Note: Effective October 1, 2021, proof of vaccination is required to enter Longmont Public Media.

Longmont City Council Regular Session – February 11, 2020

To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit: https://otter.ai/s/tR5OyguvRTiNpAND8nrZ4w

For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:

0:09
Rodrigues Martin waters, Miriam corm.

0:14
Alright, so pledge

0:24
to the flag of the

0:25
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

0:29
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

0:38
Alright, just a quick reminder anybody wanting to add his or her name to the list of public invited to be heard. Raise your hand now. If you don’t get on the list you won’t be able to speak during the first round of public invited to be heard but you will be able to speak at the end of the meeting. Everybody gets three minutes and then after that, we’ll cut you off but anyway, approval minute A motion for the approval of the January 20 2020. regular session minutes. All right. It’s been moved by Dr. waters and was second by Councillor Peck. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right passes unanimously. And just by way of Marcia Martin, she’s not presently because she’s not feeling well. So she’s next agenda revisions and submission of documents, emotions direct the city manager to add agenda items for future agendas, know what to say or do anything. Dr. Waters?

1:30
Yeah, this is not this is not direction to staff. It’s really just to confirm with council members. In our Friday retreat. I brought up the topic of the 529 junk program and and what I think the school district needs in order to get behind that the way we’d like them to and that that would require us basically backing the kindergarteners and then doing the outreach. Mayor Begley has agreed to work with me on that outreach. Yep. spoken with former council member Finley. She’s willing to help with that, since that was kind of her project. I just want to make certain in this setting that I’m still good to go with that. I just don’t want to surprise anybody.

2:10
Yes, I think you’re good to go to but object. Thanks.

2:14
Good to go. Thanks. Alright, let’s move on city manager. Do you ever report?

2:19
No report Mayor council?

2:20
All right. Great. Nice. No special ports presentations tonight. Right. All right. Let’s go ahead and move on to first call public invited to be heard again, you have three minutes, addressed the chair and we’ll go with Regina cheney first.

2:44
My name is Regina Chaney, and I live at 416 Main Street. On November 19 2019. I filed an open records request with our city clerk for emails to or from counsel women pick and Christensen using their personal email For city business, I recall at the time, Polly said she had six emails from her personal account for city business and peck said she had none. During the clerk’s first round of investigation that concluded 12 1219 the findings were 1615 emails. 177 of these messages were under legal review. The second query by the city clerk completed 1227 19 revealed that there were 2043 emails sent or received by Peck or Polly 359 of these were documents 10 messages, confidential in nature or otherwise falling out, falling under an exception to the right of inspection and to Cora. There was still 177 messages under legal review. The third and final response to my core request came on January 21 of this year. That review has been completed and addressed the 177 messages still under legal review A number of emails from Peck and Christensen isn’t zero or six. It’s 3658 emails. Why is that? As recently as November 24 2019. On the air five days after my complaint was filed, Christian sent again send an email to a private account saying I’m writing you on my private email because it is more convenient. Nowhere in this email, does she actually give the recipient her government email address. Why is that? If she means by convenient, it’s under the public radar. That’s true. It’s inconvenient to use one email address for your business and one for your personal but I bet every one of you has to meet two email accounts. citizens have a right to expect ethical behavior from our city council, a manner that will preserve or restore the public’s trust in government. We’re talking about 3658 emails here. Ethical violations erode public trust at this regulations effectively Inform officials what conduct is permitted and prohibited in public service. I think the entire city council knows that use of personal email for city business is prohibited. However without a means to enforce the ethical requirements, the regulations become largely meaningless. That’s what we have here. Why is that? Because there are no consequences. Nothing to tear to deter further use of personal email accounts. There has been absolutely no ownership by pecker Christensen of this abuse of public trust. There has been no ownership of anything. No public apology, we’ve seen only indignation. I call on city council to show Councilwoman Peck and Christianson that there are consequences and I demand a public apology.

5:49
Thank you, Kevin garter.

5:56
That’s Kevin Garten, but I won’t

5:59
guard you accountable. Thank you, Mr. Burton.

6:00
Thank you or handwriting. Thank

6:02
you. You might

6:04
want to first of all, I’d like to thank you, each and council member for your service to the citizens of Longmont. And with that, I think we all recognize that leaders are held to a higher accountability and responsibility and with that comes ethical behavior. And my question to the city council is, what are you doing to address the lack of an ethics committee and a lack of an ethics process, especially in light of this revelation of the violation of the sunset act with regards to emails?

6:39
Thank you. Thank you, Justin Stover. Well, I’m

6:48
Justin Stover. I live at 2410 whining drive. I am here today to talk about I guess item number 11. Be that popular? neighborhood concept plan amendment. Today I’d like to urge you to vote against this amendment. Just the ethics violations that happen through the whole planning process for this amendment should make you stop and think I’ve provided evidence of these ethics, ethics violations. it’s sickening. They’ve the planning department, I believe has just tried to ramrod this through it’s unacceptable. The developer has said many times in these meetings and they’re here tonight, that hundred percent engineering has already been done for this. This project. That’s not an excuse to ignore the concept plan and what is promised in that concept plan to the community, especially around privilege. It’s not an excuse. If they didn’t hundred percent engineering work that’s on them. We do not need to accept

7:51
this. This

7:53
plan change what they have come up with and offered the city is to relativity Useless pieces of land to try to satisfy this the statement and the concept plan. It’s not anything that can be used for civic purposes as dictated in the concept plan. And it’s it’s egregious, so it’s untenable. What they’re doing is just ram riding this entire thing through. And I’m, I’m done with it. I’m sorry. But as council members like, you guys need to look out for the community. All right. It’s not just about a developer, the developers coming here and trying to give you two useless pieces of land that the city is going to say we can’t do anything with. Right? Of course, every department The city is going to look at these little tracks and say we can’t do anything with did the developer come up with anything new? Not your agenda, not tonight? No, because 100% engineering has already been completed. That is not an excuse just to approve this project. Going for They have a responsibility to the community around privilege into this, the city residence for land donation for civic purpose. All right, and what they’re offering is nothing. They’re hoping that you the city turns it down. They’re hoping that we turn it down. I’m not gonna stand for it. I think it’s wrong. And, you know, I’ve already provided the city planning department with all the evidence I provided some of the council members here today with some of the evidence of the ethics violations of our planning department to get to this point. It’s untenable and it’s not right. Do not approve this concept plan change. Thank you.

9:42
Thank you, Dwayne lease

9:57
Hello, my name is Dwayne lease. I live at 20 686 pearl hollett Road. I like

10:08
to thank the city for the tagging

10:14
abatement program. We had a tagging on the back of our building on the corner of long speaking main. And I had spent probably about two pi four to maybe six hours just looking into how to get rid of the tagging and working on it. Finally got response and the gentleman came out and did it. But what my thinking is, is that there should be a very obvious and easy way for someone such as myself who can afford to pay for this service to be able to contribute to the city for the cost of what is essentially a valuable service to myself. I don’t think it should be as something that should be true to every person in the community, because some people can’t afford it. But having this city not tagged is a value to all of us is extraordinarily important. And I want to thank you all for the work that you do and hang in there. Keep working hard. Thank you very much.

11:21
Thank you, Mr. Lee’s. All right. Let’s go on to the consent agenda. Don Diskin, Donna,

11:29
city clerk

11:29
Mayor item at resolution 20 2017 has been removed by staff from the consent agenda will be brought back to it an error and one of the

11:39
attachments so as resolution 2020 dash 13 resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city acting by and through its water utility enterprise and the northern Colorado water Conservancy district for location of a camera to monitor the st rain Creek ABS resolution 2020 dash 14 resolution of the Longmont city council approving an intergovernmental agreement between Boulder County and the city of Longmont for the environmental sustainability matching grant program. Eight CS resolution 2020 dash 15 resolution of the Long Island City Council approving an intergovernmental agreement between Boulder County city of Boulder City of Longmont city and county of Broomfield town, a very city of Lafayette city of Lewisville town of superior town of Netherland town of lions regarding the boulder area trails mobile application project, and eight D is resolution 2020 dash 16 a resolution of the landmark city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and state of Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, division of oil and public safety for compliance with the elevator and escalator certification act.

12:46
All right, like waters.

12:50
All right. It’s been moved. The consent agenda has been moved by Councilman waters and seconded by Councillor pack. Need to debate dialogue questions. All right. Let’s vote on favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right. That’s enough. Yes, we’re done. No so that that passes unanimously. All right let’s move on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings at any matter first is nine eight ordinance 2020. await the bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to execute a lease extension of real property known as 1140 Boston avenue to Longmont when air company, are there any questions from council the staff has a report have a report anything like that? Alright, see none let’s go ahead and open this for a public hearing on ordinance 2028. Would anyone in the public like to speak on this matter? All right, so you know ones go ahead and close the public hearing. can have emotion.

13:42
All right, I guess we’re back.

13:44
I move 020 2028 I’ll second that.

13:49
It’s been Moved by Councillor effects. I need to remind myself Let’s vote All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. All right, passes unanimously. All right. No items are been removed from the consent agenda. So let’s go ahead and move on to general business 11 A DSC and creation station space needs.

14:08
Mayor Bagley, members of council Jenny Marshall, assistant city manager. So the item before you this evening is a request for council to give direction regarding the creation station, which is the little building attached to the Development Services Center used to be a print the print shop for the city. Community Services has been using that at the direction of council council actually voted and made a motion for years ago. At this time, we’re really out of space at the Development Services Center and are looking for places to put staff which don’t exist. So we have spoken with Nancy at the library, Karen Roni, as well as Jeffrey’s inner rack and taking a look at what that programming looked like and that whether or not they would be able to relinquish that space and they have determined that would be reasonable for them to do so. So we’re just asking to night for council to give some formal direction if we could move forward with moving into the creation station with Development Services Center employees

15:08
so moved.

15:11
It’s been moved by myself and seconded by Councillor pack. Just real quick. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez for the record. So thank you Mary Bagley.

15:19
Just real quick question of prior to the creation station being a print shop was at one point a morgue for the city.

15:29
Near Pro Tem Rodriguez, you are correct.

15:31
Okay. I just wanted to put that because I’m a little bit of

15:33
history to emphasize the creepy nature of

15:36
but I like to, anyway.

15:40
Yes, I’ll be I’ll be I’ll be in support. Thank you.

15:44
I would move an amendment to make that the new council offices.

15:48
I’m just kidding. Dr. Waters.

15:51
Was it also used as a maker space in conjunction with the library?

15:55
You know, I think at one point there was some use going on in that space prior to Really that conversion tip, legitimate programming that went from the library in the recreation center? Yes,

16:06
so far in one extreme, from morgue, to a maker space, it’s pretty versatile space. So the one, the one point I would want to make, I understand it has not been utilized well as a maker space. But I do want to make the point that the library is is is we’re overpopulated for the capacity and the library, in my opinion, has our liaison to the library board. It is the reason we’re going through a feasibility study. And just a reminder that as we as we receive the results of that feasibility study that we’ve got, for people who care about maker space, we’ve got a series of meetings scheduled now through the rest of this month and in the March that feasibility study, I soon We’re going to get by the end of April maybe. And that’s, and I think that’s a pretty close time frame. And I’m assuming that we’ll see in that feasibility study some recommendations or possibilities for kind of state of the art maker space in conjunction with what a 21st century library should look like. So I just want to make the point I as I drive by that or you’ll walk out of Ziggy’s having met with somebody for you know, some issue, and I look across and I see that space and think about what we what we could be doing with the kind of with with, with state of the art maker space for our creative class and in Longmont and I support you need the space, I’m going to vote for this. But I want to make the point that we need space for those members of our community who have talents to bring an ideas to around what’s they want to create. And I want to keep that high on our list of or at least high high visibility on the priorities as we go forward with the, with the feasibility study.

18:04
Casper Christiansen

18:08
I understand we’re all kind of all the city offices really need more space. Um, I do think this is a good use of the lashley Street Station because it’ll help. It’s right up the street from it’s very close to the elementary school and it’s also right up the street from the youth center. So there might be some more synergy to be gotten between those two places as well. So I do think it’s a really good reuse of this and but I also appreciate with Councilman waters is saying the library really also needs space. So we’re just going to have to figure out how to use our money wisely. But I I think this is great because it is right across the street from the development services. So

18:56
Alright, so there’s a motion on the floor to allow staff to go ahead. Do Change the use and occupy the x morgue of the city. So let’s go and vote All in favor say aye. Aye. I’ll pose na. All right, That motion carries and passes unanimously. Let’s move on to 11 v peplum neighborhood concept plan amendments. Its continued over from 114 20. I believe staff has an update on the discussions pertaining to that little handwritten questionable phrase. So give us an update

19:28
and correct and I’m going to ask Don to to make his way up closer to me so he can help me fill in the blanks. So obviously, there was a plant note that existed regarding the development of this property. There was some concept plans. I think it was ambiguous in terms of what was actually contemplated in there in terms of the plant note and there was a number of questions we had per councils direction we had entered into conversations with the developer, that site trying to find us illusion based on some of the ideas that the council threw out during the previous conversation and some ideas that I and worked out with Don and we had real time in there. And, and, you know, we were we were moving through that very slowly. The conversations were difficult in terms of what we were trying to accomplish. To be completely candid on Friday of last week, we received a letter from legal counsel representing the individual and we were actually prepared to come in tonight to postpone this item to a date certain Of March 34. So we can have the time to do the the a fair amount of legal research to really evaluate our position. Prior to this meeting, we had a meeting with the applicants and what we were trying to really work on, was trying to fit in for deed restricted, single bedroom, affordable housing units. And and that was something We talked about and then the question comes in, well, what is the Civic purpose? I think what I was trying to really work off of is that the council has set a goal of affordable housing being important to us and in the Civic purpose was of providing affordable housing. and evaluating that concept, we were getting into a number of sit back issues, there are issues related to how the parking was going to be structured, and it just started becoming more problematic. Literally, a few minutes before this council meeting, we agreed to with the developer to essentially take the square footage that would have been associated with those one bedroom single family units at a rate of $3 and 75 cents a square foot, which is consistent with other things that I’m working on related to the affordable housing fund. They would then just pay us an equivalent amount for those units, which amounts to $21,000 that would then be placed in the affordable Housing fund to be used for the purposes established, which is to provide affordable housing to our community. And so, from my perspective, and in working with Theresa in this conversation, we feel that it really the Civic purpose that we’re satisfying is that we’re actually putting additional funding into the affordable housing fund in order to help us provide affordable housing to our community. Granted, it’s not it’s got to be accumulated with other funds. But that’s where we are today council can consider that option based on where we are in the conversations. My opinion is is based on the amount of legal research in the ambiguity in in in the plat note and what we have to work through. We think that is a equitable way to resolve this issue. Be happy to answer any questions.

22:56
Customer pack.

22:57
Thank you very badly. Harold These affordable units, are they going to be always affordable? Are they going to be when they’re sold be sold at market value.

23:08
So because of the issues in terms of placement with a setback, there’s not going to be affordable units. They’re going to pay us $3 and 75 cents a square foot, okay? To account for that piece,

23:21
okay? I misunderstood. Thank you.

23:25
Jasper Christianson.

23:28
I realized that this will not please everybody, and that, who lives in that community who were expecting some civic element in that community. Unfortunately, because of the way this contract was written a long long time ago, people, nobody’s here from them, maybe Johnny. But this contract was not written in a way that it was. Very clear. And therefore, I do think that because we did not it was not specified how much land or the location of land. I don’t, I think this is probably a good deal because this does serve civic purpose. It doesn’t turn out with it. These this was an agreement that gave the taxpayers some land was secured for the taxpayers of this city. And I’m not willing to turn over taxpayer land for nothing. So the taxpayers are getting something for this at large. The people who live in that neighborhood are not getting something particular but they are particular to their neighborhood but as citizens of this city, they are getting something in return which is some affordable housing units that will be able to get for this payment in lieu So I would vote for this. Thank you.

25:03
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

25:05
Thank you my badly.

25:07
So is there a payment in lieu or some sort of agreement concerning the regular portion the development, not the the two lots that were designated as civic usage.

25:23
So a little bit of history on that property. When that property originally came in the development process. They made the contribution of land which currently houses Spring Creek and Fall River, which met the affordability the affordable housing requirements for the broader development of prairie village. If they hadn’t put those four additional units it actually would have been beyond. I think the required affordable housing Peace Council actually voted on saying that they had satisfied their affordable housing requirement based on those original land donations in a previous action, this is really above and beyond that,

26:08
okay. So in in essence the the development has satisfied according to applicable ordinance Now, according to at least Council’s decision, right, the the inclusionary requirements. And so therefore, the proposal on the table is that these two small outlets, if you will, will then be a payment in lieu kind of concept correct towards the affordable housing initiative. And as such, because of where we’re at in the current economic market for for providing housing in our city as well as regionally. Any sort of contribution to the affordable housing fund is to me a civic contribution and much more more usable than, say 5000 square feet of what would be considered pocket park it at best. As I said, jokingly, to the mayor I’m like, at the last conversation about this is no, it’s not much better than most people’s backyards. As far as single family detached homes are concerned as far as the size. And I think the problem really lie with the non prescriptive nature of the original writing of the Civic contribution. It did not prescriptively say a certain amount of square footage, or even a usage of that donation. And I think that’s where we really get into the weeds here a little bit as far as what the planning and zoning Commission had to decide on as well as what we have to decide on here at City Council. And I think that overall, allowing the contribution to the affordable housing fund is probably the best way forward. Considering the utility of what’s been proposed

28:05
Dr. Waters,

28:07
thanks very badly. I get the concept.

28:11
I’m not sure I get the number. So I know you whatever you’re working on, you backed into a $3 and 75 cent per square foot. For the for the number of feet. I think the combined white what was the combined

28:24
600 square foot? That but the two parcels.

28:27
What I what I am wondering about is

28:32
that that you’ve been working on something but we do have a number in our ordinance inclusionary. The inclusionary zoning ordinance for a payment in lieu of $7 and 62 cents or 92 cents per square foot as a payment in lieu.

28:54
Yeah, we didn’t look at that because we had already they had already satisfied that component i get that

29:01
I get I get that I’m not questioning right the over over time, the serious commitment the developers made to land donations and what we’ve been able to do with it, as we’re as we are moving people into the fabric of apartments as I speak, or Yeah, this time, but it still begs the question. If we’re if we’re going to do this in the name of a cash, donation or contribution to the affordable housing fund, why we would not defer to our ordinance of $7 and 62 cents

29:38
92 cents, so 790 per square foot for finished market rate for sale housing, and $1 90 per square foot for finished market rate rental houses.

29:50
Those are the numbers I recall right. Well, I was quite recovered.

29:55
The finished Mark rate hasn’t 792 as opposed to 62. I still Wonder why I understand that more money that some form a developer, it’s also more money in greater greater civic

30:09
value.

30:10
Right? Why not that number?

30:12
And I think part of it was too is that was sort of when I looked at it based on the 375. That was wrong land. And that’s, that’s how we applied the raw land component to this. And so that was the genesis of the 375. Thanks,

30:29
Council, Rebecca.

30:30
Thank you. Um, this is actually my statement has to do to the developer. When we got this in our ordinance the last time according to our council come, we had two sections went on East, one on each side of this development that you were going to donate. I was not I was not happy that the developer came up and at the last minute, said, Oh, no, it’s only going to be one part. So Everybody was was taken aback really both staff and council and this last minute update that we didn’t have a chance to look at or even discuss in our ordinances or in our council come to me that is unacceptable. If a developer is going to be bringing something to us, they need to do it in time for the council to be able to look at it, to study it to understand what’s going on, as well as staff. So I, I just wanted to put that out there that we need to have more respect for staff and not just pop things in on them at the last minute, especially at the council meeting. So my lead statement

31:44
the other question is, I think it was deed restricted rental, not for sale, because what they were looking at and the dollar 90

31:54
and I’ve got I’ve got a question. What’s the city? What’s the city code on peace. Now we want to do we allow beauties. What we didn’t we take action? I mean, how does

32:09
how does that work now?

32:12
Mayor Bagley, dumper chat planning manager, we allow plans unit developments today. And someone could apply for a pewdie zoning and come in with an application for

32:24
that specifically, how is this property zone today?

32:28
Today they are zoned the

32:32
it would be commercial.

32:37
I’m going to get my mind’s zoning one is own commercial, one portion of it. The other portion is zoned residential mixed neighborhood.

32:44
Right, which is the Sonoma County Council took action to make this piece of property. zoned. Right, correct. So the PD Plan. I mean, legally, I don’t think there was anything and so then being willing to pay 21,000 When we did away with that pod, it’s a new owner. They’ve got use by right. They’ve got commercial and residential zone lots. And so they’re willing to, I mean, I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, but it’s not the city’s position there. No, I understand what I’m saying is but we don’t have a pod on this property right now. We do have a pod on this property. Now, I know the city’s position is that we do, but my position and looking at it is that 21,000 to get out of a legal quagmire where their position would be that they don’t 21,000 is a good. I mean, I look at both sides, and everybody’s got a good argument. And they’re willing to write a check for 29,000 avoid legal fees and move forward with the development and we get our affordable housing and we don’t have to spend any more time on this. I’m all for it.

33:56
You were touching on some of the questions as to why we were going to need to delay it to the 31st. Right.

34:02
Okay, well, we don’t have to now. I mean, unless we decide to or Yeah, so, all right. We have a motion one way or another

34:14
man. Yeah make a recommendation. If the council chooses to choose the option that city manager presented, you would want to make a motion to remove that note from the concept plan would but condition upon the payment of the 21,000 to the city of Longmont?

34:35
She would do that first. Go ahead.

34:39
Thank you very badly I move to remove note 12. No 12 with the condition that we accepted 21,000

34:53
What’s the exact number 21,000

34:56
even 21 21,000 correct. 21,011

35:00
and as a contribution to the affordable housing fund.

35:05
And mayor, I’m sorry to interrupt we it is a public hearing item that we would need to open. So just letting you know that we’ll do

35:13
that. We’ll do that. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. But, but we can vote on that first before we we have to vote on that. I don’t think we do. I mean, we can vote on that then have the public hearing on no public hearing first. Alright, let’s go ahead and open the public hearing for ordinance 20 2007 eight, an ordinance 2027 D. And we’ll postpone voting on this particular motion until after we’ve had a public hearing.

35:46
Thank you, Mayor Bagley council members, I would still urge you to reconsider what I’ve heard tonight. Yes, made a promise to that neighborhood to actually community to the city. And I appreciate the fact that the Civic purpose would go to affordable housing or to the affordable housing fund. But council member waters is correct. You know why? Why the $3 and whatever cents per square foot do it like you normally do it? If you feel like that’s the right way to go, it sounds like to me with this whole process that the postponing and least tell March 31, or whatever that date was to figure that out to make this consistent with whatever other donation and Lou, that you guys normally do on these types of developments. I mean, it should be consistent. All right. I mean, I, I think that it’s wrong. I think that people made decisions in that neighborhood based on that concept plan, based on what the city said it was going to be and now it’s something completely different. I understand there’s new zoning and there’s There’s all sorts of stuff that’s happened in the past years. I get that. But I’m just asking you to do what’s right, do what’s right for the community surrounding that project and do what’s right for the city along mark, taking $21,000. This, to me isn’t enough. I mean, it’s not consistent with any other donation in lieu or land or whatever that’s called. Right. It’s not consistent with what you’ve done before. And this developer, Dr. Horton, or its subsidiary de bhi, I mean, they they have the money. I mean, why are they nickel and dimed? The city? They’re just trying to get around this because they already have 100% engineering, design drawings ready to go. And I mean, that to me, it’s, it’s insulting. It should be insulting to you and it’s insulting to the city. So there’s another way to go about this. I understand that we that you guys want to make a decision. But I go back and ask for something else. I mean, when you brought up the respect when you brought up the fact that they had two lots, and then they came up right at the end said, Oh, no, we only met one. I mean, is the 21,000 only for one or is it both? Or, you know, like, I mean, it blows my mind how non transparent this entire processes. I mean, I honestly believe that the planning department and this is my personal opinion, I’ll state that for the record, but I think the planning department promised them that they could get this concept plan note taken off, and that’s why they went ahead with 100% engineering, design and everything. I mean, the transparency here is terrible. The ethics violations from the planning department trying to get this railroaded through to your chambers to get this voted on if i mean it’s it’s really sad I love the city. I don’t love how this process has gone. It’s not right. I urge you to tell them to go back, rethink it, make it if they’re going to do a donation in lieu, make it consistent with what they’re doing in or what you’re doing and other projects and call it good. All right. Don’t just take this to make it easy.

39:23
All right, thank you. Anyone else?

39:27
All right. See, no one will go ahead. No one else will go ahead and close the public hearing. Eugene Mae, Aaron, council

39:34
Eugene Bay City Attorney, just a couple procedural things. So this is first reading. We continued it at the last meeting on January 14.

39:44
Hearing Councilmember Rodriguez is motion. So there is an ordinance in the packet. The there’s two ordinances a has just a single condition if you wanted to add the 21,000 to a it effectuates the removal of note 12 requires submitted requirements we met within a year. If you were to add the 21,000, then we have an ordinance to come back on second reading and we would modify that ordinance depending upon your motion. So we’re only voting on one or the other one or the other. Right. So be had multiple conditions. That was the landscape easement and developer maintain Park. Mayor Pro Tem. Do you want to redo your ordinance with the motion to pass ordinance 20 2007 eight with your changes?

40:32
Yes, I move ordinance 20 2007. Eight with the condition that the $21,000 contribution to the affordable housing be included as a condition to 20 2007 eight.

40:45
I’ll second that. All right. Any additional

40:50
comments or questions from council members? All right. See no further debate. Let’s go and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. I’ll post in a All right, the motion passes six to one, or I’m sorry, five to one with Councilmember Martin. Absent which I should have announced that you got that right. Done. All right. And then with Dr. Waters descending. All right, let’s move on to 2020 or item 11. See legislative bills recommended for city council positions.

41:26
Now mayor and council Sandy cedar assistant city manager and I have four bills for your consideration today. There I just handed them out to you, but they have also been posted in the designated spot and on the web. So the first bill is House Bill 20 1192 concerning the use of money and the petroleum cleanup and redevelopment fund for development of fuel cell electric vehicle projects, obviously this so this bill basically would say that we could pull any kinds of money that comes out of the public safety funds for oil and gas cleanups to be able to be used for this kind of innovative work on Electric Vehicle projects. Since this really supports the council sustainability goals staff recommends that city council support 20 Hospital 20 1192 Senate Bill 2124 concerning adding the public school facility construction guidelines is a requirement to consult with the local electric utility. Our electric utility LPC think is this is a good idea to get in at the beginning of these kinds of construction projects. And so therefore, city staff recommends that city council support Senate Bill 124. Senate Bill 151 concerning the regulation of the Regional Transportation district, this one’s pretty tough because it really requires a whole lot of new things of RTD which of course, I think we think that needs to happen some additional auditing and some other things just as far as transparency of the operations of RTD. But at the same time, the way that the bill is written is pretty bureaucratic and has a whole lot of reporting requirements that might actually not get you there. So several of the organizations transportation organizations are planning to a Pose unless it’s amended. I think the concept makes sense, but we are unsure that the method makes sense. So we would like to just monitor this for a little while.

43:10
I was just gonna mention something on that one. Okay, go ahead.

43:12
And then the last one Senate Bill 2153. Concerning creation of an enterprise that is exempt from the requirements of Section 20 article 10 of the state constitution to administer a fee based water resource financing program. This one would basically pull different fees and general funds to create a revolving loan fund which doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense when we are the ones that are planning for our own future and our own water utilities. We would encourage everybody else to do the same. And so staff recommends the city council opposes Senate Bill 2153.

43:46
mile so this came up with the mayor’s in or the mayor’s and commissioners committee, the Senate Bill 2151. all it’s doing is adding four new positions. To the RTD. Board, it’s going from 15 to 19. Which the left, right, yeah. And so so do I. And so I mean, I know that there was some talk at the metro mayor’s or the mayor’s of Commissioners committee or the MCC. Because I know that there were allies who are championing the bill, and we didn’t want to hurt their feelings, and people were kind of hesitant and but at the end of the day, I personally think that what needs to happen, and again, I think they need to redistrict like just like we do at a state and national level RTD RTD board keep 15 but adding more, subtracting more and less they redistrict to make it proportionate, there’s no solution. So going from 15, you know, disproportionate seats to 19 is just going from bad to worse. And so I actually move that we oppose Senate Bill 2151.

44:57
town square peg.

44:59
I agree with that. Mayor,

45:01
that’s called a second.

45:03
I’ll call that a second.

45:04
All right, it’s been moved and seconded myself and Councillor pack.

45:07
So naida, the northern area Transportation Authority also opposes this because of the added addition of new board members. But the part the point here in this statement that reporting audits, I also want to say that NATO is getting a very deep audit of RTD. Some of these things we’re already going to do, we don’t need a bill. So that’s my impact.

45:38
Members of councils, certainly from RTD, that’s what we’ve heard is that all of the stipulations of the bill are already things that are required of them. And so the only real change is the board member change, right?

45:47
So I mean, I don’t know why we were, I mean, anyway, I know why we’re hesitant, but I still think we should express concern. So there’s emotions and a second. So the motion is to go ahead and direct staff to oppose Senate Bill 20 dash 151. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, cool. So that motion passes unanimously with Councillor Martin absent.

46:13
We still have three others. However, do we have a motion?

46:17
Because we’re back.

46:19
I move the slate of bills minus sb 2151. Period.

46:26
staff recommendation recommended by

46:28
staff recommended by staff. I’ll second that for you. All right. It’s been Moved by Councillor Peck seconded by the mayor.

46:34
Any any further question dialogue or debate? customer Christianson

46:39
trying to fix my bed.

46:41
All right. Dr. Waters.

46:43
Just to clarify, we are we’re talking about supporting the two bills that the staff recommends we support and opposing the third. Right, right.

46:51
Yes. All right. See no further discussion debate. Let’s go ahead and vote. All in favor, Aye. Opposed? All right. That passes unanimous We have Councillor Martin absent. I do have one other question where we did we take a position on Senate Bill 93.

47:10
Hang on one sec. That’s Mike foots arbitration bill arbitration.

47:21
I just want back up from council before I do something.

47:31
Council is not taking a position on 93.

47:34
Right. So I guess the

47:37
I don’t know why. So the metro mayor’s caucus, which I usually don’t go to, because we can talk about that in private if you’d like. But anyway, the Boulder County mayor’s are have asked that I. So the way the metro mayor’s caucus works is by consensus, and if five or less may have if less than five mayor’s don’t oppose it. Then there’s a press release that basically says the metro mayor’s caucus is, is against it, or for it or against it. So, in this particular case, for some reason the metro mayor’s caucus is coming out asking for a consensus vote, opposing Senate Bill 93, which basically just set some arbitration requirements, which I really don’t understand why this rises to the importance of I don’t get it. But I do know it’s really important to the other mayors and Boulder County, and I’ve asked that I joined them in opposing their opposition, and I was going to do that.

48:45
But it’s the arbitration for

48:47
so the it has to do with sex assault victims. If you want to read he pull it and just let us know.

49:04
Mayor Bagley I attended the conroe Municipal League Muni caucus today there’s no discussion about this bill. But

49:10
like I said, it’s strange why this would be an issue of debate, because

49:15
this is the consumer and employee dispute resolution Fairness Act concerning protections related to mandatory agreement provisions and connected with an acting a consumer and employee dispute resolution Fairness Act

49:27
close, but keep going. Not you me. Yeah.

49:32
The villain x the consumer and employee dispute resolution Fairness Act for certain consumer and employment arbitrations. The Act prohibits the waiver of standards at four and challenges, the evidence partiality prior to a claim being filed. It is mediation is what it looks like a

49:47
mediation. That’s right. So basically, it’s basically saying you can challenge an arbiter based on bias and whatnot. Again, it’s not it’s another burger, but it’s important to somebody and it’s really important to the The mayor’s in Boulder County that are asking and it’s important to Mike foot. They’re asking that I joined them just to make it so that the metro mayor’s caucus does not have a consensus to oppose this bill. Is anyone opposed? Dr. Waters?

50:14
is Mike foot sponsoring this? Yes, yes bill. So he’s asking the mayor’s

50:21
to oppose the bill. No, no Metro mayor’s caucus came out to oppose it. And the Boulder County mayor’s reached out and said hey, Mayor Bagley we need a fifth vote with this so the metro mayor’s don’t have a consensus so there’s no position it just goes away.

50:36
So the council could support the bill.

50:39
Or

50:40
not a poor not even do anything and just tell me it’s okay to add my name to the list which I could do but you could I we haven’t taken a position on it. And I don’t know a lot about it and

50:52
and Mayor Bagley and reading this and you all may remember that at the legislative dinner, Senator foot did discuss this bill with you just briefly around the idea of They provide the right of the party to challenge the arbitrator. Right, because oftentimes, arbitration is binding. And that’s that and this gives another opportunity, I think, for people to work out dispute resolution.

51:09
So if we support with the our mayor is asking, it would simply allow the bill to go forward and Be Heard without the metro Mayor mayor’s

51:22
expressing their opposition. Correct.

51:23
Thank you. So they just they the mayor’s simply don’t want the metro mayor’s caucus to oppose the bill.

51:31
So the city of La does not have to support the bell.

51:34
No, we’re not with this. This is not this is just anyone have a problem. If I oppose it, no. Okay. Anyone? All right.

51:44
I just had a question on what the status is. So is it in committee is it on the Senate floor?

51:53
I literally have no idea. It is

51:56
in Judiciary Committee.

52:03
Alright, so I’m going to go ahead and see no opposition, I’m going to go ahead and send out email just saying that. I oppose the opposition. So

52:10
Alright, cool. Thanks.

52:13
I’m gonna pose the opposition. Yes. And that night, yeah, man, we’ll just will

52:19
not even support the bill just just oppose the opposition. So Metro mayor’s caucus doesn’t have a consensus. All right. So let’s move on. Anything else on that? or other issues? All right, let’s move on to final call public invited to be heard. I just want to point out scouts that you are seeing one of the shortest city council meetings ever. And so someday you’re going to be and so someday, you’re going to be sitting on city council running for mayor or whatever, and you’d be like, Wait a second. I thought it was supposed to be way shorter than this. But that’s not going to happen. So I’m just warning you now. So let’s go ahead and do a final call public invited, be heard. Anyone want to speak. All right, we’re going to go ahead and close final called public invite to be heard.

53:03
Let’s go on to Mayor council comments. Councilmember Peck.

53:10
Thank you, Mayor badly I want to respond actually to Regina Chaney and Justin Stover. Last, at the last council meeting, I made a motion that we move forward with getting a facilitator to facilitate, facilitate and ethics and Rules of Procedure meeting among Council. So that is already in the works, we get it that we need help at an ethics committee. So, the other thing that I want to explain is about emails. First of all, I have no doubt over four and a half years that there are 3000 emails. But the core request is for everything that is on the city server, if it’s on the city server means that it has my city of Longmont address. Now I had may have gotten it have gotten many emails from people to my private email address, but I forwarded those to the city server. That’s why you see my private email address along with whoever, whoever wrote me that. And we’re all like that. I mean, I’ve seen core requests from the mayor from Councilman waters, and they they send it to the city server as well, with their city email address, those did not come from the inner indras save server or Google server, because I don’t have any of those, which is what I told. And I sat down with the city attorney, and we looked at the ones that he had questions about and I said, release them all. The Longmont observer has released a lot of my emails so if anybody’s interested to see it’s kind of Boring, who emailed me and what I said? calcium woman Martin has put him on all social media. So anybody wants to read my emails, they’re, they’re fine. You can go read them. I’m not going to apologize because they’re not on my personal email. They are on facility server, which is what the core request was for. They were business that I forwarded it to my city servers, so they would be transparent. There were no emails that anybody got off the server, or the Google server. They all came from john packet Longmont colorado.gov. So there you have it, transparent. They’re all on the city server. You can go read them. Thank you.

55:54
Mayor pro tem Macie May Bagley This is just a note for my fellow council members and As well as the staff that there’s a death in the family, and I’ll be out of town Friday through Sunday. So I’m

56:06
sorry to hear that.

56:09
But I, just for the purpose for the sake of my own clarity and how I approach this issue of emails.

56:22
There have been several core requests that people interested in my emails, text messages calendar. So it’s been my understanding that if if there is an email on my private email account, that has to do with city business, that’s part of the public record. So I’m just asking our city attorney, is that not Am I correct or incorrect? You’re correct. So if whether I have or have not forwarded and I and I do the same thing when I have my wits about me, copying my email, my city email account But if there’s been correspondence that I didn’t think was city business, so I didn’t any of those that have anything to do with the city of Longmont would be part of that. Public Record no matter what server they’re on. Correct.

57:17
Correct. Location doesn’t matter. It’s about the subject matter. Okay.

57:20
I just wanted to just just to be clear, thank you.

57:26
All right. Anybody else?

57:28
All right. City Manager remarks.

57:33
No comments, Mayor Council.

57:36
Eg

57:37
no comments mare.

57:38
All right. Let’s go ahead and adjourn. Motion to adjourn.

57:41
So move.

57:42
All right. Anybody Opposed? The journey has been moved in second head and we’re journey