i i really don't want to hear it anymore. And I I would plead with you get vaccinated as soon as you can go to broader county health. Look at all the things that are available, sign up for something and just do it. Thanks.
Alright, anybody else?
Okay, Harold. No problem. It's
All right, Eugene.
No comments, Mayor.
All right, cool.
We have a motion to adjourn. So moved. I'll second
it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay.
All right. We are adjourned with unanimous voltage. All right. See you next week, guys. Bye.