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

Longmont City Council Meeting, Regular Session – February 25, 2020

To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit: https://otter.ai/s/W0zmqGDaT8Cvj8xglinpAg

For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:

0:06
Alright, at seven o’clock, let’s go ahead and get started. Let’s go ahead and have roll call pledge.

0:15
Here. Here.

0:24
All right, let’s say the pledge.

0:33
I pledge allegiance

0:34
to the flag of the United

0:36
States of America.

0:41
Under God.

0:48
All right. Just a quick reminder, the public, everybody who’s on this list gets three minutes. Three minutes, we’ll have to cut you off. Your name is not on the list. You can say something but you’ll have to wait till the end of today’s meeting. And is anybody on the list that is under the age of 18? Who has school tomorrow?

1:06
Okay, so You three are on here? Yeah, you guys I’m gonna make sure I’m gonna do you solid. I’m gonna get you to school on time. So get ready you three will go first. Are you Natalie Hazel and Greg.

1:20
What are your names? met Natalie.

1:25
You’re he is he like talking to? No.

1:28
Okay. Just you and then

1:31
Clyde. Clyde. You want us? You’re not saying nothing though. Right, Clyde.

1:38
Oh, Natalie, Clyde and Eli central image. All right. You’ll be up here in just a sec. Get ready. Okay, let’s go ahead. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of February 11 20 22nd.

1:52
Yes, sir.

1:56
I am a

1:59
unclear of How to with approval of these minutes

2:04
to correct the record of the February 11 meeting, because if you go to number 13 on these minutes,

2:16
your mics off. I don’t have now your mics off. Talk to those guys.

2:24
At the end of the meeting, Councilmember pack made a statement. The what’s in the minutes is I have no doubt a correct summary of the statement. The problem is it’s an incomplete summary. And in the statement, there were a couple comments that were made that two of which I believe to be inaccurate, one of which I know to be inaccurate, involved my name. So I’m, I’m not certain how it’s my understanding that the the video is the official record of the meeting, not the minutes. But if we approve these minutes without correcting that record, then the statement stands. As as facts as fact or truth? Well, you can well, you can either

3:03
vote for the motion against the motion.

3:09
I’d like to correct the record of the February 11. Meaning you tell me when I can do that. If not now? No, you can do it now. So I want to correct the record now. It is not a matter of voting on these minutes. Correct. The statement that was made was inaccurate. I have transcribed the statement if people would like a copy of it. There were there was here are the statements that I believe to be inaccurate. And this is out of context. But there’s a statement that the core requests for everything that is on the city server, this was in response to comments that were made about emails. It’s my understanding that when a core request is made, it is not limited to what is on the city’s or the a council members email account or on the city server. It is for everything, every email that has to Do with potential city business regardless of the server on which it sets, since I asked that question the city attorney and got the confirmation. So I want to I want to if that that was a statement that was made, I believe needs to be corrected. There’s a second reference. Second time there was a second time in that statement that that’s that that is also said that either servers that the emails are on the city server, and that that’s what a core request was for. I believe the core requests are for everything that is city business. So both of those statements are incorrect, and there was a reference to how Councilmember Peck handles core requests and equated her response to the same way I’ve responded to core requests. And the fact is, we have responded differently. rb, our responses cannot be equated, and I would like it. I like it to be corrected in the record. That when when there have been core request for my records. I’ve handed over my devices. All of them So the staff decides not me, the staff decides what is or is not city business on my private email account. That is not how Councilmember Peck responded to the core request. And I want that clarity stated in the minutes of this meeting, since we can’t get it in the minutes of the last meeting.

5:18
Okay, so Councillor mech pack made a statement, which is on the record, Dr. Waters has now made a statement on the record, no motion has been made, but there’s a motion on the floor to pass the approval of minutes in February 11 2020. See no further debate or dialogue. Sorry, Counselor Christian.

5:37
Well, I’m a little puzzled it didn’t count someone waters say this at that. The February meeting because otherwise

5:44
this is there’s there’s there’s currently no motion. That meaning right. All we’re doing is voting to approve the February 11 2020 minutes.

5:54
There’s no motion. Okay. So all right. All right. Let’s go and vote. All in favor say aye. Opposed,

6:01
Aye or nay?

6:02
Nay. All right, that passes six to one with Councilmember waters dissenting.

6:08
Or did you vote as well?

6:11
Oh, sorry. Okay. Well, it’s a little tricky because kids the mayor’s not this dumb. Usually. Actually, some of the audience would say, Yes, I am. But I was I can’t hear so yeah. Alright, so it was five for Dr. Waters against, and Councilmember Martin abstaining. Let’s move on to Agenda revisions and submission of documents motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items for future agendas. The only thing I want known that you guys to know is that I asked Harold and spoke with Eugene, but he’s not in charge of the agenda. We were there. There was a group green solutions that’s a publicly traded entity that will be purchasing some local dispensaries one or more. And so I talked to Harold about bringing it back. It sounds like it’s gonna come back in a Sometime in order to talk about how that might, we might better reflect and match state law. So you I’m sure Abby Driscoll has approached one or all of us. And so I just said bring it back to discuss. So that’s already on there.

7:15
Is it April or May done we had the marijuana conversation?

7:20
May, April. Okay. So so it’s more than that, because as they change state law, there’s a number of issues that have come out. And so we need to have a broader conversation on things that we need to clean up in general to bring in concert with state law. So it’s really more than just that issue that we need to bring forward. All right,

7:40
Mayor, I have a couple other agenda.

7:43
Don, absolutely not. Yes, go ahead. Just wanted

7:45
to note there was a revised resolution for item eight k that was published. Additionally, there was a revised attachment one for item nine B that was also published and provided the Council also wanted to note on item eight, a The second reading date is incorrect. That will be April 14. And I will read that into the record correctly. Okay. And then finally, Sandy emailed you are there isn’t there are no bills for consideration. So your general business item about legislative

8:15
is awesome. removed. All right, cool.

8:19
Anything else?

8:21
Alright, so let’s move on to city manager you know I report to you. All right. So let’s go ahead and have a proclamation designating March 2020 is census Awareness Month in Longmont, Colorado. So who hears who hears Aaron, you can come on up? Who else is here to talk about the census? So, come on up everybody while I read this, and then everybody will take a picture we say everybody you mean everybody who’s here? Because they all count. Right? All right. So this is a proclamation designating March 2020 census Awareness Month in Longmont, Colorado, whereas April 1 2020 census day for the United States of America pursuant to Article One, section two of the US Constitution, the 2020 census a once a decade population count will be open to the public to self report on March 12 2020, and will continue through July 31, with an ideal deadline of may 12 for everyone in law month to complete the census, and whereas the fair allocation of federal dollars for public health education, transportation, child and elder care, food assistance, emergency preparedness, disaster response, and many other critical programs and services depends on complete and accurate age, population and other demographic information gathered every 10 years. And whereas an accurate census is required for the proper apportionment of representatives with the legislative bodies of the US House of Representatives and Colorado State Legislature and is used in the redistricting of state and county voting districts. And we’re as information collected by the US Census Bureau is confidential and protected by law and any data related to the census can only be released an aggregate form that does not identify individual respondents and whereas the city of Long monster Complete count committee is directly working to ensure everyone counts in Longmont and is also supporting the efforts of the other complete count committees in Boulder County including the city of Boulder, University of Colorado Boulder and Boulder County nonprofit CCC to increase community participation in the 2020 census. Now therefore, I Brian g Bagley Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me and the City Council, the city of Longmont do hereby proclaim March 2020 as census Awareness Month in Longmont, and they urge all residents of lamarque to participate in the 2020 census to ensure everyone counts in Longmont

10:33
sign me.

10:34
So Aaron,

10:38
Mayor Bagley members of council Aaron fosdick with the Planning and Development Services Department, I’m joined by co chair of the Lamont complete count committee Carmen Ramirez and several members of the Longmont complete count committee, and we appreciate you proclaiming March 2020 census Awareness Month. It’s hard to believe but we’re less than 20 days away from the invitations to respond. To the census being mailed out to all on my residents and all residents of the United States. So that will begin on March 12. We are really making a strong push for everyone in Longmont to respond either via mail, phone or for the first time ever online. So the census is going to be easier than ever to respond. As we’ve mentioned in the past several times, and we’ve talked to you and as the mayor just read in this proclamation, the census is incredibly important to Longmont. We estimate that for every resident, which currently is about 97,000 people living in Longmont. The Census will test our estimates and see how close we are. For every resident we get about 1500 dollars per year per resident. So you can see that that’s an incredible amount of money that’s coming to our community. Colorado also students to gain another seat in Congress, which is incredibly important to our state. And so an accurate complete count is exceptionally important. The county is putting a lot of resources to this. We’re pleased tonight to be joined by newly hired county census campaign manager as well as an outreach cordon And so we’re really working closely with our county partners, and other local complete count committees, nonprofits, businesses, as well as residents just to get the word out. And so we appreciate the work that all of you are doing really appreciate the work that the community and our community partners are doing and are excited to make sure everyone in long line counts. Carmen, do you want to add anything? karma or karma?

12:24
Now there’s two cards. Carmen arminius city of Longmont. Good evening, just want to let you know that we are making all sorts of efforts. I’ve been doing presentations on all sorts of groups, from Boy Scouts to immigrants that are learning English to parents at all of our title one schools. So we’re making those efforts in partnership with Pamela and Carmen who are part of Boulder County, so we’re making sure to reach out to all of their communities. We’ve done the education we’ve done the outreach. Now we need to encourage and motivate people to respond. So I call did you want to say it in Spanish? What

13:02
alcohol they do you and you say it in Spanish what would you say in Spanish

13:06
complicitous Hussein so

13:07
I keep it competitive to censor

13:09
incompleteness to censor

13:10
toes Quinten in Longmont co host kuantan in Longmont.

13:13
There is maneras pasillas para respondeat

13:15
race mamillus Super pasillas para responder

13:18
qualis on internet Gorrell. 11 Okay,

13:23
guys, yes.

13:25
Hello spawn Yoli tambien pull this here Look at me DC

13:30
Alright, so let’s go ahead Yeah, no, it’s not it. Why don’t we ask everybody here except one person with a camera to take a picture. So come on up everybody. Congratulations. You’re going to be in city history

13:43
maybe right there

13:46
why don’t why don’t we actually why don’t we there we go

13:54
trip hazard city. Oh

13:57
that was my point yeah

14:02
Christmas Story

14:05
dangerous

14:19
here Sandy

14:54
all right here

15:32
Lots of people seem to think that

15:35
you can certainly saying that yes, yeah.

15:38
Everyone’s walking back to their

15:43
citizenship question on the census.

15:48
nine questions really easy.

15:54
All right.

15:58
And again, there’s no census Question or a citizenship question on the census, which means that if you are undocumented, you can talk and answer and no one’s going to know anything about you other than you’re part of the mass which is Longmont so all right let’s move on to first call public invite and be heard that this time the infamous citizens of Longmont known as Natalie brama, Clyde, Elisa and Eli bunker All right, come on up guys. Yeah,

16:42
there you go.

16:46
Go ahead say their names and addresses and then go on and let us know what you want to say. Okay, so

16:51
I am Natalie Rana and research today are Clyde bullets yet and Eli bunker. So our 516 Collier Street.

17:03
I live on 1345 South grand street, and I live on six to five can work or

17:10
beer from Central elementary and are working on our international baccalaureate exhibition. We would like to talk about plastic and the harmful effects it has on the environment. To start off plastic is killing innocent ocean animals like the leatherback sea turtle. Globally, it is estimated that over 100 million marine animals are killed each year by plastic waste. animals eat plastic bags thinking that as their prey and they die. We would like to ban plastic bags like this one.

17:47
From stores.

17:50
This would save countless lives of animals. It will not be a big change since stores like natural grocers and adorn I’ve already started using paper bags, reusable bags would also be a good option. If you decide that you want to do something smaller, you could find people one to $2 for each plastic bag they use, which would still be effective. Remember, we only have one Earth, we should always use our precious resources we have, please consider our idea. Thank you.

18:18
Thanks, guys. Well done. Well done.

18:21
All right.

18:26
He’s well, Gordon.

18:37
After that impressive display, I don’t know what to say. I’m Hazel Borden. And for the last year and a half, I’ve been living at 1600 Atkinson Avenue in Longmont. After my retirement I moved here to Colorado, which I consider my home.

18:57
My training my career was any college And my training directs me to observe human actions and the consequences from perspectives of time, as well as scale. By scale. I mean that an action is analyzed at the ground level, as well as from an aerial or maybe a broader perspective as ecologists tend to do. I’m speaking to urge you to reverse the decision last year, that allowed the creation of Metro residential districts after some 15 years of disallowing them to occur in Longmont. From the perspective of looking at future and ground level scenarios. I understand that residents of such districts are likely to be assessed future fees for maintenance and other services that they did not anticipate and perhaps cannot afford. This has been reported many times in the Denver Post Office. goals and speakers here at the City Council. So I want to reverberate such things. I also understand that unless such residents of these districts have the time and motivation

20:14
for taking leadership roles in their districts on boards, perhaps they usually do not have the power to direct planning efforts within their districts. I may be wrong on that interpretation, but that’s what I understand. To my mind, this appears to be unjust in a democratic society, since the city cannot remedy a developer’s inability to live up to the requirements of its contract in a service agreement.

20:44
In addition to these aspects, I call your attention to look at the broader perspective, from the viewpoint of cumulative effects of long months population growth, trajectory and the future trends of our city will grow the paving over of random and diverse areas of semi natural and exotic grasslands and the soils by such metros districts impacts the atmosphere. And I hope that it is a concern to the city’s climate change initiatives. For example, it enlarges the city’s heat island warming effect through the additional impermeable pavements and buildings required for these districts. It also narrows the city’s ability to allow natural processes to sequester carbon within our soils that remain, and the intact vegetation that remains. But thank you. I’m off. But thank

21:52
you for allowing me to address these issues.

21:54
Thank you. All right, Greg Marcy.

22:04
giving me a badly staff. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. And the thing I’m going to bring up is about the emails and emails being used by staff members. They’re using their personal email study using city emails. From the research I’ve done, this is against the law. I would like to see that Stop, please keep that data secure on city servers do not use your personal email. And if people are doing that by accident or something, they should come forth and say, this won’t happen anymore. This creates a opportunity for integrity across the entire city.

22:47
done by the staff.

22:49
Thank you very much.

22:51
Thank you. All right, Kevin Gallagher.

23:00
Good evening. Thank you for having me. My name is Kevin Gallagher. I live at 9376 Rogers road. I still do here in Longmont and I’m here tonight to talk about the special Metro financing districts when you work on it tonight’s to undo and revoke the residential district that your extended to Mr. mall sign and the development that’s currently plaguing our road. I hope that you will know also remove, revoke and cancel the special Metro financing district that you granted to him a residential development. Because if you don’t basically you’ve effectively changed the law slowly at the crest of one man for one man, which is illegal under our Constitution. And to that effect.

23:46
I would hope that maybe you might reinstate the appeal that you wanted to ask Mr. Mayor this past year when we had a reasonable appeal because you push through the preliminary plat with 12 to 13 missing items, information that we as residents as neighbors That are considered under the code that you’re responsible to never had any information to even understand the impacts of the development. But it’s clear that our robot 30 homes, also rule 400 new condos in the middle of other street is going to have an impact on traffic. And your traffic study that we got after the preliminary part was passed, so that 15% of the cars from 400 new homes are going to come on to Rogers road. That’s a joke, a reasonable person would see that as a joke. The drain study that came out last summer,

24:30
actually said that we can stand two feet of standing water on our properties because we’re in a high impact flood zone. How did you get mountain Brook out of that flood zone? There’s something really corrupt going on in this process here from the very start. And as evidenced by a call request that we did receive for a very small period of time. It shows a highly undue influence and familiar relationship between Councilmember waters, Martin and you may or badly all throughout this process for the last few years on mountain Brook You should have disclosed and you should have recused yourself from the appeal process, because you’ve had ex parte communications with one of the plaintiffs in a quasi judicial setting, which is also illegal. So I’m asking you to do the right thing to avoid corruption. To be as these last few people said, open, honest and transparent government that you purport to be and do the right thing by us. This is not a newbie, we’re not against the development, we’re against the process in which you’ve completely alienated and ignored us this entire time. We have property rights guaranteed by the state and the federal government, and we’re going to continue to act upon them and work to preserve them. throughout this entire process. We’re not going anywhere. We love living in Longmont, and you should appreciate that and treat us with the respect we deserve. Thank you so much.

25:46
Stick around. I’ll respond. All right. Let’s see here. Kevin will shine

25:57
mere Africa Motion. There’s one more. Deb McClintock she’s on my list. Okay,

26:03
great. Well, Mayor City Council, Kevin will shine 5139 older inch drive. I’ll make a quick I know we’re obviously with councils going on the ordinance on special districts. The only issue I have is when you say, if you look at the lead into your ordinance, the state you’re stopping for the following reasons. If you go through the reasons you say, long man has had development for 15 years, and this will not adversely affect development. I believe last week, he discussed the total lack of middle class housing in the city. So yeah, we’ve had developing but we haven’t, we haven’t done anything for the middle class. Frankly, we’re providing more middle class housing in the city than anybody is. And we’re investing a lot of money to do that. So that’s that’s opinion or false at at best. It says that people will be taxed for things that they don’t get the benefit of. They don’t get a commensurate benefit of you can’t have a district unless you provide those benefits. That’s false. The reasons you have in there, frankly, are all false or just opinion. So if you’re gonna have an ordinance, at least put it just say, we don’t want to have the district’s I think that’d be better. I do feel compelled to speak because the last speaker made reference to a lot of meetings, I can tell you, I can remember a lot of meetings with a lot of council people. And I can remember meetings out on dirt fields, which have nothing to do with our developments that have to do with Habitat for Humanity, that had to do with schooling that had to do with issues to make the city better. I moved here to make this city better. So I talked to a lot of people about trying to make it better. So I take offense to any insinuation that anything below board is going here. I’ve been told very strongly by this council to provide a community that provides middle class housing, and can you help something for the people at the lowest end of the spectrum? We’ve done that it’s done nowhere else in the country, and we’re not going to apologize for it. So thank you. Thank you.

27:53
All right.

27:55
Whose last one?

27:57
Deb McClintock. Deb McClintock

28:06
Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Begley and council. This is an article that was in Denver Post. Okay, thank you. In December 2019, Colorado Metro districts and developers create millions of debt leaving homeowners with soaring tax bills. My name is Deborah cleantech. I live at 1100 East 17th Avenue here in Longmont, and I’m here to caution you about Metro districts. We moved here from Texas back in the 80s. And we bought a home in an area in Douglas County was called roxboro Village. We are unaware of really what a metro district was, and no one ever really mentioned what it was about, or anything. It was a fire district one. And after we’d been there for several years, all of a sudden there is meeting called that all the homeowners had to get together and we were informed there. had not been enough houses that had been sold in that subdivision. So therefore, the cost for the infrastructures was being passed down to the homeowners there. Of course, that caused a lot of financial difficulties with people because they were next expecting such huge property taxes to be what they were. So I am hoping that you guys go home. Take a look at this again, there’s an area up in Loveland Johns County area called the Thompson River ranch subdivision where this is happening again, people are thinking that their mortgage is going to be a certain amount and their taxes will be a certain amount, not understanding how the metro district works. And so what happens when they don’t sell enough houses, then all that debt is put back on the homeowners, and it causes a lot of people to lose their homes and I could see where people would foreclose on these houses here in Longmont and You would be left with empty houses. And that’s not good for the area at all. And Highlands Ranch, for instance, they’re supposed to be the pinnacle of a metro district. After 40 years, there’s done that $30 million after all those houses, you know how big Highlands Ranch is their stuff, thousands of homes there, and they’re still in debt, that much money. So I am requesting that the console would really take a take time to research these Metro districts, because the boards are run by the developers and the builders, and they are the ones that vote on the tax increases, and no one can stop them. They’re their own little government. So I would ask that you would take a look at this and make sure that this type of situation does not happen in Longmont and that forces people out of their homes there’s a bunch of people up in Loveland that are being forced closed down up there as we as I’m speaking. So please take a look at that before you approve a bunch of Metro districts here in Longmont. Thank you, thank you.

31:09
Alright that will conclude today’s public invited to be heard and just let me make it yes, you get you’ll have the opportunity at the end to talk if you want to say something Miss Bassett, but we got to the rules are that if you didn’t get on the list, you got to wait till the end. So just generally speaking, I just from I mean, I think I speak for all accounts so I don’t care what side of an issue you’re on. Having served here for eight years and knowing everybody at this Dyess, some people’s names, yet, I don’t care what the topic was tonight. I can vouch that everybody up here for the thousand dollars that they get paid every month, puts in the time, the emotion, the energy and the love. And I’m just tired of hearing the word corruption. I get 1500 dollars a month. And just because council members do not agree with one of 100 thousand people in Longmont does not make us corrupt. It makes us a representative democracy. And we’re up here trying to do the good of the people. And we all have better things to do. If we’re going to get yelled at and accused of crime and corruption, I guarantee you nobody up here is a criminal. Nobody up here is corrupt. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve got. And so sometimes I know I’m supposed to be quiet, but after being two years in this seat, I don’t do that anymore. People stand up here and they want to pick out people on staff for this council. I’m going to start pushing, pushing back and just saying you’re wrong. So anyway, you’re wrong. All right. Let’s go ahead and move on to the consent agenda. Can you go ahead and read that for us?

32:40
Mayor Item A is ordinance 20 2020 2009. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14.32 of the Longmont municipal code on rates and regulations governing electric service public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 14 2028 vs ordinance Oh 20 2010 the bill for ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of 410 foot wide utility easements in the prairie village subdivision generally located adjacent to Alpine street public hearing and second reading scheduled for March 17 2028. See is ordinance 20 2011. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter four point window of the lung municipal code on special districts policies and procedures. public hearing and second reading scheduled for March 17 2028. d is resolution 20 2017. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the memorandum of understanding between the city and you HS of Centennial peaks LLC DBA Centennial peaks hospital to facilitate providing effective and efficient access to behavioral services to individuals in custody. He is resolution 2020 dash 18 a resolution to the Long Island City Council establishing the fee for cash in lieu of water rights transfers. Eight F is resolution 20 2019 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the initial governmental agreement between the city and Boulder County Public Health for farm to early childhood education and farmers market food assistance incentives programs. ag is resolution 2020 dash 20 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the state of Colorado for a library grant. Ages resolution 2020 dash 21. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the regional air quality Council for grant funding for an electric vehicle charging station. Eight is resolution 2020 dash 22. a resolution to the Long Island City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and workforce Boulder County for internship sponsor agreements for March 2020 through February 2022. Eight j is resolution 2020 dash 23 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Bureau of consumer protection of the Federal Trade Commission for consumers Sentinel network competently. And data security agreement with an agenda. Eight gays resolution 2020 dash 24 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving a voluntary alternative agreement for the Longmont family apartments development as satisfaction of the city’s inclusionary housing requirements.

35:19
All right, so assume that’s it. Good job. Take a breath. Good job. Round of applause, Don. Right. Applause All right. So do we have a motion or before that? Do we have anything that we want to pull?

35:34
It’s been moved that we passed a consent agenda has been moved and seconded. I think

35:39
we need to see the hand. Okay.

35:43
All right.

35:46
Dr. Waters would like to pull cnK Would you like to restate your motion?

35:51
I’m not telling you to I’m asking.

35:56
Okay, I move we approve the consent agenda. Pulling See, and Cain.

36:05
It’s been moved in second it tells me Martin,

36:07
I am sorry. I received a query from a constituent about he. And so I

36:16
would like to pull.

36:18
All right. Counselor Christianson is ok. We pulley

36:24
Yes.

36:26
Alright. So I’ll take that as an amended an amended motion. So the motion is that we passed the consent agenda last C E and K. It has been seconded by Councilmember Peck. Uh huh. Getting the verbal and visual nod. Let’s go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, that passes unanimously. All right. Let’s go on to ordinances and second reading and public hearings on on the following matters nine eight ordinance 2028 07. A bill for an ordinance conditionally proving the pepper neighborhood concept plan agreement, generally located between Alpine street tularosa Lane winding driving Canadian crossing drive. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak? We’ll go ahead and have a public hearing on this matter. All right, see no one. Let’s go ahead and close the public hearing any questions or comments from council?

37:15
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez,

37:16
I move approval of ordinance 2027. A

37:19
Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, that passes six to one with Councilmember waters. Opposed. Let’s move on to nine be public hearing and consideration recommendations for 2020 Community Development Block Grant program funding for draft 2020 CDBG program action plan. Let’s go ahead and let’s go and open up this for public hearing. I don’t think there’s a staff presentation right. There is all right, let’s go ahead and Oh yeah, that’s right. 2020 minute one that says 2020 CDBG action plan.

38:16
Leaving Marin council Kathy feather Housing and Community Investment division manager for the city. So tonight is the public hearing for the proposed 2020 Community Development Block Grant action plan. And this one was updated in your packet because right after it went out, we got word from head what our actual allocation was going to be. So we could put actuals in here instead of our estimated costs. So what we’re looking at for CDBG funding in 2020 $610,926, which is a reduction of $12,000 from 2019, or about 2% and a total of 6.2% reduction. From 2018. So the chart on the far right gives you an idea of where we have been over the years. 651,000 was our highest allocation. We also have 360,417. And there’s another typo in there. dollars to be reallocated. And this is primarily from program income that we’ve received at the very end of 2019. From repayment of the fiscal loans when we refinance their properties here, they had some loans that they paid back, and then we’re estimating about $20,000 in program income to come in in 2020. So this is a total of about 991,000. We took applications in October, we opened those up in October, they were due November fourth, we received five total housing applications. Two of those were referred for the CDBG funding and I’ll get into those in a little bit. We also have a city fund request for homeless solutions for Boulder County program, our ongoing rehab program funding that we operate with city staff, and then the housing counseling program. The 2020 action plan will be due to head by word hoping mid April, we have a new five year Consolidated Plan that will cover 2022 2024 that we’re working on right now that has to go in first. So that has to move along. Before we can submit our action plan. The public hearing is required that we’re holding tonight and a 30 day public notices also required we started that notice period January 29, and it will end on March 2. So looking a little closer on what we’re recommending funding for our housing rehab programs a total of just over $300,000 for the single family home owner occupied rehab program, the architectural barrier removal program, the emergency grant program that helps with health and safety issues, mobile home repair, and then our program delivery costs to operate that program. About 29 or so households should be assisted with this funds. The next recommendation is the Boulder County housing counseling and personal finance program. This would be a $50,000 grant. This is a program. The counseling is required by our downpayment assistance and rehab programs. In addition, they also provide credit counseling. They help with folks that need a spending plan are trying to reduce debt, improve their credit includes foreclosure prevention, if that’s needed, and reverse mortgage counseling as well.

41:54
This project leverages over $300,000

41:58
in other funding We expect about 240 lower income residents will be assisted. The homeless solutions for Boulder County support is $56,600 in as grants for security or utility deposit. So as people get referred, that are experiencing homelessness get referred for housing, the vouchers, the locally funded vouchers that were approved as part of the 2020 budget. And some of the vouchers that Longmont Housing Authority has set aside will be used to get folks into housing. As they move into that they’re going to need security and utility deposit assistance of these funds would be provided for that. We’re anticipating about 23 households would be assisted with these funds. And then the two project funding recommendations one is for the in between to acquire property, it’d be 154,100 $70 grant, they’re also receiving a loan from the affordable housing Fund and the amount of $100,000. Six to 12 housing units are expected to be created once they find a property. And there are a lot of caveats on that funding, which we went through and the affordable housing fund approvals, but basically that they have to have a purchase within 12 months of contract. They have to have a minimum of at least six units in the project, one unit able to be fully accessible, and they have to provide documentation of their other financing before we would enter into a contract, purchase contract. And then the other project is the Longmont Housing Authority, Aspen Meadows senior apartments refinance and rehab. This is a $300,000 grant from 2020 funds that will go along with the hundred and $75,000 grant already approved from 2019 funds, and it will preserve 50 housing units for low income seniors And then finally, we’re setting aside 20%. The maximum amount for Program Administration, it’s about 126,000. Again, this is the maximum we go ahead and hold out if we don’t need it. It gets reallocated for projects. So altogether, we’re looking at about 350 households that will be served with this funding 2900, the rehabilitation program 23 homeless, eight new affordable rental units created taking an average between six and 12. And then 50 rental homes for seniors preserved and then 240 households helped to remain stable through the housing counseling program. So this is about 2800 investment per household assisted and about $11.6 million would be leveraged and other funds brought into our community with these funds. This just gives us a little bit hard to see but it just goes through and shows the exactly what we just went through in the format that we usually provide to HUD. And the amounts highlighted are the ones that that were lowered in order when we got less grant than we had anticipated. So I am more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. Otherwise, you can go ahead and hold the public hearing and take action.

45:19
Right, thank you very much. Let’s go ahead and open it for public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here that would like to say anything on this issue? All right, see, no one. Let’s go ahead and closed public hearing. Do we have a vote or a vote of emotion?

45:34
with someone like to make them okay, I moved, or did I move that? What do we need to do here? We need to do anything.

45:42
So you’d be approving submission to HUD contingent that we don’t receive any comments between now and march 2. So moved. Second.

45:50
All right, let’s go and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. All right, that passes unanimously. I made the motion and Councilman water second of it. Alright, let’s go on to items. Remove the consent agenda. We’ve been cruising along 45 minutes into the meeting with through the consent agenda. Anybody need a break? I’m assuming not. Let’s go ahead and start with the easy stuff. Councillor Martin, you want to start with eight he?

46:16
Yes. Thank you Mayor Bagley.

46:19
I, I received an email from a constituent at the very last minute this evening. Normally I would have answered him. These questions were have been addressed by the waterboard adequately, in my opinion, and I am the council he as liaison to the water board, but that doesn’t mean I have all these numbers on the top of my head. Normally, Mr. Thompson would come down here and ask the questions himself in public invited to be heard, but he was not able to be here tonight. So I am going to ask A reasonable number of them and let Mr. Who’s Hussan? answer them. So first of all, he would like to know based on the drought contingency plans, what is the current reliable water supply? Good evening

47:23
council member members can use and water resources manager.

47:29
So long months current

47:34
today our current water supply is about 28,000 acre feet of water based upon what’s in our portfolio right now, our current projection of water supply is about 31,000 acre feet when you add in water that we’ve identified in the planning area that will come to long mod at time of development. And so I usually that question is getting Towards how much water do we have and how much do we need in the future?

48:05
Okay, um, and then he, he gives some numbers that I’m I’m not going to take us through because it’s a lot too much stuff. Thank you.

48:21
And

48:23
he comes down to

48:26
essentially he’s worried about the cost of an acre foot of windy gap from supply of windy gap and he says, What is a Longmont storage to reliable yield ratio for the windy gap project. He estimates that are firmly yield from our 8000 acre feet and storage capacity would be about 303,300 acre feet of firm yield. I think that’s approximately correct. Can you confirm that?

49:00
Yes, that’s probably correct.

49:03
Actually,

49:04
it’s a 2.4 to farming ratio. So you need 2.42 acre feet of windy gap storage to get one acre foot of firmed water.

49:14
Perfect. His calculation was 2.41. So that’s okay. Based on those numbers, he is asking that he’s speculating that the cost per acre foot of chimney hollow water is just above $40,000. And he would like an explanation of why the cash in lieu fee is not set at $40,000.

49:46
Yes, custom number. I’m

49:49
not sure where the $40,000 number comes from. As it turns out, waterboard looks at a lot of metrics, but currently there Placing a little higher emphasis on windy gap firming as the metric to use for cash and Lou because essentially the cash Lou are going to be getting in the immediate future will go directly to the windy gap firming project. And so what waterboard did was stake the current project cost estimate for when they get firming and that’s, that’s a construction costs. That’s environmental costs. That’s the permitting costs. Design costs all the cost. For the project, it’s little over $6,000 per acre foot, you multiply that by the 2.42 ratio

50:43
that gets you to

50:46
what it cost in storage capacity to get one firmed acre. I suspect that somebody may have taken the 17 times 2.4 to 17 is not the cost of the project. 17 is the Casa 2.42 acre feet and the project so waterboard basically took the cost of the project and multiplied it by 2.42. That’s where we came up with.

51:08
So cash. Sorry.

51:14
Ashley, I think that’s what Mr. Thompson did too. He said that the current estimate of the window gap project cost is 134 plus million dollars. And he used then use the 2.4 is 2.41. Storage to reliable yield ratio. And he says, if you divide the hundred and 34 million by the 3300 firm yield, then the resulting cost per acre foot is $40,000. Isn’t that a valid computation or is that where his era comes in?

52:00
divide the total project cost by 90,000 acre feet. There are 90,000 acre feet in the project.

52:09
I see. There we go. Thank you very much.

52:14
All right. Motion.

52:16
Yes. I move it option of it. Me.

52:21
All right. All right. It’s been Moved by Councillor Martin and seconded by Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez that we passed resolution 20 2018. Neither comment dialogue debate. See none All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. All right, that passes unanimously. Let’s go on to eight k Dr. Waters you pulled to so do you want to deal with eight k first, please? Well,

52:45
yeah, what I in the counts communication. When you click there, and the counts communication, the staff asks for direction. second paragraph staff proposes providing the details Discrimination for councils input, direction and approval, and then staff will prepare an affordable housing agreement. So I’m not certain how I got on the consent agenda since the staff was asking for, for direction. So I guess I’ll just defer to Kathy, and take us through whatever kind of conversation or discussion presentation that we need in order to provide the direction that you’re looking for.

53:32
The American Council Kathy feller, housing Community Investment division manager again, and I’m not sure a presentation is fully needed, but it’s only a couple of slides. So I’ll go ahead and run through it. And we will work on changing some of the wording and the communication from now on because some of these are getting to be fairly routine, I think and probably don’t need to, they can stay on consent. So any

53:56
quick question what what direction diskette staff need as I just want to know, as I’m listening to it,

54:02
approving the voluntary alternative agreement just that’s it.

54:05
Yeah. Okay. All right, keep going. Sorry. Okay.

54:09
Um, so this is for Longmont family apartments, which is the development at 15th, and Pratt are all depending on where you’re looking at. So it’s the voluntary alternative agreement to build affordable rental homes on site. And if you remember, because of state law and rent control, we it has to be a voluntary alternate, they have to voluntarily agree to provide the rental affordable rental homes on site, they’re proposing 88 total rental homes and e6 is the part of the ordinance that this falls under. This is a little bit hard to see but it’s the just gives you some background on the location of the project. It’s west of Maine, and north of 15. The layout is over on the far left, the new design and then just some schematics the top One is the old one which was large building and the two smaller ones. They have sensed, redesigned and broken up the building so there’s less impact on the neighborhood. So this is looking at the rental property has a density cap. So if they wanted to, they would have seven units that would be exempt from the requirement that at 12% they would have to provide with the exemption they would have to provide 10 total affordable homes and they’re providing 88 on site. 22 of those homes are 25% are going to be affordable adder below 50% of the area median income and the remaining homes at or below 60% of the area median income. They are providing 123 and four bedroom homes, which is unusual and apartments. So about 31% of the units is three bedrooms and 18% as four bedroom apartments some of the things to take into consideration There’s annual reporting that’s required as part of the inclusionary housing program. The property will be deed restricted to provide 45 affordable homes as permanently affordable, so 51% of the homes will be deed restricted under our program. The developer has redesigned the look height and character of the buildings to better address neighborhood concerns. The parking will be 63% more than the 88 spaces that they would be allowed under affordable housing. Again, high number of three and four bedroom family rental homes. These units are in high demand and the Centennial Park apartments which are is another affordable development and it’s convenient to Main Street with access to transportation options. So this does address council workplan goal be 1.1 having a diverse housing stock with higher densities, access to high quality public transportation, food and jobs. It more than meets the 12% requirement with 51% of the units deed restricted as a four It adds a 45 homes that would be counted towards our goal with 88 actually, in the market, and then it does help to meet the 2035 goals. So the developer is also here if you have any questions around that as well. All right.

57:19
Anything else? Dr. Waters? Nope. Want to make a motion? I will. All right. I

57:22
did. I was just waiting to see if they’re really close. Right. I moved in approval, the resolute resolution 2020 dash 24.

57:29
Second.

57:30
Okay. That’s been moved by Dr. Waters. And second by Councillor Martin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. All right, that passes unanimously. All right. Let’s move on to Dr. Waters. You also pulled eight. See, I did the main event for the evening. Yep.

57:47
So we’ve all seen the collection of amendments to the ordinance. It seems to me that what would make sense and I’ve we’ve all seen Councilmember Christensen’s amendment, you’ve seen the others. Since I have the floor, what I would like to do is there are there’s a subset of this total of this collection that Councilmember Martin and I worked on that, that I’d like to the council that I’d like to, I’d like council consideration and an action either to approve or not. Because if if we if we approve if some of these makes sense that it frames a different discussion when we get to the the recommended amendment that we eliminate residential development from all Metro districts, so what I’d like to do is start with amendment number five.

58:39
Can you hold on while we get there, Dr. Waters?

58:44
And I and so my question to you, Mayor beggarly will be Do I have the floor to work through? You have you have a series of amendments or one at a time? I mean, we need to go one at a time. Like well, like what but what do I need to go to amendment number six after five Where do I differ?

59:02
We’ll just kind of see how it goes. let’s get let’s start one at a time. What page? Well,

59:05
in that case, in that case, I’m not going to start with number five.

59:08
Yeah, I think I think that I mean, personally, what I think I mean, the main, hold on one second, what page you want. I’m on 9192. Where are your amendments?

59:19
1995? Yeah.

59:28
Well, that he’s gonna make a motion, I think and I just before he makes a motion, I want to see where he’s at. But what I was gonna say is, before we do that, there tends there’s tends to be an issue, the real issue here, there’s I think there’s three basic and you guys don’t have to agree with me. But there’s an amendment by Dr. Waters, suggesting that we remove the percentage cap and make it clear that we limit Metro districts or residential Metro districts, to any project that is being built that has 120% of ami and below We have Councilmember Christian Sanders who presented her turn in her amendment that she wanted to get rid of all residential Metro districts. And then you’ve got the original amendment, or the original ordinance, which basically said, mixed use development. And commercial would permit Metro districts but not residential. And so those are the three options. And everything else seems to be a subset of those things. And so, as I’m making that observation, how does counsel want to proceed? Councillor Martin? I sorry.

1:00:36
I have the floor.

1:00:38
You’re You’re right. Go ahead. Go ahead.

1:00:40
I’ll just make it a suggestion. Thank you. So So, Celeste, we’ll start with this.

1:00:47
We are we are wrapped up in the amendments on this ordinance, the ordinance itself and there’s a ton I think there’s a lot of good in the ordinance. I think there are a number of things that need to be corrected in the 50% arbitrary limit is one of them. But before we even get there, I just want to make the statement of for Personally, I am not invested in. I’ve argued to keep Metro districts as a tool. I’m not invested in Metro districts. I’m invested in a segment of our population, that without some tool for financing, land and infrastructure, the cost of land infrastructure as part of the cost of housing, without a tool to finance that other than the way it’s always happened, leaves out a huge continuum of our population. We heard it last week when Kathy did the the affordable the aid well First Aid Report on our inclusionary zoning ordinance that the segment of our population that is least well served, are working families. And the reason we have 54,000 Boulder County resident Today according to Boulder County housing, who pay more than 50% of their income for mortgage or rental is the way this city has financed or, or said to direct to developers finance, residential development in a way that drives up housing costs, which either eliminates people don’t qualify for or people or, or pay way more than they need to. for housing. That’s how we get to 54,000. So if we want to see that number grow, continue to have working class families be housing burdened, because they don’t qualify for subsidized housing. And they, they don’t have inventory for this market rates at 120% or below ami. They end up with only one option that has to pay more than they should be paying for a home if they want to if they aspire to homeowners If we if at the end of the day, we take that tool away, we take that option away. Somebody on this council needs to answer the question, what are we going to do other than revert back to what gave us the current the situation where we have too many people housing burden, and we saw in the presentation last week, that’s the segment that is least well served. So with that thought in mind, I want to offer a minute if you go to limit number 12. I probably have heard from the public and we’ve heard from one another, that there’s a there’s a perception that Metro districts are used to build homes for rich people in gated communities. And I suppose that’s true in some places. amendment number 12. Assuming we would keep this tool in our toolbox would limit the use of a metro district that would limit financing in a metro district. For the cost of land and infrastructure for homes. That will be my Price 120% or below, am I, which are the mid tier homes, we identified as priorities for the housing stock in this community in our inclusionary zoning ordinance. So I move the limit number 12. And I and I, and I know this doesn’t, this doesn’t specifically state a market rate, but we can back into the market rate based on what we know about hundred and 20% below an ami, which is how we determine what whether or not we apply the mid tier exception at the time of certificate of occupancy under the current ordinance.

1:04:38
Second, all right, we’ve got a we got a motion and a second on the floor. I guess what I would do as we start to talk about this Eugene, some of the amendments I’m sure that we will have I mean, just give us a heads up if we’re about ready to do something that is not permitted. So yeah, that’s okay. You want to say something

1:05:01
Just briefly minor point of clarification, Carolyn white on your outside Special Counsel for redevelopment on this, I think maybe just with a minor wording change, you might get it where it needs to be, but the way it was written and the way I think I heard you say it are a little different, you cannot use a district cannot finance

1:05:18
homes. It could finance infrastructure, cost of land

1:05:21
and infrastructure.

1:05:23
Right. Not just a port the home, correct,

1:05:25
right. The written one, I have made it sound like you

1:05:27
wanted to build the affordable No, no,

1:05:29
no, no, that was the intent is for the cost of land and infrastructure, which we know are significant percentage of the cost of a home. Now you got construction, but is the district is used to cover the finance the cost of infrastructure in land,

1:05:47
land underlying the infrastructure correct.

1:05:50
And I guess I guess what I’d ask is

1:05:52
the government Can I say one more thing, the I didn’t consult counsel on this. So there are a number of these that would need to be if they’re if conceptually, they’re They’re acceptable are going to have to be,

1:06:03
you know,

1:06:05
wordsmith by Council. But the the intent here is what’s I think clear and is important.

1:06:11
Yeah, I was gonna say that. Let’s make the assumption that the words themselves are not what we’re putting into statute. What we’re doing is just the intent and then the the the legal team can come back and do whatever they do to make the magic happen. So there is a motion and a second, Councilmember Christiansen

1:06:33
when we brought this back, it was specifically to restore this

1:06:39
as it is.

1:06:41
Now 2223 amendments have been made. My I made one and the other two have been made by two members of council. In each case, these other 22 amendments insult the previous city Manager, the previous city staff, the previous city council enjoying that they are stupid that they are liars. They’re called a false concept. oxymorons, which is not true that this is not a true statement that I mean again and again and again, these are all pure conjecture. It says this is not a true statement. I mean, to me this is it is extremely insulting to the previous city council members, to our legal staff to the rest of our staff. And I, we could spend another four hours discussing 22 amendments. But the point is to straighten up this just restore this law, which worked quite well for many, many years. It has been called Metro districts have been called an is a critical tool and essential tool. Well, as I said last time, subprime mortgages was called a critical tool. credit default swaps are called critical tools. They melted down our economy. There are good tools, there are bad tools. This is not a tool that is useful except to the developers. I think we have had ample evidence in both in journalism in Colorado, I mean, in United States Public Interest Research Group in numerous people nationwide that this is a problem. And they may work occasionally but more often than not, they leave homeowners who are it says they have a choice. They don’t have a choice because where this occurs, it mushrooms and then that’s all your choice is is to move it if you want any kind of home, you have to move into this. What I would propose Is that we simply restore this law? I would give up my my first amendment, if you like. I think we should just restore the law as it is, as it served us well, and as it will continue to serve us. Well.

1:09:22
It’s a good political play by the way. That’s a good trade. I’m just saying that that’s that made me go Oh, yeah.

1:09:31
No, no, that’s not a bad

1:09:33
Excuse me.

1:09:36
I’m trying to provide decent housing for the people of this city. This is not the mechanism for doing that. And we all know that

1:09:42
that my comment wasn’t to be negative. I was actually saying that, you know, it was it was a

1:09:48
willing to compromise.

1:09:49
Yeah. So I can tell us where

1:09:52
I’m having been

1:09:59
impugn

1:10:01
My council member Christensen, I do have to say that after significant research, I’m fascinated by the idea that because one can put a bunch of false statements in the preamble to an ordinance, where they don’t be long, that then questioning them becomes an insult to the previous city manager, the previous Council and anybody else who added five words to this ordinance. In fact, those preambles are false statements. A few unregulated and narrowed Metro district service plans, which were made under the unmodified state statute have gone desperately wrong and even The original ordinance which Councilmember Christensen is now proposing to simply restore as it is, was an attempt to eliminate by statute, some of the more egregious abuses of Metro districts. In many ways, that was a good attempt and with the exception of this arbitrary 50% limit on the amount of homes that one can have ins inside a mixed use district. It was a pretty good ordinance. I wish we had left it in place and just remove that arbitrary limit me Originally, I think it would have been a it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort. However, I do have to insist that those frontmatter elements are false statements and ought to be removed from the ordinance.

1:12:14
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez,

1:12:16
thank you very badly. You know, I think we’ve had plenty of dialogue on this particular subject. And I think inherently, most of council knows where our fellow colleagues stand on the issue at large. I will not disagree that there are problematic statements in the ordinance as presented from 2012 I believe it was,

1:12:44
which

1:12:46
speaks to the number of amendments offered by council members, waters and Martin that were simply to a certain extent wordsmithing or also just stating that language is Not factually based and is somewhat opined, if not completely aligned. I don’t think that’s really at the heart of the matter of what we’re discussing tonight, in the sense that I think the writing is somewhat on the wall for different reasons. You know, my stated reasons for support or opposition to special districts and concerning residential development is based on what I find to be regulatory problems with or statute statutory problems with regulation from the municipal point of view. I don’t think that’s going to change because we are not the body that has authority over changing state statute concerning regulation of special districts. And as such, I don’t find that I’ve seen any sort of evidence that is concrete To support one side saying that there is adequate ability to regulate, I haven’t seen the kind of evidence, I’ve seen a lot of posturing on both sides of the issue, which is fine. It is what it is a it’s what we do somewhat to the extent that we are City Council, and we are to support our positions one way or another on behalf of the constituents. And we both see that in different we all see that in our own particular ways. So I would think that is probably most efficient, if we instead of going amendment by amendment, called the bigger question into account here, as far as will we allow any special districts concerning residential development? I appreciate that there is a motion on the floor and that’s what we were debating currently. And as such, I will not support the amendment or the motion on the amendment. I don’t think it’s an efficient use of our time based on the fact that we’ve already spoken about this. ad nauseum. So those are my comments.

1:15:11
Else member Doug bearing quiet down there, you want to chime in any thoughts? Just like

1:15:16
No, I’m good down here. Thanks for letting me know.

1:15:20
You know, I guess my

1:15:24
something I was going to say, later on, I can go ahead and say it now. You know, there were things even as I read the initial, the, for the first time I read the ordinance, there were some very opinion, opinion based statements that can be altered without removing what the intent of the original ordinance was. You know, I would be fine with removing some of those statements. But other than that, I would move that we refer back revert back to the Original, or the 2017?

1:16:05
ordinates. Straight up you Me?

1:16:08
Yes,

1:16:08
that’s my pic. Thanks. I’m sorry, you were you were in the queue and fine.

1:16:13
So, um, I agree with both remarks that the two path counselor said but going back to our outside counsel who restated what the statute says that Metro districts have for land and infrastructure, when I look at amendment 12, it says that and then it goes on to say and possible, extraordinary benefits such as transit, micro grids, garbin, carbon free carbon free neighborhoods, distributed energy resources, childcare, early childhood, and post secondary education facilities. This is the problem with these Metro districts is that once they’re established and the government is there, then they start adding stuff or in the service plan, like the one that we just had. I was against Because of the recreation center that they threw in, it’s supposed to be for infrastructure in land, and the residents end up funding, all sorts of things. And if we stuck to the statute, and there was a regulatory component to it, then I would have no problem with Metro districts. But as it is, it’s just a free for all. So I don’t agree with his two minute 12. And I would not, I don’t want to go through 22 amendments and wordsmith them. So

1:17:36
I’m just gonna ask one thing, just one thing. My question is where the, in my mind as I looked through the amendments, I could I can see everybody’s point of view, but what do you guys think of amendment 13? Just as we vote on this, the, in my mind, if it’s a mixed if we went back to the original ordinates and said that it’s crossed out a mixed use district should not consist of more than 50% by square foot by square footage of residential gross floor area. would would that be allowed that one single amendment? If we I mean, where I’m at is I mean, my only ask of everything would be that. So that mixed use were included. But it’s not the arbitrary 50% means it could be 30 could be 60. But as long as it’s true mixed use. Yeah, customer Christianson. I’m just, I’m just asking. Okay.

1:18:37
I think everybody understands that there isn’t a magic number 50. But 51 is a majority. That’s all they’re just saying a majority. Otherwise, you could build a huge housing district and put one coffee shop in and call it a mixed use district. It just gives you a set amount

1:18:59
of 50% Okay, I just want to know, and that’s,

1:19:02
I think the, I think that is understood by most people. And I think that was a good thing for them to put in. Otherwise it can lead to all kinds of abuse and

1:19:17
customer waters. Joe, thank you so much waters.

1:19:22
Sorry, Dr. Martin. Doc Martin.

1:19:24
I wish I were Dr. Martin.

1:19:27
I just have a statement that I think if we’re going to be jumping around and considering amendment, either amendment, it looks like what we’re talking about now is either adopting amendment 13 only, or adopting or restoring the ordinance as it stands. And, and both of those are by far better than the then some possible outcomes. So I’m feeling A little better, but I do feel like we’ve entirely lost the context here. And that we are talking about winning and losing rather than getting the best stuff for Longmont, which is why I hold the positions that I hold. In recent years, we’ve moved long months land use code to include more and more mixed use developments. we’ve encouraged higher density planning, we’ve acknowledged that mixed use leads to walkable neighborhoods, a more varied housing stock and higher quality of life for more residents. It reduces traffic congestion and eliminates food and service deserts. Yeah, and I think all of us are for taking large city in that direction in terms of land use, and urban design. We have asserted i think is Dr. Waters. mentioned earlier that all the mixed use and residential developments were built without Metro districts just fine. But in fact, that is the opposite of true. What we got built were luxury apartments and executive homes. And that is the cause of the congestion at our major intersections. It’s the cause of the affordable housing crisis and the end the mid tier housing crisis that we have. If we had been able to use incentives by the city, which is the big carrot of okay will accept this service plan, then I think that we would have a different housing inventory now and it would be much more like we want Longmont to become Okay, since the option of Metro districts with dense residential subdivision Included in them have been on the table, we’ve seen proposals that align with the city’s goals and vision much more than what we saw before. One builder told me it would have been much easier to just build 200 Executive homes than what I’m looking to build now. And that’s how we got too many executive homes and too many luxury apartments. Now let’s build the right thing. I’m okay with restricting Metro districts to mixed use and industrial and all the other zoning things and not pure residential, because I don’t see a big future in residential only developments and I think that’s a good thing because we need to have a dense urban design in Longmont and that’ll, this will will promote that concept. So I am happy with that. And I would support adopting amendment 13 only and leaving the rest of the statute as it stands.

1:23:14
But waters since amendment 13 is not on the floor, yet. One of the nigga, this is we get a second turn. And then last word. Yeah. The purpose of for at least from my part, the purpose of what I tried to do with amendments here is make assuming we keep an ordinance on the books. And in Frankly, I said last time, there was a lot that I agreed with in the ordinance that we that we repealed last year ago. Among and I said there’s some things that I didn’t think made sense. Some of the things that I don’t think makes sense are the things that we that I’ve pointed out as has Councilmember Mark That are simply opinions or conjecture. Councilmember Christianson labels that is insulting. I would say somebody somebody has to be accountable for putting that kind of stuff in an ordinance that makes this ungrounded indefensible in many cases. But the purpose for what we’re trying to do for what I’m trying to do, and I know this is true for Council and Martin is to is to add to the ordinance in ways that protect what the ordinance was intending to protect, and make it more focused on the very audience we’re trying to serve or the that part of our resident continuum of incomes for our residents that we to which we need to be more responsive. So Councilmember Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez has talked about this as posturing. I’m going to say that is absolutely not true. This is solution seeking. You can you can see it any way you want to see it but we put a fair amount of time trying to try to bring to this council. What, what might be acceptable, not to me, or to Councilmember Barton, but to the collection of to the majority of the council in service to a segment of the population that we’re walking away from if we, if we take residential units. And if we’re going to do that Lynn leaving the arbitrary restriction on 50%. What I added to the last part of this, and it shows up several places here in other amendments, is is clarity from for my purpose. I’ve asked the question several times. In fact, every time we’re in this conversation, what are we trying to accomplish? Could we just agree on an objective or two, and then talk about what’s what’s what’s the ordinance that helps us achieve that objective or those objectives. I’ve tried to do the same thing with you among the amendments here. And the language of the last part of this hall in terms of extraordinary benefits are all goals we’ve set as a council Carbon free neighborhoods, distributed energy systems in early childhood education. It seems to me that we ought to be explicit that those are the kinds of extraordinary benefits that a developer would have to bring to the city to help advance not only our housing objectives, but the other objectives. We’ve, as we’ve, as we’ve said, our goals that are important long term for the future of the community. So I, if there’s an alternative, if we choose to walk away from this, or I think if we leave it in arbitrary 50% we’re sending a real message to that portion of our population who don’t qualify for subsidized housing and can’t afford what’s going to come without ways to finance housing to get more units in the marketplace that can take advantage of our mid tier exception. So I’m just curious what the message what what do we think the message should be? That section of population that we are simply saying, you know what, we’ve worked real hard to come up with a plan for subsidized housing 50 years now it’s going I suspect going to be 50 cent and bubble in below. And we simply are not willing to work hard enough or creatively enough. We’re not willing to take on our the opportunity to regulate in ways that we can to serve a segment of our population that has been ignored when it comes to housing policy for at least a decade.

1:27:31
There’s a

1:27:34
one to one is boat, but you can go ahead and say something customer because listen,

1:27:39
we’re not following Robert’s Rules. No.

1:27:42
She hasn’t had her second turn. Yes, she spoken twice. Just be twice. Yeah. Alright, well, let’s go.

1:27:49
Let’s go. We’re not so we’re just I just want to be clear.

1:27:53
I’ve only had it down that she spoke once but let’s go ahead and let’s go ahead and

1:27:57
vote on the ordinance. We have a reminder of the order That’s

1:28:00
the order the motion.

1:28:02
The motion that’s currently on the floor is doc amendment 12. And it was seconded. And it was to basically the long and short of it is to limit residential Metro districts 220% it’s basically 120% of ami and below. So guys, we’re back.

1:28:23
Um, I’m not going to vote for this movement. But I do want to make a different statement, because I think that we have historically forgotten why we do not have affordable housing. We had an affordable housing ordinance years ago, and it worked. We have not had anything for 10 years. So when you say we don’t have any middle tier housing, it’s because we were trying to get back to what our ordinance was. I personally think that we should let that inclusionary zone ordinance work? It hasn’t it hasn’t had any time to work. It’s been a year. So we’re, it is working. We just got 88 units we’re talking about another Aspen meadows. So when we talk about there will be nothing if we don’t do this. I’m not sure I can say that’s accurate yet. We haven’t given it time. So I think that our inclusionary zoning ordinance actually does address this without the metro districts. So I’m fine with just going back to the original motion of taking it back to the 2012 ordinates.

1:29:54
All right, let’s go. There’s a vote a 17. That’s right. So there’s that let’s go ahead and vote. Anybody object?

1:30:04
The motion is voting on amendment 12. And let me go ahead and, and amendment 12 specifically sets and my computer super slow. All right, it says that we are going to strike the word outweigh the potential adverse effects and put in the following language. So it reads in totality, the likely public benefits resulting for the district will advance the objectives listed in subsection a special or Metro districts financing for residential units should be limited to the cost of land and infrastructure of home prices 120% of a million below and possible extraordinary benefits such as transit solutions, micro grids, carbon free neighborhoods, distributed energy resources and childcare. Which means that if just just pointing out that if subsequently, if we don’t have any, I sorry, early childhood and post secondary education facilities, my concern is by voting on this now What could happen is if we don’t do residential, does this apply to residential and mixed units? mixed use? Yes. That’s how I read it.

1:31:10
So customer, customer Christianson.

1:31:15
There’s nothing. This is an ordinance as a whole. that talks about how the city deals with special districts special district law, state special district law. There is nothing in this ordinance as a whole that forbids the new development of special districts for childhood education or cultural social districts or any special districts except residential districts. So when in this particular thing you’re including electric grids really do we want to develop or setting up an electric grid, I mean, or special districts for childhood education that only applies to one tiny little area. This is confusing things because it is not actually what the state law okay I’m I like counsel

1:32:05
I’m gonna like counselor Martin say something you can have the last word Dr. Waters but we’re going to get back to I open we’re going to go back to two turns or else we’ll be here all night so counselor

1:32:14
was the third turn.

1:32:16
I’m gonna let you I know you can go ahead and say it briefly and then Kelly Dr. Waters will say is what he has to say. And unless Councilmember Iago friend wants to say something we will vote. Go ahead.

1:32:26
Okay. I would just like to point out that no, this doesn’t say we’re going to set up electric grids with Metro districts. In fact, electric infrastructure is one of the things that’s that is prohibited to be paid for by Metro districts. However, the financing of of energy management systems which are different from electric grids are not prohibited and they are infrastructure.

1:32:55
So

1:32:57
I just want to point out that the city of Fort Collins Hollins of which has taken some very forward looking steps in terms of urban design is using the incentive of Metropolitan District financing to pay for division subdivisions, which are all electric and energy managed, in addition to several other kinds of special infrastructure including green buildings and also including affordable housing. So, based on their example, this is a proper use and a proper restriction. Thank you.

1:33:43
Dr. Waters. Yeah, the the just for whatever it’s worth. This isn’t suggesting special districts, single purpose special districts. This is consistent with the language Metro districts this would be a metro district would be multi purpose. for residential development. You Using the district to finance homes that would fit our mid tier exception and below. And as part of the metro district, if if a developer wanted to present an application that was specific with in terms of the extraordinary benefits that matched or advanced our goals as a council. So this is not this is if a developer suggested that they wanted to build sufficient facilities to house an early childhood education program. I just I guess, I wonder why we would not want to see that. Since the first step, or the first kind of foundation in providing more and better for youngest residents, would be facilities in which play programs could be developed not that’s not suggesting that they’re going to develop the program. But but we have the examples in town right now. of CO ops young moms, part of CO ops. Who made a deal with the church to be able to use their facilities? What if in their neighborhood where we’re building, we’re requiring at least 12% of one of the housing stock

1:35:10
to be up for

1:35:13
permanently affordable houses, that we wouldn’t also say to a direct to a developer, if you’d like an approval of an application at an early childhood facility there. And then let’s see what the city could do, working with others, to leverage the opportunity to get a program there to serve folks in that neighborhood, why we wouldn’t want to see that or a carbon free neighborhood or any of the other things that we’ve identified as goals, for the for, at least for this council, and for this city. Why we would not signal to developers that your application will be more will receive a more favorable review. In addition to workforce housing or attainable housing, we get to see these other benefits that are the Kind of assets or development that would advance the city’s goals. That’s the whole reason for the language.

1:36:07
All right, let’s go ahead and vote. The motion has been made that we include a Mehmet 12. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay nay. The motion fails with Councillor Martin and Dr. Waters for and then the other five of us against.

1:36:25
I’d like to move on them in 13

1:36:29
seconds.

1:36:31
All right. Do you guys mind if we just take a straight up vote on this because we all know where we stand all in favor of amendment 13 say aye. Aye. Opposed,

1:36:40
Hey,

1:36:42
that was a name.

1:36:45
I think just to be clear, they’ll you’ll correct me if I’m just guessing here but the motion fails. With council members Martin myself and Dr. Waters for and council. Very good. All the fairing, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, council member Chris And customer Peck against. Get that boat right. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Thank you Mayor Bagley.

1:37:08
So I just want to say first of all, a couple of things.

1:37:16
I really appreciate the

1:37:20
the the council member waters talks about co ops because I think co ops could be a very useful thing going forward. And I really wish that more developers would explore co Ops, that has nothing to do with regulating co ops. But I think they could be a very useful tool, if you will. Also, when asked about creative possibilities for getting the kind of missing housing that we talked about, I have been unequivocably and unapologetically talking about New Urbanism since I was elected in 2017, and that really equates to which I know there’s only a certain metabolism right now and warm up This, but it’s talking about more density and, you know, higher heights and those kinds of concepts that are hard for folks that, you know, have lived in Longmont. Historically, as somebody who grew up here in Longmont, it was definitely not the kind of city I grew up in. But understanding that some of the biggest challenges that we have with real estate not just in Longmont, but regionally in the Front Range is cost of land. Cost of land is a regional issue. It’s not specific to Longmont. It’s not specific to Denver or boulder or Loveland or Fort Collins is it’s a regional thing. And so, what do you do you make the most of your lands? Right? And I don’t think that I mean, I think we’re going in the right direction as we adopted the new land development code as far as increasing density increasing the allowance for height, but we don’t we in my opinion didn’t go far enough in. I’ve been unapologetic. unapologetic about that stance.

1:39:01
I think also that,

1:39:04
you know, this would be a compromise. It’s a compromise for definitely. Councilmember Christiansen and I noticed for me, and Councilmember back, and I know it’s a ridiculous arbitrary number of 50% versus 51%. But it’s still technically allows Metro districts to just go back to the 2012 ordinance, it’s still technically allows these special districts with residential components that in and of itself is a compromise. Otherwise, we’re going to continue doing these up and down votes on a four to three basis. And I know there’s a lot of warts, if you will, that have been pointed out by council members, Martin and waters as far as the terminology that are encompassed in this, but I think at the end of the day, this is as close as this council can possibly get to agreeing on this subject because we again talked about this ad nauseum. And so I move just to go straight to the 22 ordinance and approve that language or reinstate that language.

1:40:03
I’ll second that.

1:40:07
elsewhere. Mark,

1:40:09
I just have a question for county Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, who has acknowledged I believe that there are warts in the existing ordinance, certainly a bunch of, of really egregious, either false or unsubstantiated statements in the front matter that do not belong in a city ordinance at all. So my question for Mayor Pro Tem is, why don’t you want to fix that?

1:40:42
Sir,

1:40:44
do I believe it affects the function of the ordinance? No.

1:40:49
I’d like to submit that what it does do is provide the public who are being fooled with arguments That are unsubstantiated. And they innocently believe they’re telling the truth. And I think we ought to make our ordinance as factual as it can be. So I would like to see at least the frontmatter cleaned up, and otherwise.

1:41:17
All right. Well, we have a we have a motion on the floor. Dr. Waters. Yeah, I guess.

1:41:22
I understand the motion. What I don’t understand is the last time how we got here was emotion that you made Mayor Bagley on which I think you had a unanimous vote to do exactly what we have done. We responded in exactly the way we were asked to respond. And now the message is, well, you should have done that because it’s going to take too much of our time. So how do we want to do this? Last time we talked about it, this made sense. Now, it doesn’t make sense.

1:41:59
I mean, I Just wondering I’ll respond. So I guess I guess in my mind, the two things I’d like to answer Councillor Martin’s question alongside the mayor Pro Tem, is that, to me the meat of this is are we or are we not going to allow Metro districts for residential neighborhoods? I mean, essentially, that’s what it comes down to. And in law, we’re always it’s called dicta. It’s like people read a Supreme Court case, or a statute about the legislative intent. And at the end of the day, it does not matter. You can say, well, we’re creating Metro districts because at the end of the day, we feel that they’re really, really cool, but they kind of suck and our kids like eating green peas and broccoli. Doesn’t matter if it’s in there at the end of the day, does it or does it allow residential Metro districts and so even if we cleaned up and we spent like all night cleaning up the preamble to the ordinance, it’s really not going to have a legal impact. The ordinance. And the other thing is that I’ve always said that I mean Gordon, Gordon Pedro’s here in the audience, and he always used to say, count to four badly learn to count to four, I’m counting to four. And in sometimes it just sometimes you just can’t get can’t get your fourth. And so right now this councils pretty split 423. And I’m actually grateful for Councilmember Christianson saying she pulled her amendment, you know, because at the end of the day, returning to what it was, is a hell of a lot better than what it could be. And so I’m in like I said, it’s a it was a good politics, and that’s what I meant. So I’m willing to play good politics and say, I’m willing to go back on the compromise, that it means going back to what we were before rather than taking away mixed use Metro districts. So that that’s, that’s, I mean, as my mom always said, you want pancakes. You want to go hungry.

1:43:55
Oh yes, there’s politics and there’s principle and I mistakenly concluded that we were serious about the task, or the charge and the opportunity we were given to think through what, what was in the ordinance that needed some attention. And in my view needs correction. So I don’t care if we’re here to Friday, frankly, to follow through on what we were asked to do. If every one of these goes down on a on a four, three or five, two or six, one vote,

1:44:31
that that really is is not a concern to me. Because I because we’re here to do the people’s work, and you can and you can, and the beautiful thing is, you can make motions. I mean, literally, you can make those motions, but right now there’s a motion on the floor to return to just basically reset the button to the previous ordinance. And let’s go ahead and vote on that. All in favor say aye. Hi, opposed. Yay. Okay. I know I hear that the motion passes five to two with Councilmember Martin, and Councilmember mark or a Councilmember waters against. Now that said, the question becomes are the other motions on the floor? Yes. Okay. Councillor Martin, what would you like to?

1:45:19
Yes. In the interest of shortening things up because I also took the mayor at his word and

1:45:30
just as long as you’re not, I’m one of seven here, man. So it’s like we can vote on these if we can.

1:45:37
Lift let’s let let me finish. Okay, good, good. Good. Where do you deny it please?

1:45:43
I took the marriage his word that we would consider each amendment and so I for one made no particular effort to keep the number of amendments small. However, I do think that we should at least, consider Taking some of the damaging false hoods out of the frontmatter because we don’t like misleading our people. I don’t think we should be embarrassed as a city by badly crafted ordinances. And we, as was 74 there, they don’t affect the substance of the law. I therefore, move that we that we adopt amendments.

1:46:34
One, two, ah

1:46:41
three,

1:46:43
four. And

1:46:49
I will leave out number five because it has some substance to it.

1:46:57
Six Six. Thank you

1:47:02
And eight, essentially by striking them although that we would expect that the legal council would would clean it up to make the ordinance of proper form. I believe that that this would not change the subject of them of the amendment in any way, but I for one would be rather less embarrassed by it.

1:47:26
All right. It’s been moved and seconded that we accept amendment 12346 and eight. So, let’s go ahead and vote on that. I’ll invite I mean, elsewhere Christian, though we can vote you we can. I was just hoping not but Yes, we can.

1:47:45
Once again, we’ve been called an unprincipled and lazy for not taking the time to discuss all 22 amendments.

1:47:52
That’s putting words in my mouth. Yeah,

1:47:54
well, guys, guys, it’s okay. passing any more Amendments we’ve already passed the law and I don’t see any need to continue to wordsmith something that has stood the test of time. Two people on council seem to object to these things. And they offer no reason. But I mean, except that they object to them and they don’t think they’re true. So I won’t vote for this at all.

1:48:27
All right. Anybody else? Let’s go ahead and vote. All in favor of these amendment say aye.

1:48:33
Aye.

1:48:35
Opposed nay.

1:48:39
You are an eye. Okay. So the motion Did you say an arrow? Okay, so that. So the motion passes five to two, with councilmembers, Christiansen and councilmembers, Peck, dissenting, and the five of us

1:48:54
being ice.

1:48:56
So, all right, I’m moving them at 10

1:49:00
All right.

1:49:14
All right. It’s been moved and seconded by Dr. waters and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Is there any debate or questions on this issue?

1:49:23
customer back. Um

1:49:27
I do have a problem with it because it’s it’s a little bit vague, just saying that there was no one no one founded. There’s nothing to support this statement. There should be something in here about about the service plan then that this has to be included in the service plan, rather than just a vague. For example, it says the hire mill, levy and district projects may make these residents less inclined to support other city property tax increases. This depends upon the service plan and whether the the mill the levees, mill levy is increased within the project. And that’s it so that that’s my opinion.

1:50:18
Okay. Hold on delts memory doggo fairing, what would you like to say? So,

1:50:23
based on so I spoke with the financial

1:50:25
director or one of the finance guys at Thompson School District, who did they did a district survey of the 2016 mill levy override. I’m just trying to get input as to why the why didn’t pass and they found overwhelmingly that people who lived in the in Metro districts in Loveland or into Thompson Valley, the school district, voted down the mill levy and so you know, there

1:50:59
it’s

1:51:01
He could play a role, it really could play a role. And so I don’t I don’t think that’s pretty strong to say that there’s no evidence presented because as people are delving deeper into collecting data that

1:51:17
it could that could potentially be a risk that we take.

1:51:24
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez,

1:51:27
thank you very badly. The motion simply strikes this language proposed in amendment 10. I don’t think that at this time, there really is empirical data to prove one way or another. And I don’t think it affects the form and function of what has been approved at this point to strike said language, because it does in my opinion, appear to be conjecture, regardless of whether you agree with said conjecture or not, is is not pertinent. It provides no function in the ordinance. So it may Really little difference if we strike the language from it. And that’s my opinion and I will be voting for the the motion.

1:52:07
So we keep talking about it. But again, I’m just counting votes here. So do you mind if we vote? All right, let’s go ahead all infest so the motion is to approve amendment 10 which strikes the wording that says the higher mill levy industry projects make these residents less inclined to support other see property tax increases. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.

1:52:28
Was that Councillor Christiansen

1:52:30
so the motion passes six to one with Councilmember Christianson against and success for

1:52:42
all right, anybody else?

1:52:45
All right, it looks like we have gotten through Metro districts. So all right, you might you make you you make clap regardless of of, of how you feel this vote ended. It’s over. So yes, it says the press is like this. Goodness, let people start reading our paper again. Now. Alright, so let’s go ahead. And Councilmember Christiansen

1:53:06
just for clarity, can you tell me which one of these amendments were accepted?

1:53:11
So they’re the motions, the motion, so amendment 123468

1:53:20
and 10.

1:53:25
And specifically 12 and 13 were voted on and failed. Mayor,

1:53:32
why don’t we need to approve introduction of the ordinance with these amendments?

1:53:37
Well, that we will we we actually took a vote to put it back to the old ordinance. So the old ordinances we did that. So yeah.

1:53:48
Tell us we’re a Christian.

1:53:49
Yes.

1:53:50
No, go ahead. I would like to point out by passing amendment one, we eliminated mixed use Metro.

1:53:58
No, I’m sorry. We Did not know we It wasn’t your amendment it was it was Councilmember Martin is number one

1:54:07
yeah pay for to finance

1:54:13
can we you’re getting paid by the hour lady.

1:54:17
Stick around. Yeah.

1:54:18
you’re about ready to get point one here. Hold on a second. I just wanted

1:54:22
to thank you so much for taking the time to be here

1:54:26
and

1:54:27
listening to to us and and providing with your objective

1:54:32
expertise. And actually

1:54:34
she can’t charge if she’s not advancing the case of bank on just think on. I’m just kidding country. Get out of here. Go home.

1:54:42
Now, thank you. Alright, so let’s go on to that concludes items removed from the consent agenda. We have no general business. Let’s go ahead and move on to final call public invited to be heard. Anybody want to come on up Miss Bassett. Where’s Joe tonight

1:55:01
Where’s Joe?

1:55:04
Is he really?

1:55:08
Thank you.

1:55:11
Can you get up there to the mic so we can hear you

1:55:13
I broke a tooth. Oh, no, no, no, I’m going bone to get it back. But, Joe, thank you for bearing with me. I had two things. One was the this

1:55:26
Councilman waters I do share the desire, deep desire, strong desire to provide housing options for young families who are making what what are we paying 120% of the you know, the median income. That’s hard to raise a family on. And if these special districts, Metro districts, if they can add on more and more debt as they go down, you know, child kearson Electric’s whatever. That risks that a lot of these families would have to declare bankruptcy. That’s what I’ve read in the Denver Post. And that’s what I’ve heard from people. And any any program that would risk that is unacceptable to me. Because then you then what this is a caber workaround. And I believe it was probably just connecting dots. I believe it was set up by developers. And the old days, didn’t the city, borrow the money, municipal debt, municipal bonds to build streets and put up electric poles. And now let’s take thanks to table Mr. Douglas Bruce. That’s been taken away. That power has been taken away from cities and it is wrong four cities then to put it on resident. I was was an opening debt ceiling. I have no debt ceiling. So I don’t know what the answer is. But I share your desire, deep desire to provide housing. But let’s find a mechanism that does not put families same families at the risk of being booted out of their homes. Okay, thank you and the next.

1:57:20
Yeah, I forgot to start timers. Go ahead,

1:57:22
though. Thank you.

1:57:26
There’s a development up off 66 on the south side, I’ve spoken of it. It pierces my heart drive by that every single house is the roof goes like this. This is south and they’re not very large homes. I couldn’t go by and see who it is. There’s not a sore panel on a single one of those. Which is an ongoing quote gretta How dare we, how dare we approve such residences without a single solar panel. On I Platte Valley is going to have what they want. They’re looking at solar farms. Those roofs are already built to accept solar panels.

1:58:11
I think that

1:58:14
coordinate by passion

1:58:19
that plan, Platte River Valley it’s

1:58:22
they’re gonna not go to call 100% for another 30 years. That’s unacceptable

1:58:29
and I suppose if they do so where they would have to purchase the solars to put on their farms, except I understand that they, what I read was they’re looking for somebody to farm it out to and that’s not good that’s not a very efficient

1:58:46
method.

1:58:48
So I think I would like I’m seeing

1:58:54
the number of solar panels on on Longmont roofs is a fraction of 1% tiny fraction of one out of every hundred roofs has solar. That’s outrageous in this climate. And I want to see the I wanted, I would like to have a moratorium on building until this city gets its building cold wind up with the climate emergency. In particular renewable energy from solar. It is so obvious

1:59:31
and how to

1:59:35
start getting creative. I don’t know if a

1:59:39
foundation or what do you call a fund that people will contribute to and this could be available to help people purchase or when developers come in and put up these roofs that they are required to put solar on. That’s just that’s the way it is during The solar crisis. I mean, the climate crisis. And I thank you for I really would like to help housing stock for young families. But I want your help.

2:00:15
All right, thank you. I’m gonna have to cut you off. I give you six minutes. But thank

2:00:19
you. Oh, thank you. You’re welcome.

2:00:22
You’re very passionate. We love you when

2:00:23
you’re coming. Yeah, I am. A

2:00:27
tree hugger.

2:00:29
you hug on yonder just hug on. Thank you. Alright, let’s go ahead to mayor and council comments. I

2:00:38
once again I like seeing your name calcifer Iago fairing.

2:00:42
So I did receive actually I’ve received a couple of emails in regard to the corona virus. And does Longmont have any plans? Or how do we deal with something to this magnitude if it ever gets too long.

2:00:58
So as part of our Emergency Operations. We do have a pandemic plan that we use before during the it’s me during the SARS situation and so I know the Emergency Management Group is moving through that and looking at it. So

2:01:21
council member and Doug fairing we are working on the communication side with them to try to pull some information together and really partnering with Boulder County Public Health. They’re the ones that are taking the lead on this. We did actually have some conversation at the last emergency preparedness meeting around what would happen if something like that did happen in Lima. I’d be happy to send you all the information that we’re gathering from OEM for your own information. And of course, we’ll be getting that out to the public as well. Okay. Thank you.

2:01:51
Elsewhere, Martin, Thank you Mayor Begley.

2:01:55
I just want to say

2:01:59
first of all, In in response to constituents, Shelley that I also agree that Longmont should have a deeper penetration of rooftop solar panels in the current time than we have. I have it on very good authority from the head of engineering for the Platte River Power Authority,

2:02:25
that

2:02:28
the Longmont distribution grid could stand a penetration of up to 30% of residences having rooftop solar before it would require structural mitigation of our distribution grid that would involve infrastructure investment. So I hope within the next couple of months that we will find a way to remove our disincentive to people putting solar panels on their roof at The same time as a servant of truth. I would like to say that first Platte River Power Authority has still committed to being 100% renewable by the year 2030, which is only 10 years from now. And that solar purchased and deployed at a utility scale is still very much less expensive than solar generation on individual rooftops or public buildings. So, I understand that we are all very passionate about this. I want it to be possible for residents to not popper themselves by putting in order to put solar panels on their roofs. I will always say that never has there been a prohibition against doing that in Longmont People still haven’t done it. So and we have a few mechanisms for causing developers or builders rather to put solar panels on roofs. And one of them is a metro district service plan. So I’m really sorry that we are so touchy about that. But it could be, you know, a solar neighborhood could in fact, be part of a metro district service plan. As a servant of truth, I have to say that I’m really unhappy with a cultural development that I think has trickled down from the national level and it’s becoming ubiquitous here in Longmont, which is that we say things that aren’t true a lot without references without some substantiation. And that somehow, they’re having been said for a long time makes them truer than they really are. I don’t like that. And I think that we need to train ourselves to get away from that habit and use a better more rigorous mode of thought. I am going to therefore start a private practice of debunking false statements that are made by members of the city council. I will do the research, put in the substantiating evidence and send myself an email to my public email account with the key word pedos workshop

2:05:54
in it

2:05:56
subsequently, anyone who would like to ask Access evidence that a particular statement made publicly is false. can simply file a Cora request asking for every Marcia Martin email in the long on the long line server making it easy. that contains the key word hashtag g pedos. workshop. So keep them coming, folks. And thanks.

2:06:27
All right. You feel

2:06:30
all right. We’ll see nothing else. City Manager you have any comments?

2:06:37
city attorney, no comments, Mayor. All right. I’ll second that.

2:06:41
Anybody? not in agreement.

2:06:43
We have consensus. We’re adjourned.