pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty, liberty and justice
All right. Okay, let’s go ahead and remind the public anyone wishing, wishing to join public invited to be heard, you’re going to need to watch the live stream and call in only when the public comment is called. And then so you’ll go ahead and call that number and of that main meeting ID and then you’ll be called according the last four numbers, your phone number. So let’s go ahead now and move to the approval of minutes. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes of the September 22 2020 regular session, Councilmember Christiansen
Second. It’s been
moved by Councillor Christiansen and seconded by Councilmember pack. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right passes unanimously. Let’s move on to Agenda revision submission of documents or motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agenda as Councilmember Christiansen
I would like to move
since we didn’t discuss it last time, and I would like to move that we amend the Vehicle parking regulations to create to break out unregistered vehicles from junked and abandoned vehicles because unregistered vehicles are not junked, and abandoned vehicles. I gave everybody a copy of this last time from Lewisville. It reads no person shall Park abandon or otherwise leave unattended on any public street or right of way any unregistered vehicle or vehicle with an expired registration for purposes of this an unregistered vehicles vehicle for which there is no current or prior certification of registration by the current owner. The reason this is necessary is because currently it is not clear and they are classified under junked vehicle and they can be towed. A vehicle with a lapsed registration sticker is not junked, or or abandoned, it should get a ticket, it should consistently get a ticket. Not this should not be left up to the whims of the officer $25 if it’s lapse 30 to 60 days beyond the 30 day grace period or up to $200 and there’s a six month lapse if it is not towed within six months. I mean if it is not, if no one has taken care of this within six months, then it should be towed with a 48 hour warning.
Do I have a second?
I will second that.
All right, the counselor pack.
Thank you. I agree that we need to do that. But Councilwoman Christensen we have this ordinance where that paragraph is stated coming up in the RV discussion. So are you amending that ordinance? Or are you
the RV thing is part of our vehicle partial parking violations? Correct. We’ve discussed it for several weeks. And I’ve been trying to bring this up for several weeks. And this seems to be the only way I can do it is to bring it up as a separate amendment to that part of our organization of our vehicle parking violations rather than have it D part of the registered the RV discussion because this does not apply to our V’s it applies to any unregistered vehicle.
I understand that. And I just wanted to make a clarification because I didn’t hear when you made the motion that it was an amendment to that ordinance.
amendment to our code on vehicle parking violations. So
so because we’re Krishna, just to reiterate so you what you’re saying is that we should the motion is to have city that city staff bring back an ordinance to discuss that would permit cars that are unregistered up to six months to be permitted to park on city streets now that what I’m hearing
Create an ordinance that is separate from the junked and abandoned vehicles because somebody who has simply forgotten to fill out their registration Send them their registration fee should might be towed. And right now people can be towed. And this has been affirmed by the somebody wrote it I asked about this six months ago and somebody wrote us and said yes, indeed somebody can be towed. We don’t usually do that. But nevertheless, it does happen. We should not be towing vehicles for somebody who is 30 to 30 days out of violation of having their sticker. Sorry about the phone, who has not who has neglected simply to take care of their parking registration, that does not constitute a, a junk or abandoned vehicle and it should not be treated like a junked and abandoned vehicle you should not be this city should not be in the business of towing people’s cars without notice.
not me. That’s sorry. That’s theft. So
all right, Councilmember waters.
Thanks. I’m just trying to understand we’re on that part of the agenda. That is submission of documents, motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. is so I’m just I can’t I’m trying to track what the motion is your relative to future agendas.
Okay. Let me repeat it. This is based on the Lewisville ordinance and I sent you all a copy of this last week, it is to clarify to clarify our code city code on parking violations.
So So is that is it is the motion to direct staff to bring an ordinance back to the council?
Yes, based upon the Lewisville ordinance.
Councilmember Lago fairing
so I am going to support this. And the reason being is I’ve had several instances of folks that I’ve either friends, friends of my children, parents, who you know, who are living paycheck to paycheck. And so when their registration comes around, they can’t afford it. So they are trying to actually save money in order to be able to afford it. And I have heard all these tricks of the trade of things that people are trying to do to keep their vehicles from being towed. So they can be able to to not have their car towed away while they’re trying to make the money in order to pay the registration. So I really I do agree with your sentiment. Councilmember Christiansen and that we need to be we are we should not be in the business of towing cars. I think the the the consequence is too severe for the infraction. So it could be a citation. So I agree. That’s why I’m supporting this.
All right. Well, that we can we can definitely talk about the future, of course, but just my firm doesn’t deal with this a whole lot. It rarely happens. And the definition right now but jump to the vehicle is that that you’re not registered and you don’t get towed. If you’re on private property. Let’s go and vote. If you want to put it on a future agenda. We can do that. On favor of putting this on the agenda. future agenda say aye.
So raise your hand if it was an aye
Alright, nay, nay. e. All right, passes four to three with Councilmember Christiansen Councilmember Iago farrin, Councilmember Rodriguez and Councilmember Peck for and the three of us against. All right, thank you very much. Okay, let’s move on to city manager’s COVID-19 report.
I lost my cursor. Oh, yes. Mayor council tonight. We have Rachel Hart from Boulder County Health. Rachel if you can. There you go. And Erica will run your presentation. Rachel is going to present tonight on the data that they can you need to unmute. There you go.
Oh, there we go. There you go.
So Rachel, take it away. Erica will call your slides up. So
All right, great. Thank you for having me. Longmont, city councilman and Harold, you can go to the next slide. And I just wanted to start off the presentation by giving an update on the CDP g dial and mitigation metrics that Boulder County Public Health tracks as part of our requirements for the state. Next slide, please. So just for everyone’s reference, I wanted to share the existing cdphp dial levels. So these three criteria are the new cases, the percent positivity in hospitalizations. And so we’re required to track the incidence of new cases percent positivity, and then also hospitalizations to determine where we stand in cdph ease dial, our first status was safer at home level two. And I’m pleased to report that we are still in safer at home level two. Next slide, please. So our two week cumulative incidence rate for COVID-19 is 124.1 cases per 100,000. And that really puts us right in the middle of the new cases, the incidence rate for safer at home level two. Next slide, please. Our two week testing positivity rate right now is 2.7. So that puts us actually in the protect our neighbor phase, we’ve been really lucky that cdphp has contributed to and set up a free drive thru testing site that is currently located at this Tazio ball fields. That site has been utilized pretty substantially. And because we have so many more cases, or sorry, so many more tests being conducted. It’s helping our positivity rates in the county. Next slide, please. And then again, just wanted to share some good news, although I do have a slide later in the deck, just that our hospitalizations are currently stable, although they are on a little bit of an upward trend. And just have an update from Jeff for you all later in the presentation. Next slide, please. The topic of interest for many in our community has been the University of Colorado, I’ve been working with the University of Colorado in the city of Boulder for the last six or seven weeks on the surge in cases that we saw on campus. And I’m pleased to report that while we did have a really, really high incidence rate of cases among 18 to 22 year olds just one week ago over 1500 that we are now down to right around 470 cases per 100,000 for 18 to 22 year olds, so the numbers are starting to trend in the right direction. In addition, the testing has been consistent that the University of Colorado has been conducting they have both surveillance testing through a saliva based test and then also the diagnostic diagnostic PCR testing. And again, the positivity rate among 18 to 22 year olds in Boulder County is right now 6.2% as of Sunday, and continues on that downward trend. Today at noon, our our director and the Area Command agreed that we would be moving to Level A for students and this allows students at see you to gather in groups of six and also for the university to consider sponsoring some events for students that include social distancing, and proper COVID practices. Next slide, please. So I just wanted to also share with you some of our case numbers by day Next slide. As you can see, the light blue in this graph represents the number of positive cases among cu students and affiliated faculty and staff. Earlier this month in or earlier last month and the beginning of September through the beginning of this month, the largest proportion of cases were amongst the affiliates. And now we’re as our cases are starting to decrease. That ratio shifts back to Boulder County residents. Next slide please.
Again, you can see the five day average number of cases for COVID-19 among Boulder County residents was getting pretty close up to that safer at home level three, with 156 cases per 100,000. And now we’re back down to 23. And that really is due in large part to the tremendous work of the University of Colorado city of Boulder and students following the public health orders that were released a couple of weeks ago. Next slide please. also wanted to share some demographic data With every one just on the cases that we’re starting to see, and tried to meet some of Harold’s requests to get some Longmont specific data as well, so we can go to the next slide. And this slide represents the incidence rate, which is normalised among each city within Boulder County. As you can see, we, especially because of the large surge at the University of Colorado, the rate is much higher for the city of Boulder. But in the last 10 days, 40% of our new cases are a little bit more have been in the city of Boulder, and a third of them have been in Longmont. So we’re starting to see more of a normalization of cases across the county. Next slide.
Again, on this slide, then
we see the number of weekly COVID cases by a select group of municipalities. And so you can also see that shift with Longmont represented as the light blue and the city of Boulder is the dark blue. Next slide. Just wanted to share this graph as well, because I think it’s important to really understand where the disease has been in the community. And so this steep peak and then fall represents 18 to 22 year olds within Boulder County. So we can see at the height of the outbreak at CU the incidence rate was actually over 3700 cases per 100,000. And now we’re back down to 470 with the rest of the population still being below the the 175 rate for safer at home level two. Next slide please. And we have the breakdown here on this slide of race and ethnicity for total population covid cases hospitalization and deaths and I did on the next slide asked our epidemiologists and data branch to break this down for long month specifically, as you can see, we do have a pretty big disproportionate rate of hospitalizations and and COVID cases among our Latin x and Hispanic community versus our white and if we go to the next slide specifically for the city of Longmont, you can see that a much higher proportion of the community. That is Latin X has been hospitalized or diagnosed with covid than is representative of the Longmont population.
Next slide, please.
Again, just during the last surge, our cases were among white non Hispanic community members. However, we have seen an increase in the relative disparity for the Latin x community members over the last two weeks. This means that although the absolute number of cases among Latin x community members has remained steady over the last four weeks, they’re representing an increasingly larger share of the covid cases that we’re seeing. So you can kind of see that orange bar increases a proportion of the total cases. Next slide, please. Just wanted to give a really quick update on testing. Next slide. To date, we have conducted almost 80,000 PCR, those are diagnostic tests in Boulder County, as I stated earlier in the presentation, or positivity rate is 2%. And that continues to be pretty steady with what we saw just over a month ago. And this is this is good news, where we fall on the cdphp dial for testing is actually in the protector neighbor phase. So we’re doing enough testing to adequately find COVID positivity in our community. Next slide. And this is the slide that I was discussing earlier. So this represents the number of patients that are hospitalized due to COVID. And you can see that we are on an upward trend of hospitalizations in Boulder County, just as the region this and I have a text from Jeff that I asked him if there was anything he wanted me to share tonight and he said that social distancing across the state is lower than we would like to see and this is
this is being
clouded as one of the reasons that the hospitalizations are increasing. And so Jeff just wanted me to reiterate that with us coming into the fall, flu and holiday season. You know, right around the corner that we need to be really diligent about social distancing, and masking. And those are the slides that I have for today. But I’m happy to take questions. I’m not the expert in every one of these areas, but I can bring, I can bring questions back and make sure that they get answered. If folks have them.
Let me jump into help answers are open with Rachel.
But I don’t see any Calvary Bible fair.
So I do have a question around the quarantining of, of entities, whether it be businesses schools, um, what are he city operations? What? So when you have and I guess, what I have been seen is that we have some people who are quarantined for 72 hours, and others who are asked to quarantine for two weeks, can you please explain the difference of why we would go one, that would just be a few days as opposed to the full two weeks.
I’m not an epidemiologist, unfortunately. And I’m not aware of any quarantine guidance, being less than I think, the 10 or 14 day time frame. So if you could, I can look that up, and I can send it to you, that would be great if you could, as well.
So let me jump I mean, so we also have that issue. It’s interesting, one of the things I was going to update you all on today was basically. So today, we received notice of someone testing positive who worked in our development service center, it’s a little bit interesting, because we think that’s going to go in through weld County, versus Boulder County. And so the relationship on the tracing was something we had to work through. So what we do is we closed today, we closed the development service center, just based on the nature of the individual, we then have a protocol where we work with a specialized cleaning company that does come in and clean the facility, we are going to open the facility up tomorrow. And I’m saying this because for you all, this one was easier for us to manage. But then in the tracing component we go in, and then we will work to identify the individuals that have been connected to the person. And we really and so we work with both Boulder County Health and Kaiser who is who’s our insurance provider. And so the questions that we asked her to find out, who was the person associated with and then we asked those individuals were you? Did you engage with that person for longer than a 15 minute period of time? And you know, the answer, then we get so if it was longer than a 15 minute period of time, we then go Where are you engaging wearing a mask? Or were you not wearing masks when you were engaged in that conversation? And so but depending on those answers you give, you give them a probable exposure to a possible exposure or to an unlikely exposure. And then that starts setting for us the parameters that we put in place, or that we suggest that we put in place for those individuals. So it depends based on what that looks like, where someone will fall.
depending on where they fall, is there a level of number of days that they should be out of commission?
So that depends on the depends on. So they could start, but it’s very granular. So um, so if you, for example, were positive, and I interacted with you, seven days ago, and let’s say some more severe, let’s say, seven days, well, you know, then you get into the incubation cycle, which I think is five to seven days. Me, Rachel, they’re correct. Five to seven days can be a little bit longer a little bit longer. So then they start doing the math to them, the math will then dictate what you need to do for that individual and how long they need to be out. So that may be part of it. And so I can’t I mean, it is very, you get pretty deep in the in the nuances of each individual case and what that looks like. And then in some cases, what we’ll find is they haven’t been associated with them the time period where they think they were infectious. And so then we don’t require them to quarantine. Okay.
Okay. And then so the other piece is we have a section of law and I know it’s a small section of Longmont that is weld County, um, do we, you know, how come we’re not presenting that information.
So, we In terms of,
of the number of people that live in there, we don’t have I mean, it is mainly, what am I saying?
There’s like a combined
like five people, the five. Yeah, five homes, it’s mainly commercial establishments. And so then what I tend to look at is the state’s websites on outbreaks. Okay. Because that then will show a lot of that. And, and I would say for counsel, I think I’ve showed this to you all before. And I can try to call that up really quick. Let me do this for you all. So when you look at this, this sheet right here, this is the outbreak. And so if you let me back up, so you can see the outbreak data based on where it is, and then you can, as you zoom in, you see
take you to Longmont. And so we really haven’t had anything out here. So for example, if you you know, we have some industrial plants here, they’re not showing up on that. If you think I’ve done this for you, let me zoom in a little bit more. So here’s some that have been resolved. So errors on that was the kidney center of Longmont that’s been resolved. But then if you go to the for example, this one, it gives you the word where it occurs, how many people? How many probable? And then if they get into more serious issues, it’s there. So I watch this too. For some of that. What what ends up happening is as well county reports it as a southeastern section, and I think I’ve showed that to you all before. And most of those were report within Frederick and Firestone. I think most of those cases are there, but we can try to get that data. But there’s not many people that live in those areas.
no, thank you. I appreciate that.
You know, because I
get questions occasionally. And I just want to be able to have solid answers in responding. So thanks.
Also email you a link to the quarantine guidance. That’s on CDP G’s website. But Harold is right, there is a really detailed case investigation that occurs. And that’s how it’s determined how long someone needs to quarantine based on all of those factors. So I’m happy to share that overall guidance with you.
That would be great. Thank you. Yeah.
Marsha, I think you had your hand up earlier. Is there something that I can answer for you?
Ah, yes, thank you. I’d almost lost track of it. The spike in hospitalizations that we’re seeing now, is that a consequence of this spike of infections that we had a couple of weeks ago?
Or is that unrelated?
Yeah, we don’t believe that it is
necessarily linked, it’s really hard to determine that. But like Jeff said, in his message, what we really think it’s due to is a lack of social distancing. So the social distancing has actually been decreasing. And so that is one of the main factors. And we use kind of that Google mobility data to look and see how well people are social distancing on a high level for the county, and that has been decreasing across the entire Metro region. And we’re seeing a similar trend, not just in Boulder County, but regionally as well. So that leads us to believe that it has to do with the reduced social distancing.
All right, anything else?
So a couple of things. And this really is something and then we have the LDP meeting on Monday, and we had today’s not my day for names Lonnie, and Tina, that correct him. And kita Johnson, Tina Johnson, who is the CEO of Longmont, united, and Lonnie Kramer is the CEO of UC health and a couple of things that they passed on to us. So in terms of the hospitalization data that Rachel touched on, you know, there was a time where Liu h didn’t have any patients. And I think they moved up to four based on what Tina said. And then I heard today, I think they went down to three. So they have had an increase, but there was a time where they didn’t have any but the two things, the thing that Tina and Lani both both stressed us was really wearing the mask and socially distancing and good hygiene practices. And the second thing was get your flu shots. Because the big piece that we’re seeing from our medical community is they want everyone to get their flu shots because when you bring the flu and you bring the covid together What they’re really concerned about is the overall impact of the medical system with people coming in and presenting very similar symptoms. And so for me, that was a good reminder, continue doing what you’re doing, get your flu shot, because of the way it starts integrating into this. And then today, I had a reminder that even I’m going to talk to the organization about is, as we get further away, we still need to be mindful, because it still impacts our operational capability. And we still need to be careful. So when I do my city wide WebEx on Thursday, and I work with talk to my, my team on Thursday, those are going to be things that I’m going to focus on, because we can see what the impact does to our operational capability, and how we’re continuing to work. So we’re your mass socially, distance, get your flu shot and good hygiene practices. I think that just continues to be the message.
Right. Thank you that Harold, the tip. Hey, all right. Great. Thanks, Scott. Do we have any special reports, presentations URL? All right, let’s go ahead and do first call public invited to be heard. Let’s take a three minute break as we load the queue.
Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us. Just a few notes. As we let you into the waiting room here. Please just pay attention to your phone and not to the live stream on YouTube there is approximately a 32nd delay. And then just remember that when I call your number, you’ll be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and then you will have three minutes for public comment.
So just hang tight here and when we resume we’ll go ahead and start calling them folks one by one.
All right, how are we doing? We are back yet or know
how many’s in the queue, or how many are in the queue?
Alright, let’s go ahead and start calling them in Joey.
All right, give me just a second here, Mayor.
Mayor, since it takes a little bit of time for them to read the message and call in, we’re going to leave it unlocked as the first caller
begins. Okay, thanks.
All right caller ending in oh five, four, you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and then you have three minutes.
Color Oh, five, four.
All right, I’ll move on to color One, two full. Are you there? Oh, five, four.
Sorry about that.
This is Kristin Thompson with the green solution. I actually want to speak on the medical marijuana ordinance. And I’m not sure if this is the right time or if you’re going to open it up back that at that time, I would prefer to speak when it’s up at that.
Yeah, then we’ll go ahead. You’ll want to join us during the you’ll want to call back in during the ordinances to be read on second reading.
Okay, terrific. I will do that. Thank you so much. Thank you.
All right, let’s move on to color number one to five.
Color one to five. Can you unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record?
Hi, yes, this is Shannon Fender with native roots. I’m also going to be calling in for a second reading on the medical marijuana delivery.
So caller you’ll want to hang up now
and wait for us to prompt again
during the live stream.
All right, let’s do caller number 429. Caller 429 you’re welcome to unmute and state your name and address for the record.
All right, we can move on to color 499. Call her for nine nine. Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record?
Go ahead to the next one.
All right, looks like caller 710. collar 710 can you unmute yourself
and state your name and address for
Hello, there you go.
Yes, go ahead and state your name and address for the record and then you have three minutes.
Hi, my name is Evelyn fontinalis. I live at 711 Elliott street in Longmont. And the only thing I’m calling about is the RV parking. And um, there are a lot of homeless people that are living in their RVs at this time, and I did listen to last week’s meeting on that you will help some of the RV people that are willing to help themselves to better themselves. But I’m not understanding what’s going to happen to the people that just want to live in their RV and don’t want to follow any rules.
That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Thank you. Right thanks dollar.
All right, let’s try guest 429 caller 429 are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Yep, go ahead and state your name and address.
Yeah, thank you Longmont City Council. My name is Marty Pfeffer. I live at 100 Sandler drive in Lafayette. I have been making written and live comments to you for the last number of city council meetings about the idea of before you to downgrade the electric meters in Longmont homes and buildings from the current analog meters to smart meters in a so called Advanced metering infrastructure or ami system. Even though I don’t live in Longmont, I go there often for work for dining and to visit friends. The microwave, microwave radiation that emanates from wireless devices, knows no borders and doesn’t check IDs for residency to have its effects. I’m very concerned that you’re considering such a backward step compared to the brilliant public utility program of your next light broadband service, bringing internet to everyone wire to the premises, and under local jurisdiction. It’s a model of self reliance and real democracy for the whole nation. The smart meters are a bad idea for communities like yours and everyone except corporate heads of private telecom and utility companies and their shareholders. Here’s a list of problems. One long term health concerns for all living things which the FCC won’t allow us to talk to each other about, to invasion of privacy and data collection without permission by smart devices our homes. This is the biggest source of profit. Three fire risks from home meters for estimates of 100 times more energy inefficiency with the use of wireless infrastructure and its larger global carbon footprint than wired infrastructure, notably mining of exotic exotic metals for batteries and cellular fabrication. Next, wireless networks are not secure to cyber attack and other vulnerabilities. Next, promotion of dubious new technology by corporate entities to local communities is an age old formula for siphoning off money in control. preemption is the legal instrument to accomplish this. The promise of efficiency with tiered pricing is a bait and switch scheme to profit absentee companies. Please take time to thoroughly study and consider before subjecting your community to these problems and dangers. Thank you. Alright, let’s color
Let’s see Let’s guest 499 guests 499 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
Okay, I’m finally unmuted I was trying before. Can you hear me? We can Oh, yeah. Okay, this is this is dope Kelly. Have barberry drive in Longmont. And I’d like to thank the mayor and the Council for arranging the AMI study session at the council meeting next week. As the leader in fiber optics for fast internet Longmont will be well served to continue thinking and implementing outside the box as regards the proposed smart meter program. You’ve heard mine and others comments and questions at various recent meetings. This time, I would like to focus on what I would call the canary in the coal mine syndrome, beginning with a quote from a medical expert, Dr. Dietrich klinghardt, MD, PhD, an internationally recognized specialist in integrative medicine, who has an extensive working knowledge of the role that wireless electromagnetic radiation plays in the onset. And then mitigation of many chronic disease conditions. Dr. klinghardt speaks of the canary syndrome bus, quote, people that are electro hypersensitive are the blessed ones where their bodies still give them a warning signal that something really sinister is going on here and quote, We live in an age of chronic illness nearly every body to some extent is affected and not exempt on the kind of user old age. When I teach voice I see what I would call early onset digital dementia and music students as young as 16. Without exception they all use cell phones and wireless devices whether at home school or work. The issues with EMF have been an area of interest for at least 25 years as my husband and I have shared and sold subtle energy EMF protection, long before it was popular and before the electrosmog was as advanced as it now is. I mentioned before I experienced microwave injury in 2016 when the next light wireless router was installed in our home, and we also then ran another router in order to compare speeds. We failed to turn the second router off till hours later and by the evening my face and skin were burning my ears hurting. By morning I had spots on my face and a subtle black eye on one side. In the span of a day I had become a canary. So what is a canary in a coal mine? It is written early coal mines did not feature ventilation systems so miners would bring a cage Canary into new coal seams. canaries are especially sensitive to methane and carbon monoxide. And here you may as well substitute wireless EMF which made the Canaries ideal for detecting dangerous gas build up a dead Canary signaled an immediate evacuation. Now I asked you have you done a risk benefit analysis on the AMI with canaries such as myself in mind? And and Are you aware of growing numbers of emf quiet zones worldwide for all the Canaries who
that’s about three minutes and 15 seconds, but we we appreciate we appreciate what you had to say. Thank you.
One last thing.
All right, next caller.
All right, let’s see it looks like color number 418. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
Yes. Am I coming through?
You are loud and clear.
Stand tall. Welcome. Oh, okay. Yeah, let’s just stay on it. I found it interesting what Polly was talking about the unregistered vehicles, um, she might want to know are under 40 231 21, bracket one, bracket a it’s not unlawful to park a vehicle under state law on the roadway. In fact, it’s only a violation if a vehicle is operating. So there is no violation of state registration law. If a vehicle is or simply parked, or is unmoved. In the, you know, on a public street, that’s not a violation of registration law. Um, for one reason I’m calling is because of the of the RV ordinance. One of the things is, is that I’ve sent in an email, I hope it’s gotten through to everybody is that we appear to be violating the Open Meeting laws, because people that are in the RPS really can’t participate in these meetings, because they’re not really connected to the internet in their vehicles. And there’s also a problem in that other people were being allowed to connect with the city. And then they weren’t. Um, and so I have requested that the city pause this RV ordinance until such time that a true Open Meeting can be held for these people. I think the state law requires that. I guess that’s it. Is my time. Still good.
You’ve got another minute. 11 seconds, Stan.
the other thing is, is that
I’ve, there’s been a problem with the city issuing threats to impound vehicles. And they haven’t set up any hearings. And what I’ve gone in and tried to request a hearing, when when a vehicle is being threatened. I haven’t been able to get any sort of hearing on that, and that is at the Municipal Court. But they’re requiring me to use computers and stuff to communicate with him. I have a computer now so maybe I will continue that request. For all notices of impact. Have at people have access, be told that they can have a hearing within 24 hours. According to the state’s requirements, I guess that’s it. And hopefully the RV for this will be postponed until people can fully have open hearings on that.
Great timing. That’s three minutes, Stan. Thank you.
Alright, next got that up for the callers.
We have two more callers there. Let’s get them in here then guest ending in 635. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
My name is Shaquille Talal I live at 609. Terry Street. I’m calling regarding the ordinance banning the parking of an RV in the public right of way for more than 48 hours. I don’t envy the members of council on this issue. Any solution has to traverse the difficult balance of the right of property owners to the quiet enjoyment of their homes with compassion for those facing the choice between living in an RV or having no home at all. It’s easy for me to criticize when I have no constituents to face or any responsibility for the management of the city. I can’t say that I know what the right solution to this problem is. But I do know that the ordinance as it is currently being considered is morally wrong. During the presentation by Jeff Sater and Shannon Stadler last week, I witnessed something which I was disappointed by. During the presentation, city staff clearly declare their intent as approved by city council. And that intent was to draft a law whose text would be neutral but would be selectively in discriminatorily enforced? Well, we often use the word discrimination to refer to racial discrimination. In this case, I’m using it with this broader meeting to treat people differently under the law because of who they are rather than what they have done. In response to questions from council over concerns that the law would be used against their landowning constituents, Jeff Sater reassured members of council that it would not to quote Mr. Saturday quote, if a car belongs to a homeowner, we’re not telling those cars unless they are clearly junk, and explaining his rationale, Mr. sadder said that would be very rude and impolite. Mr. Sater has clearly stated his intent as directed by counsel to discriminate and the enforcement of the law between those who own land and those who do not. Now despite common perception, discriminatory laws are not illegal. There are only certain bases on which it is illegal to discriminate in Colorado, and those are called protected classes. Some of those protected classes will likely be familiar to members of the council, and those are race, religion, national origin and age. Homelessness is not among the protected classes, nor do I necessarily believe that it should be. Nevertheless, I find it morally wrong to draft a law with the deliberate intent of selectively enforcing it only against vulnerable people. This country has a dark history with laws whose text is neutral, but whose administration has discriminatory laws like poll tests and poll taxes, drug laws and New York City’s stop and frisk program. It would not be illegal for council to pass a law, which explicitly stated that it is illegal for a person who is homeless to store an RV in the public right of way for more than 40 hours. If that is Council’s intent, it should have the courage to do so explicitly. Thank you.
All right, and this is our final color ending in 798. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
Yes, my name is Virginia Farber. And I’m from Fort Collins, Colorado. And I’d like to address the EMI advanced metering infrastructure that you’re planning on putting in. I’m actually in a film called take back your power and you can access it online. It’s some take back your power dotnet. It’s an investigation into the smart meters and the smart grid. I lost a son in 2008, from glioblastoma, brain cancer and he was involved in a brain cancer cluster of people on the San Diego State University campus. And it involves a cell tower that was actually Mission Control for San Diego Gas and Electric. And, and in the meantime, I’ve worked closely with people from the World Health Organization. And this is how we got the class to be classification for wireless radiation back in 2011. And right now, the NTP study and the RAM and NZ study both came out in 2018, which show clear evidence of harm by wireless radiation. The city of Fort Collins installed smart meters and there was an article in US News and I brought it up that they estimated the smart grid at 300 and $50 million and, and at a cost of $322 per meter. Now this was back in 2009. And I’m actually trying to clarify things now. We had our mass deployments in 2013 and 2018. They had to replace 30,000 of these meters because they were not communicating properly with the with the grid these these meters are actually very Very, they’re junk to be honest with you. And it’s going to be a it’s going to end up being a huge boondoggle for most people. And the biggest thing I’m concerned about is the wireless radiation in each smart meter can transmit 1.8 miles of pulsed radiation. I am one of 11 petitioners right now suing the FCC over the health effects, wireless radiation. And this is through the CH D, the children’s health Defense Council. And this is Robert Kennedy Jr. and also the eh T the environmental health trust. And I really, these meters are going to be obsolete in the coming years. And I think if you want to go with the safe route, I recommend you guys keep going with fiber optics and somehow get our meters connected through the fibers network. So anyway, that’s that’s all I’d like to say. Thank you. Thank you, man. All right,
that the callers
that concludes our callers, Mayor.
All right. Let’s go ahead then and move on to the consent agenda. Don, do you want to go ahead and read us the
we’re happy to the riot act. It’s a long one mayor. Nine a is ordinance 2020 dash 44. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for the expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2020. public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2029. b is ordinance 2020 dash 45 a bill for an ordinance fixing and levying taxes upon the real and personal property within the city of Longmont for the year 2020 to pay budgeted city expenses for the 2021 fiscal year. public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2029. c is ordinance 2020 dash 46 a bill for an ordinance fixing and levying taxes upon the real and personal property within the Longmont downtown development district for the year 2020 to pay budgeted expenses of the Longmont downtown development authority for the 2021 fiscal year public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2029 season is 2020 dash 47 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the application of a pedestrian trail easement associated with the 110 Emery minor subdivision plat and site plan, generally located south of Second Avenue and east of Emory Street, public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2029. Is ordinance 2020 dash 48. A bill for an ordinance amending section 15.0 3.8 o of the Longmont municipal code and zoning districts measurements and exceptions. public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2029 F is ordinance 2020 dash 49. A bill for an ordinance approving the concept plan amendment for the bond farm rezoning and the annexation agreement located at 1313 spruce Avenue public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 20 2019. Is ordinance 2020 dash 50. A bill for an ordinance amending title 10 chapter 10.2 for creating new section 097 of the Longmont municipal code creating a temporary prohibition on rental late fees due to COVID-19 related hardship. public hearing and second reading scheduled for October 27 2029. h is resolution our 2020 dash 93 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the University of Colorado for socio technical design for a middleware information exchange hub. Nine is resolution 2020 dash 101 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont the county of Boulder in the city of Boulder for the Bureau of Justice Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant program award. Nine j is resolution 2020 dash 102 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the business lease between the city and Dennis l Blanca and Carolyn a bunker for 500 kimbark Street suite 1019 K is resolution 2020 dash 103 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Colorado historical records advisory board for grant funding for digitizing videotapes and nine L is resolution 2020 dash 104 a resolution in support of repealing the Gallagher amendment by encouraging the people to vote yes on amendment be.
I’d like to I’d like to poll.
Where to go where to go g temporary prohibition of runaway fees. Customer Martin
I would like to pull nine s and nine L
and you’re muted Mayor
write these down. So we have flg Councillor Christiansen
he for a brief comment.
All right, great. Let’s go ahead then and have motion for the consent agenda less flg and he So moved. Second. All right, it’s been Moved by Councillor Merton, seconded by Councillor though fairing on favor say aye aye. Nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Let’s move on to ordinances on second reading. If you are watching City Council, now’s the time to call in. We’re going to go ahead and take a two minute break while folks call in to be able to address the public hearings for each of these issues. All whether you’re calling in for the medical marijuana delivery or the the stores, the real property lease or the airport hangar lease all in now for any one of these four, please.
And we’ll be back in two minutes.
We do have a couple of colors joining us for this second round of public invited to be heard. So if you will just mute your live stream on YouTube. And just listen to your phone. Once we get started. Again, I will call you by the name your telephone number. And then you’ll be able to state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes. So hang tight and we’ll get to you very soon.
The ordinance 20 2041 it’s less likely that someone will call in late ordinance 20 2041 as a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of lamarque to lease the Real Property known as Vance brand Municipal Airport hangar parcel 874. To best steal LLC. Is there any comments or questions from council?
I’m looking at our collars go Yeah,
yeah. I’m pretty sure that nobody’s gonna want to talk on this will revolt if we do something wrong. And let’s go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance zero 20 2020 dash 41. Is there anyone in the queue who would like to speak on this particular item? So I guess my question is, at this time, how do we determine who wants to speak at what
and they can hit star nine and that will
virtually raise their hand I believe
all right. If somebody wants to speak on this particular item, please hit star nine. Alright, see seeing that nobody wants to speak on this particular issue. Almost go ahead and close the public hearing. Can I have a motion for ordinance 20 2041.
ordinance 2020 dash 41.
I’ll second it. Councillor Christiansen will Second. Okay, great. All right. All I see no further discussion or debate All in favor of passage of ordinance 20 2041 say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. 2020. That’s 41 passes unanimously. Next, ordinance 2020. That’s 42 is an ordinance authorizing the city of lamarque to lease the Real Property known as vanced brand Municipal Airport hangar parcel h 32. To Georgian Evelyn grelle. Assuming that there is no quite there are no questions or comments from Council. Let’s go and open the public hearing on ordinance 2020 dash 42 and ecollar wishing to speak on this on this item please, please push star nine to virtually Raise your hand. Alright, see no one. Let’s go ahead and close the public meeting. We have a motion
I’ll move ordinance 2022 42
great. It was moved by Dr. Waters seconded by Councilmember Martin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Let’s go ahead and go back to Item a, and start with these now. All right, so orders 2020 is 37 is a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 15.0 5.020. The Longmont municipal code and the protection of streams, creeks, wetlands, riparian areas, and 15.0 5.030 on habitat and species protection and amending chapters 15 point 8.0701 non conforming structures and 15.10 point oh two Oh, on all other terms defined, specifically. Anyway, that’s that is the ordinance. So is there anyone in the queue that would like to speak at a public hearing? We’ll go ahead and open the public hearing. So if you would, like please hit star nine.
Is there anybody?
All right, seeing no one will go ahead and close the public hearing. Is there any questions or comments from Council on this matter? All right, can we have motion?
I’ll second that, john. All right. All in favor of passage of ordinance 2020 dash 37 say
Opposed say nay. All right, that motion passes unanimously. All right. Let’s move on to ordinance 2020 x 39. Adult for an ordinance amending chapter 6.7 out of the Longmont municipal code to permit medical marijuana delivery.
Do we need to deal with a one?
No, or because it’s basically the same ordinance. Meaning?
It’s one it’s we passed. It’s the same thing, ordinance 2020. There’s 37. But thank you
like me to clarify the way I’m good. The agenda is a one is the information carried forward from first reading? Is that exactly as you saw it, and a is the new information. That’s the model you’ll see in this system.
So let’s go ahead or there’s 2020 1239 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 6.7 overlock municipal code to permit medical marijuana delivery. Let’s go ahead and open the public hearing on this matter. I’m pretty sure we’re gonna have a few Could you please hit star nine to raise your hand?
We do have a couple of callers raising their hands. How many is couple three or two? I see three so far.
All right. So
right looks like three.
Let’s go ahead and let him in.
All right. So let’s see color ending in oh five, four, you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address.
Hi, members of the city council. This is Kristen Thompson. I’m with the green solution. We are located at 206 South Main Street in the city of Longmont. We support this ordinance as introduced. So I think on the agenda, it would be a one we do oppose allowing businesses from outside the city of Longmont to deliver into the city we feel as essentially permitting a new licensed business into the city without them having to meet all of the requirements that current licensees had to meet including capital investment, signage, etc. This disparity is less important, frankly, for medical only deliveries. We can probably just let it go. But we don’t want this to be the model should recreational beat recreational deliveries be permitted in the future? This is for a couple of reasons. One is because there is only one store in Longmont that sells medical marijuana. It is not the green solution. But, but there is a reason that there is only one it’s because Boulder County allowed medical marijuana sales starting in 2011. So there was a seven year lead time for businesses just on the other side of the border of the city to develop their customer base in Longmont before the city allowed sales. This is why you don’t again, this is why you don’t see record stores in Longmont investing in medical marijuana sales the market was captured before we had a chance to compensate for this TGS are very committed to the patient community. So us and our other competitors within the city offer discounts to anyone with a medical card. That is standard practice really in any source including a war where they don’t allow medical sales I also want to emphasize this point. Boulder County currently does not allow a delivery so the business is right on the other side of the city line won’t be able to deliver medical product into the city, it’s going to have to come from what from either the stores in downtown boulder actually would have to come from the store in downtown Boulder. The store is in downtown Boulder, nobody else allows delivery yet. That dollar fee that is charged as well as the tax money follow that delivery. I heard the case made by the licensees outside the committee or outside the city about proximity and serving patients and it is definitely logical. But only if those bordering stores are able to convince their own licensing authority to allow delivery and then to allow delivery outside the authority of their local regulatory body, which would in that case, the Boulder County, which does not allow it right now. It will be interesting to see if Boulder County will allow the open borders provision that Longmont has proposed in the in the version that is being heard tonight. I also think this is an important data point. The city of Boulder is reporting that only 196 deliveries of medical medical of medical marijuana have been made. In the seven months since deliveries of medical marijuana have been allowed. That is actually split among the five stores in Boulder that deliver there are only 4500 medical marijuana patients in the entire county, even with that, that that lower patient count is a very small portion. So I just want to make that point. It’s for those reasons that we hope you will not allow cross jurisdictional delivery as it is proposed in the most recent draft ordinance. And we’ll wait until neighboring communities make similar decisions. You’ve heard from two of your four licensees. I know both medicine man and the green solutions are share concerns around delivering generally. But first and foremost, should you go forward with this model, we would really like to hear from you that this will not become the model for recreational delivery. Should the city decide to go in that direction in the future, which by no means we are suggesting you do. Thank you so much for your time, and I am available for any questions.
All right, thank you very much. Right, next caller.
All right. Give me just a moment here. It looks like caller number 125 you should be able to unmute yourself and raise your hand state your name and address for the record.
Yes, this is Shannon Fender Director of Public Affairs for native roots. And thank you so much to City Council for being receptive to the amendments that we requested throughout this process and really for prioritizing an important service to our patients. During this time. You have heard from our patients both through correspondence by email as well as calling into the meeting several weeks ago on the importance of delivery on the importance of toys on the importance of competition and so we’re really grateful that Longmont is receptive to listening to what the needs of the community are and prioritizing those needs. I do want to note that delivery is a permit on an existing license. It is not a new license type. And we have been serving the Longmont community since 2014. both medical and retail sales and we are very grateful to be a member of the community and to be able to provide this service. We are in conversation with Boulder County. Boulder County is very much aware that we are working with you all in order to provide delivery. And we do expect that they will be bringing forward an ordinance at some point. However, Longmont has just moved a little bit more quickly. So thank you again, we do support the ordinance as it’s been amended and ask for it to be passed tonight with no future amendments. Thank you.
Great, thank you. All right. And it looks like we have one more on this topic, which is guest oh two. Um, let’s see guest Oh, you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address.
Yeah, hi, my name is Michael song. Thanks You for taking my call. I called I think about a month ago when you guys first had this up. And I’d like to thank the city council because you guys have really been almost a leader and not a follower in this. I would like to talk about what the individual from the green solution kind of advocated for. I do think that they are misguided. I think the most important focus now for the council is not about money. It’s not about market share, but it’s about public safety. And the fact that delivery, as as it is amended is going to be allowed. I think that is a strong argument for public safety in terms of what we’re seeing right now, which is an uptick in COVID cases. So I just like to say, as someone that’s been involved in the industry, from the law enforcement perspective, and has trained law enforcement and city leaders and government officials, I do think this is the future. I believe that marijuana will eventually be illegal federally, and that other counties and cities will also open it up for cross delivery. So I think a long one is doing something that is proactive, rather than reactive. And I would ask that the council approve the order as amended. And so that we can, you know, look to the future and also protect those individuals that deserve medical marijuana. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
Like, one more person did raise their hand to speak on this towel.
Right. Let’s go ahead. How many people are in the queue total? Just, I mean, brother, I’m wondering further ordinances
- And it looks like there’s at least one more person who hasn’t spoken yet.
All right. Let’s go ahead and have this person speak now. Thank you.
Great. So a guest ending in 733. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address.
Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record?
Okay, star six is unmutes.
Great, we can hear you now. Please go ahead.
Okay, my name is Ashley Webber, and I live on feathery Avenue in Longmont, Colorado. I would just like to thank the Longmont City Council for the amendments that were made and Colorado normals supports every amendment that was that was made. I would just like to point out, I guess a few. A few issues on the consumer side as far as delivery would be for patients as delivery with courier services outside of the town, we’re going to need that service to come in for our dispensary is here in Longmont. So I just wanted to add that and make sure that that was noted on your guys’s case in in terms of courier services, we’re not going to have them within Longmont city, and if a courier service outside of the city limits would like to deliver for those then we should allow that. So I just like to support the amendments and Thank you.
All right, thank you. That’s it for our callers assuming that we have no additional Debate or discussion on this matter. Can we have a motion for ordinance 2020 is 39 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 6.7 old Walmart code prevent medical marijuana delivery?
On I’ll second. All right. We’ll go ahead and do is move by Councillor Martin was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. All in favor of ordinance 20 2039. say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the motion councils council counts. The motion carries and passes unanimously. All right ordinance 20 2040. A bill for an ordinance many chapters 2.68 on local licensing authority 6.70 on marijuana stores and chapter 9.6 on medical and recreational marijuana. At this time, we’ll open the public hearing on ordinate zero dash 2020 dash 40. Is there anybody else in the queue that didn’t speak on the last one? Or I guess they can speak again, I guess. We’ll take a few seconds star nine if you’d like to raise your hand. All right. See, no one will go ahead and close the public hearing. All right. Is there emotion or debate or dialogue from council?
Lord, it’s 2020 dash 42nd.
All right. It’s been moved by Dr. waters and seconded by Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Seeing no further discussion or debate. Let’s go and vote All in favor of ordinance. 20 2040. say aye.
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, that Motion carries unanimously. Let’s go ahead to last second ordinance is ordinance 2020. s 43. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of access utility and drainage easements facility associated with the Highland subdivision generally located north highway 119 and west of county line road. We’ll go ahead and sort of that we’ll go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. If anyone is anyone else in the queue at all.
The only guest we haven’t heard from is color 373.
All right, color 373. If you want to talk about a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of access pertaining to highway 119 and county line road one, let’s go ahead and hear it. All right. All right. I’m guessing they’re not here for that. So we’re going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Would someone like to offer a motion or offer dialogue or debate on this particular matter? All right. Well, firstly, the motion first
of the ordinates 2020 dash 43.
All right, the motion has been moved by Dr. waters and seconded by Councilmember Martin. Is that true? Councillor Merton? I saw you are Yeah, waving your flagrantly all right so all in favor of ordinance. 2020. Is 43. Say ay
Ay, ay ay.
Ay, ay ay ay. ay. Ay, ay. ay. All right, motion passed, nays. All right, the motion passes unanimously. All right. Now let’s move on to items removed from the consent agenda. We’re gonna go ahead and take it in order. Counselor Christiansen, you had a comment on item e?
Yeah, I just want to thank staff for catching this mistake that I know this is just a house cleaning, housekeeping little thing, but it actually makes a huge difference. And I appreciate them catching both these items. It’ll make a big difference in the long run. Thank you. All
right. Great. Would you like to make a motion? Councilmember?
I move ordinance 20 2048.
I’ll second that. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Let’s go ahead and Marshall. Let’s do yours now. F.
The bond farm proposed development and annexation is in Ward two. And last month, when it was actually in August, when it was before the planning and zoning commission, a citizen, Mr. JOHN pillman contacted me with questions about parking and traffic, as is usual when there’s going to be a new development in someone’s ward. So I in turn, contacted Mr. Peter Spaulding to try to get answers to Mr. Pullman’s questions. And before that dialogue had ended, I was notified by the city attorney that that because there is a change in the concept plan that the a quasi judicial, the council could end up attacking in a quasi judicial role with regard to this annexation, and that, consequently, I should disclose this contact and put an end to it. I did that my last contacts with Mr. Spaulding or Mr. pillman were on September 11. When I asked them both, please not to contact me on this matter. Again. I’m answering so I am just making that disclosure and if nobody else has anything to say about the bond farm develop. You do, Joan, Okay, go ahead.
Right, thank you, Mayor.
All right, it’s all good. Marsha, Marsha can do that. You guys can y’all can get away with it. Go ahead.
So um, I will approve the amendment and I know that we’re only supposed to vote on this change to the trail. But I am going to say that this concept plan even though I believe in the work,
what is the term?
live work, housing that gives commercial on the on spruce, I am against that. I am not against it within the CO housing development but on spruce and my reasoning is, and I want Peter to hear it is that this is a very old, narrow street that has no bike lanes. And it is used for a lot of traffic with skateboarders, etc. And when we have on traffic going both ways, one lane has to stop to let the other one pass. And many times because there is on street parking, so and because I live in this area and traveling daily, I know that this and rocket. So my frustration comes in the fact that when we do these developments, planning and zoni looks at the codes and the zoning and make sure that those are all fulfilled. But the whole concept with the transportation department weighing in and not realizing that this angled parking they have on spruce Avenue is very dangerous for all of the bike traffic that is trying to get off of Third Avenue. So they go down spruce, and all of the skateboards, all of the baby carriages, people pushing strollers and runners that are on the street, that angle parking is very dangerous. So I don’t want to approve the concept plan at all because of that, and I think I voted against it at the onset. So I I’m going to make a statement by not supporting this because of that problem in this concept plan.
Thank you. Quick question. staff is this. I mean, I might vote with you. This is the only reason I’m asking council member pack. What What is this that you spy right issue with the bond farm development? Meet meaning are they getting variances or any special treatment? Or is this just a flat out use by right? They’re well within their rights.
Go ahead, Eva. I shouldn’t your
Thank you, mayor and council members, Eva has jetski Planning and Development Services. Just to answer a couple questions. Just First, I want to do address Councilmember pecks comments regarding the parking. Back in 2016, when the rezoning application was submitted, they had diagonal parking on a concept plan. But working through the details of the constructability and the development overall, the applicant agreed with public works it would it be better to not do diagonal, but to have parallel parking. So the parking that went forward to planning and zoning commission is not diagonal. That was not part of the concept plan amendment itself, because that is something that was in the right of way it was another private property. And that was something that they worked through with public works. So I just wanted to clarify that there will not be diagonal parking on spruce, it’s just parallel. And to answer the mayor’s question I use by right I mean, sort of it was it was rezoned to a pod to allow the mixed use. So yes, the mixed use component was allowed through the PD zoning in the concept plan that was approved by city council. So what was taking the planning and zoning commission was just their preliminary development plan. Showing that it you know that it met all of the other land development code standards.
I mean, I’m gonna vote for this then. But I guess my concern, I don’t know to what extent city SAS staff can or should, I guess, I think it’s a fantastic idea. But my concern is it’s taking so long, and then talking with some of the people who have invested money into the project. Just to just I mean, I guess have some concerns that’s actually going to come to fruition in a way that people aren’t going to be taken advantage of not accusing. I’m just saying I have a concern as I talk to people, but it’s taking way too long. And there’s a lot of people who are very hopeful, or I’m just surprised how hopeful and naive they’re being. And I hope that their their hopes and their ambitions are not being misplaced. So I’ll go ahead and vote for it because I don’t want to be the guy that stands in their way. But are we watching to see if the developer is actually following through on its commitments
may or I just wanted to say Peter Spaulding, who’s the applicant for this project does have his hand raised. And I believe he probably be the best person to answer that question. So if you’d like to
go ahead, and let’s go ahead and hear from him, that’d be great.
stalling me Just a moment. I may have to unmute him there and I am looking for him.
So change your settings in the more you area.
And he’s up at the top of the list.
Oh, there he is. Okay, I just couldn’t find them in the list. Here we go. Because he raised his hand. All right, Peter, you should be able to speak now.
Mayor Bagley and city council members. I just wanted to point out one thing about the parking and the parallel.
this, the road that’s constructed is narrow. It’s by two feet, and there’s parallel parking, but the parallel parking that we have is actually set into the property. So even if cars parked on either side of the road, like they do on the rest of the neighborhood, there actually, it’s actually wider in our portion of the road. So it’s a lot lot safer. The CO housing. The reason why this project is taken a little bit longer is because in early 2019, I ended up firing my architect, landscape architect and CTA and had to go through the hiring process. And then in this second comment period, there are a couple things in this we were accepted in the old code. And with the new coop code there enforcement’s that were put into place as far as changing the grade of the road. So there’s a lot of reengineering that had to occur. cohousing is a niche market and people who want to buy into community, it’s a very desirable product. So they hang in there for a long time. For instance, Washington village, which is a project that worked on Office cedar on Broadway in Boulder took seven years to complete silver Sage in the in the holiday neighborhood to seven years, eight years. And wild Sage took four years. So a lot of these take a certain amount of time because the community members are the people who are buying into it and they help to finance the projects. So
He’s seeing a face I mean, seeing your face again and hearing you say that, like I said, I was gonna vote for the project is just so I mean, I know that I’ve just had some talk and some communication with some folks worried that that’s all I wasn’t accusing. I wasn’t I was just thank you very much for your for your words, and rattling off those other projects and the length of time without referring notes. If nothing else to put my mind at ease, so thank you. All right. Can we have a I guess? Councillor Martin, do you want to pose a motion?
I move adoption of the 2020 dash 49
Okay, it’s been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councilmember waters. Councillor Christiansen? Would you like to say something?
Yeah, I was. Um,
I know, there are many people in this community around spruce street who are really very sad about this. Um, however, the truth is that as we were talking about Well, anyway, nothing stays the same. And this has been many different things. It was originally a brick yard, then it became a farm for a long time. And while that may seem very peaceful to people, actually, cows make a whole lot of noise when they’re hungry and whatnot. There’s a lot of dust, it’s always been different. And I know people are very sad. I’ve been walking down there for years and years and years. It’s lovely place to look at the mountains. But the truth is that the family does not want to own that property anymore, somebody was going to buy it. To me, this is the least impactful thing of what could be going in there which could be chockablock with four storey high apartments or something that’s far, far more impactful on the neighborhood. So although I do sympathize greatly with the neighbors, I also think that this will cause less of an impact. And it’s my hope that it will be a very positive thing if I share the same reservations as the mayor. Believe it or not, and And, you know, if it comes to fruition, this could be a very, very good thing for Longmont as a whole and that neighborhood. So that’s my hope is that it actually does come to fruition. They grow food down there, like it was always. That was the use of it for many, many years. And I do hope that this comes to fruition in a very positive way. And in a faster way than it has so far.
Thanks. In customer Krishna said, Don’t worry, we’re, we’re we’re always in agreement, except for when you’re wrong. It’s okay. You know, I’m just kidding. Just kidding. Tells me We’re back.
I’m Peter, thank you for that explanation about the parking. I do believe in this concept. And I think it’s, it’s going to be a good thing for the neighborhood. So vote for it. I just hope that the city doesn’t get a lot of complaints about this street going forward. I would like to in the future to look at that along with the development. So thank you.
All right. We have a motion on the table saying no further developer development from no further discussion or debate. Let’s go ahead and vote. We have a motion to pass ordinance 20 2049. On favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, it passes unanimously.
And what was your other one? counselor mine?
It was Oh, it was nine l Yes. Thank you. The problem with this new meeting viewer is is that that the voting stuff covers up the notes that council members take on the agenda. So it’s very hard to do this from full memory. Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment about nine L, which is a resolution encouraging the public to vote yes, on the repeal of the Gallagher Amendment, which is amendment, state level amendment B. And a couple weeks ago, I think at the last regular meeting three weeks ago at the last regular meeting. Our our CFO Jim golden showed a slide about our revenue expectations if amendment be passed, and our revenue expectations if amendment B failed. And our belts are going to be a lot tighter as a city, which means cutting services if amendment B fails, and I can see a Councilmember adobo fairing there, you know, kind of raising a finger because the same is going to be true for the school systems. And just as as although bear Boulder County Schools have some mitigations in place for nasty surprises from the Gallagher amendment. Our rural school systems, fire districts, hospitals, etc. that get revenue from property taxes don’t have those protections in place. Our outgoing representative Jonathan singer, recently told me that there are school districts in the rural areas that he expects to fail. If during the pandemic related recovery, the Gallagher amendment is not repealed. So this is serious stuff. It’s not tax ideology, not this time around. It is we need this to hold things together during this very difficult time. So I really, really urge everyone to vote yes. On amendment be. Thank you.
And now I move adoption of English in 2020 dash 104.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll second it.
All right. That’s been Moved by Councillor Martin and seconded by Councillor Rodolfo fairing, Councilmember pack? Do you have something you’d like to say?
Yes, I do. I’m going to vote against this not because I’m pro or con. I just don’t think that we should be telling our residents how to vote on this issue. We can personally and individually tell them how we would vote as a resident if they ask. But I I cannot ask them as a group to support something if it I just can’t do it. So I’ll be voting against that amendment.
I’ll be voting against it for the same reason. I don’t want to tell our the people the resonance of long run how to vote on an issue. I think they’re capable of doing citing that but i do agree that we are really going to be in very big trouble if we do not overturn Gallagher and that’s a It’s a shame because this the state legislators, legislators have had a long time to fix this. And they haven’t. So their fix is just to get rid of it. But that leaves the the elderly in this state at a huge vulnerability. So I think it was really irresponsible of them to not fix this to not put something in place. So that we could work out of this and not leave the tax the the property owners vulnerable to huge skyrocketing things. However, we definitely need. I mean, my feeling is we have got We have no choice. But to get rid of this because the schools will fail and the the municipalities, particularly rural municipalities that do not have any commercial tax base will be in unbelievable dire straits. So
anyway, thank you,
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, I just would like to make a few corrections because I have been producing informative material for the public about amendment B, the legislature can’t fix it. Because of the interaction between the tape the Gallagher amendment, the Tabor amendment and theirs. There’s one more amendment that makes it harder to fix the constitution that I can’t remember the name of right now. So let’s please not blame the legislature for it. The other thing I would like to clarify is that it will not, in fact, it cannot increase your residential assessment rate. All it does is freeze it and keeps it from getting driven down. Colorado has almost the lowest residential assessment rate of any state in the union. And given the fact that our during the time that Gallagher has been in effect our economy has grown.
property tax burden is way low in proportion to our economy. And I don’t think that a resolution endorsing a ballot measure is telling people how to vote. I think it is telling people how the council feels about it based on the council’s understanding of the legislative and legal implications of the ballot measure. And I hope that Councilmember Peck and Christensen will consider changing their position
when seeing it in that light.
Johnson member Susie doggo fairing.
Yes. And so I understand the point of view of where Councilmember Christiansen and Councilmember Peck are coming from, um, my feeling and why I’m supporting this is yes, I do agree that we should not be telling voters how to vote. However, there is a powerful message in coming together as a collective to support in a resolution or to support the repealing of the Gallagher amendment to support this amendment. So that, um, you know, they understand the impacts that something like this would have on our public institutions. And I feel like as we are in public office, we need to support and be very vocal on supporting issues that will, in fact, have positive impacts on our public institutions. So that’s why I am supporting this. Yeah, and I do concur with what Councilmember Martin had said, Thank you.
All right, customer waters. Yeah, I’m gonna
I’m not gonna add any thinking that to anybody else’s thinking. But but I do think it’s important for folks to be clear on what we’re doing here. This is an opportunity for us to say we stand together as a council in the interest of the city.
would like we are inviting the public to stand with us because their city our city has a lot at stake with this vote. If we were talking about a bond issue for the school district, or an override election for the school district, I wonder if we would take the same position to say, we’re going to stand back and not encourage, not say we stand with the school board. We stand with the school district and all those interests together in with them to say to this to our community, you We owe it to you, for you to know where we line up on. So I Councilmember Martin, I’m standing with you, Councilmember Hidalgo, faring, I’m standing with you. Because we’re going to stand together in the interest of the city and invite the community to stand with us. We’re not telling anybody how to vote, except we’re expressing how we’re going to vote. how we’d like to people how we would like our constituents, to think about supporting the city by standing with us.
I started going to say is, I be encouraged people to vote a specific way as a block all the time. I’ve been on the losing sight of many of those, many of those votes. So let’s go ahead and vote. We have a motion on the floor to resolution 2020 dash 104 resolution in support repealing the Gallagher amendment, also known as amendment be on the state’s ballot, I voted today. So let’s go ahead and vote All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Nay. All right. And they said it in unison, but they both said nay. So it passes five to two with councilmembers, Christiansen and peck against. All right. And then last but not least, I wanted to pull the G. The G Yeah, temporary prohibition on rental late fees did COVID-19 I guess a lot of us. I guess a lot of us, we were going to talk about unintended consequences and, and all kinds of things. But this is just on the consent agenda saying hey, let’s go ahead and make it so landlords can have this tool in their arsenal in order to encourage people to pay rent and keeping in mind sooner or later. I mean, we’re getting we’re we’re flush with landlord clients, who are now evicting. They’re looking to evict their tenants, or calling for late fees is just one step that could actually help keep people in their homes. But anyway, what are the unintended consequences staff, we’re going to look at that talk about a little bit.
So mayor and city council, this is Karen Roni, from community services. And also on the call is Susan Spalding. And Carmen Ramirez. So So mayor, what we plan to do is to bring back if indeed, this particular item passes on first reading, our intention is to come back for that discussion at second reading and public hearing. We do have I think counsel had recommended that we send out we get some input from both property owners and tenants. And we have we have surveys out on the street right now. Collecting that, that input. And so we was hard to do that before first reading because we didn’t really have much time. So So our, our direction based on I mean, our action based on your direction is to gather that and we will bring it back for second reading.
I’m not going to argue against it at this point that I’m going to actually move that we table this for two weeks until our next regular council meeting. Second Second. All right. It’s been moved and seconded. Now motion on the floor. Let’s go ahead and talk about the motion to we’re not talking about the ordinance itself. Now. We’re talking about the motion to push it off two weeks. So we have so staff can bring back unintended consequences. Councilmember Christiansen
very late. This is already very late. We Broomfield did this in August, passed it in August. By the time we pass it, it might be out of you know, the government and the governor’s order might be off. Anyway, we’re sort of just dithering around about it. I would like to give an update before we vote on it from the county, Boulder County consortium of cities. But if you just want to vote on tabling and without any kind of comment, that’s okay. Do you want me to make a comment now? Okay, so I was at the border county consortium of cities and the representative Devin shaft from Broomfield said they’ve already taken this to court and it’s been certified and Eugene would testify to this because he talked to the lawyer who wrote it. The court has tested it and found that the tenant was in the right Another member of the border counting consortium is a Lewisville property owner and property manager and they voluntarily he and his family who run this and have many properties. They stopped charging late fees in April and 95. He said 95 98% of his tenants are still paying their rent on time. This is for a very small number of people who can prove that they have been affected by COVID. It’s a very tiny amount of people that would help but it would help them. So Dr.
Walters, thanks for your Begley. You know, I would, I would like I voted to move this forward, I’d like to vote to protect tenants. But I want someone to that knowing effects on landlords. And that’s part of what we talked about, I thought before we would see a, an ordinance on which to act and then get data, we would have data at the time we were we were looking at an ordinance. So we are within days, I we were told, of having the result or recommendations from a working group appointed by the governor that would address this, potentially, and that we were going to see data from tenants and landlords with some ideas of how we could frame this. So we the whole objective is to keep people housed. That’s what we want to do, and I support that. But I want to keep them housed. And I don’t want to I don’t want
to put I don’t
want to push tenants out if there’s a way to structure this. We heard about cares of money and ways to keep tenants and landlords whole. And I don’t see any of those data or analyses. That’s what I’d like to see. Before adopting an ordinance and I understand it would be it would be two weeks later, but in the interim with the governor’s Working Group has a recommendation we’ve already agreed we’re gonna follow the governor’s lead anyway on things so I you know, if we had introduced this in August, we’d probably be done with it. But it was introduced. What a week ago and now we’re now we’re looking at it and I don’t feel like that’s dithering. It’s, it’s come back way quicker than we normally see an ordinance come back.
For a point of order the word dither Polly was phenomenal, by the way. Well, great word by Casper pack.
There’s like cockamamie, and oh, but there
was special. There was good. Alright, Counselor Peck.
No, thank you, Mayor, I saw Susan Spaulding on the phone on the call. And she’s still with us. Because Susan actually has the interaction with the renters and the property owners in a point I want to make is that we are discussing people living in RVs we’re going to have more people living homeless, to to not do something to protect them, so they don’t end up homeless or living in their RV. So we have to address them at a different angle. I think this is this is getting in front of the problem. So Susan, my question to you is, do we have within your interactions with the property owners, the landlords, the managers? Are we having resolutions, compromises funding that is working to keep people in their in their homes in their apartments. And that is also backfilling the rent so that the rent, the landlords, property owners, etc, are not feeling such a big take on their income. Can you address that?
The only thing I can address is
my experience dealing with the people that I deal with. Okay, I’m on a I’m on a group called the housing retention group that includes people from the county and the city of Boulder. And we have worked with the courts to make sure that whenever an eviction is filed, that the landlord gives information to the tenant on mediation and that mediation is encouraged, in fact, more than encouraged by the judges, before they all hear any eviction cases. And I think that that general attitude is kind of is filtering down to the to the landlords, at least in Longmont through our work with the landlords, that the landlords understand that mediation and resolving issues with their tenants proactively, when they first arrive is the important way to deal with these kinds of issues. Um, all I can say is we are trying to get the information out to everybody that we can we have an online Our website this the county has it on their website, the our center is giving people information. I’m given the information at the landlord training groups about the resources that are available for both landlords to the pot program and tenants to the cares program and through other programs about rental assistance. I personally have helped many landlords and many tenants who have come proactively to our office, get in touch with those kinds of resources. All I can tell you is anecdotal data, that’s what I can tell you that I did look at the responses that we’ve had so far, to the survey that we put out to the landlord training group on late fees, and to the survey that we put out to the tenants and I will say just preliminarily, looking at it, it doesn’t surprise me what I what I see which is late fees are not really the crux of the problem. They’re not really, um, they don’t really edit anything. Because a lot of landlords, many landlords now are not charging late fees voluntarily. I think that the tenant answers, most of the tenants a majority 80% or more that have answered so far said late fees are not an issue to them. I don’t, I’m sure it’s a self selected group of people. But I think that there are other ways to deal with this with the issue of homelessness, and landlord tenant issues that are much more impactful. And I agree with Tim, that gov is is is the eviction taskforce has recommended to the governor to look at late fees. And from my point of view, if you have every jurisdiction having its own rules that are going to be judicially enforced. They’re going to be enforced hit and miss.
Okay, thank you very much. That was really, really, really helpful.
All right. Yeah. Thank you, Susan. So we’ve got a motion on the table, not about whether or not we’re going to implement an ordinance about late fees. It’s just a table the ordinance for two weeks until city staff has had a chance to collect the unintended consequences and present that to Council. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Fine, and Okay. All
right. Raise your hand if it was Aye.
All right, raise your hand if was opposed. Nay. All right. So the ordinance passes six to one with Councilmember Christiansen opposed. All right. So we will see that back in two weeks.
Thank you. No.
I thought we just tabled it. Or I’m sorry. No, no. It’s tabled for two weeks, though. It’ll be back in two weeks. So yeah. So yes, it will be back but in two weeks, or did you think we tabled it forever? I can.
I can motion again?
No, you just said we passed an ordinance which we didn’t know yet.
But we passed the motion to table it for two weeks, at which point we’ll come back same ordinance. So thank you, Mayor Pro Tem for clarifying that. All right, that concludes the consent agenda and ordinances on second reading. Jim golden looks like we have another phenomenal 2021 budget presentation. Should we take a five minute break before we hear this? Jim? How long would it take? Do you think?
It should take us five minutes, then let’s go ahead and do that.
That must be John’s like what
you promised a break. Can we do five minutes and then and then hopefully finish the meeting. We can all hit the bathroom and go to bed?
No, my expression was that she said it would only take five minutes. Okay.
Yeah, okay. disbelief. All right. Okay, Teresa, let’s go ahead.
Okay. Good evening, mayor and city council Teresa Malloy, budget manager. And this evenings, budget conversation is final direction from you all. And then our second public hearing on the budget. The what we are going to ask for direction on one of the items we’re going to ask for direction on is the remaining one time funding that is available. That has not been allocated in the budget yet the total is $507,727 from three sources 170,001 69 from property tax 132,005 58 from the 2019 marijuana tax. And 205,000 from the 21. Marijuana property to or marijuana special tax during the September 29 council meeting. You all did give us direction to move forward with adding into the budget two items. The first one is 117,000 of one time funding for the one month public media. And the second one was funding for the library budget request that was only partially funded. And I did want to clarify, the request was for 50,000. And the amount that was not funded, once we take away the Wi Fi hotspots for 15,000, that what will be funded by grants is 13,000. Also included in your council communication is information from Karen Roni and her staff on the library feasibility study, as requested by Council. And they are suggesting that should council want to fund some the additional phase of that library feasibility study for the financial analysis and modeling, that they would recommend allocating up to $50,000 of one time funds for that purpose. And then finally, before we get final direction on the 2021 budget, the Capital Improvement Program, the pay plan and the financial policies, staff would recommend that you hold your public hearing. In case there are members of the public that would like to speak to you. So that’s my my comments for this evening.
So do you need a motion approving the 2021 budget right now?
Well, I think if you have questions, we can certainly answer questions for you. Our recommendation would be that you hold the public hearing before you give us your final direction.
Perfect. Then once you have the public hearing, do you want that final direction is really what am I yes,
we would like the final direction, we would also like direction on what to do with the remaining one time funding that I was talking about. And then final direction on the budget Capital Improvement Plan, the pay plan and the financial policies so that we can bring back those resolutions.
And you’re gonna go through that we’re gonna go through that list in just a second. And you’re gonna help Okay,
okay. But I
was telling you, all right, so there is a there’s something in my I’m sorry, the dark waters, you have a question? Comment? It was just
time, Teresa and Jim, that you would like, motions on what to do with one time funding?
That is correct.
So mirror back that there are three for me, there are three items, and I don’t know what if you take them one at a time, but I’ll just lay them out and we can decide or you can decide. Let’s just pick
one but make motions one by one on off. I’m
gonna move that we approve $50,000 in one time funding to complete the library feasibility study. Second.
Do we have anybody All right, let’s go ahead and vote on it. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. ay. Ay
All in one second. Joan’s lips weren’t moving. Sorry. Were you and I, Joan, are no, they
know, I’m an eye cream.
All right. So so the motion passes unanimously. All right. Tim
number. Just as a reminder to counsel we we made a commitment to the 529 jump program. Just before we shut down I think was probably in February. One of the one of the issues with the 529 jump program in the school district was the school district was kind of in a bind to get behind the 529 program. It was only for Longmont, kindergarteners. And I brought to the council that concern and we agreed that we would kind of Stamm we would back all the kindergarteners that come into the savory Valley School District, and then do the outreach we need to do to other municipalities to try to persuade them to put it’s $50 per kid, not a lot of money. But obviously it adds up. If you’ve got 1000 kindergarteners, it adds up to $50,000. So we haven’t done the outreach covid set in right after that. But I but we we made that commitment publicly. And I just want to remind us of that I we could do some we could cover that expense out of contingency. Or since we have one time funding. We could commit earmark something like $50,000 to support all the kindergarteners with the fy 29 jump program in the fall of 2021.
Yes, before you make that motion, Jim, we have the money for
that and you think
so before we’re talking about for 2020 run, right? Yes. So yes, we have more than enough that amounts of Teresa just identify.
Alright, you want to go ahead and make the motion then.
No more Then I’ll move and this is an approximation Jim I’m it’s an I don’t know if Councilmember Hidalgo fairing has the number it’s between 1000 and 1100 kindergarteners, I believe district wide but the motion would be the budget 50 $50 per kindergartner to to follow through on our commitment to the 529 jump program.
I’ll second that.
All right, let’s just go ahead and vote if musters hardcore discussion on this all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Aye. Motion carries unanimously to
my third, you’re on a roll.
Call is third will be the third would be this we budgeted $250,000 summon ongoing money in some in one time funding in 2020. To support childcare, we have $100,000 in the budget now. I’m deeply grateful. And before 2021, Harold, you’re looking I see a frown on your face, I believe we have 100,000. We added 50,000 I think last time or maybe two meetings ago to what was 50,000. So correct me if I’m wrong. But I bet if we have the money available for one time funding to not fund childcare, at the same level in 2021 that we did in 2020. just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. And I know we were making $705,000 and cares of money available. But that has to be spent by the end of December, and doesn’t help us at all or help us much in 2021. So I’m gonna move that we add, we budget 250,000, an additional hundred and 50,000 in one time funding for childcare and early childhood educator or early childhood learning programs in 2021.
I think it’s a great idea. But Jim just just being financially prudent, we got that money.
So off the top mayor, I’ll top my head. I don’t know how much that second item was going to cost. We identified three sources of funding. I think Council also talked about it for some reason it was more than that amount, then we would go to the amount that we’re going to put into the stability reserve. So general answer to the question would be we should have that much money.
Okay. And then you’d let us know if there was a problem, right?
Oh, always. just just just just check
it. All right. There’s a motion on the table to put 200 $250,000 into early childhood education and daycare. On favor say aye.
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Thanks, doctor.
Just want to clarify, I’m getting a cramp in my calf. That’s why my face is making well.
We’re almost done. This is genius. Not taking a break this. This this last three get a Thank you.
Can I just say here? I’m glad you’re not talking about being paid somewhere else
pass out the adult. No more breaks from here on out. We’re going we’re going hardcore politic in here from now on no more breaks
it can I clarify the last one you can. It was another hundred and 50 over what we put in a ready
right now. 101 54 250. Right. Okay. Thanks. All right. So let’s go ahead and open the public hearing at this time for the budget. And then we’re going to go ahead and put the number up. And let’s take a three minute break. And then we’ll allow anyone to call in if they need to. And I’d be surprised if anyone calls in. If they do we’ll deal with it. And then we’ll have that and take a motion. So we’re going to take a three minute break
All right, this is
The information is displayed on this on the screen. And we’re just taking a five minute break. And if folks are calling in, we’ll admit you and call you one by one. Just a little bit. Thanks
we have anybody on the call.
Yes, we do have one guest with us.
Great. We’ll go ahead and open the public hearing on the budget.
All right, give me just a moment here it looks like a color ending in 488 you should be able to unmute yourself now.
Yeah, I’m actually needing to comment on the proposed addition of ami wireless smart meters. I didn’t know what I should wait till later.
you get it? Why don’t you stay on the line, sir. And we’ll get you the last call public invited to be heard. Sounds good.
Yeah. Great. Thank you.
All right. Let’s go ahead and close the public hearing then for this year’s budget. Do we have a motion for the budget?
Not all at once people
approve I move approval, the 2020. budget.
I will second that. So we’ll go ahead. It’s been moved by Councilman.
What do you mean? What’s the right word? Jim,
this is just a public hearing you gave us direction. We’re gonna bring the actions to you at the next regular meeting.
I withdraw my motion.
No, right now, I want to vote now. Let’s just get it out of the way. Councilmember pack.
Thank you, Mary Bagley.
I’m just going to make a little venting statement. I totally approve of the 521 jump for education. I totally approve of putting as much money as we can into early childhood education. But I have to say, the center that we have in this city, for everybody to go to get information to use computers to do research is our library for every age, every denomination, every every walk of life. And last week, when I wanted to put money in it, we had, it seems ridiculous that we came up with 13,000 after everybody weighing in as to why we can’t do this, or where are we going to get the money? I just have to say I’m frustrated with this, because our feasibility study said, We are hundreds of thousands of dollars ended underfunded on that library. So I’m I want to ask Jim, how much money do we have left? In the one time spending budget after all of this? It just seemed to me last week, like it was a ridiculous conversation to pull that last last little bit of money that the library wanted the 13,000. And I just feel we are not funding the library, which is the best source of learning we’ve got for everybody. So do we have any money left from that? one time funding?
Mayor Bagley, members of council so what I’ve got and Theresa correct me if you have a different number, but after the directions you’ve given us, I have about 177,000 less whatever we would need to put towards the 529 jump program, which I don’t have a number for right now.
Okay, I will wait. But I am going to make a motion next week, when when you have that figured out to give more money to that library, I just can’t see not funding it where we’re going to get $50,000 just to study. It’s just backwards to me. So that’s my event. And I am always going I’m going to keep pushing for that library. And that’s it. So Jim, let us know what’s left after you do the
so so mayor and council Jim, Sandy did say she believes there’s about 12 1295 five year olds in Longmont that that $50 a piece that would be about $64,750.
All right, I believe the motion was in conflict 50,000 versus $50 per preschoolers. So I’m as counseled we have consensus that it’s that number that Teresa just stated.
Yes, Counselor Martin.
was not the motion for all the St. vrain Valley School District children.
Yes, it was, but
that would be a bigger number than what Teresa said because there are St. vrain Valley schools outside Longmont.
No, no, but we
were not funding I don’t believe the motion was to find kids that don’t live in Longmont was it?
I see was that’s what we agreed to do back in February.
Okay. All right. And yes, that is that is true then.
Meaning that but I but I believe
the number that Theresa just shared with us is our is the number of kindergarteners district wide not just long martyrs. Does that true Teresa?
I will need to confirm that with Sandy. She was the one that had given me that number and she stated that that was in Longmont. So Sandy Can you
confirm bangli members of council Sandy cedar assistant city manager, I looked it up on the census documentation for Longmont specifically. So it doesn’t have that. That designation for St. vrain. Valley schools, we probably just have to ask that’s probably a question that the school district should be able to answer for us, I would think. So we could certainly ask that question. I was just doing an estimate of Longmont based on what the census
Don, he’ll be back with emotion was pleased, I guess. I mean, I guess my I guess I’d have a concern of I mean, Lyons and Mead. They’ve got their own city councils and on budgets. If I’m in the minority, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this. But I’m just curious with the motion was cast dark waters.
One second done.
Okay. Well, if you want to get the motion, but I but I would revisit
it earlier. Yeah. Well, you know, what I and again, I’m not gonna I don’t want to spend a lot of time on it. I just want to know, what was the actual motion? Just
to fund all kindergarteners in the school district at $50 per kid.
All right, that was the motion it is passed. So if I didn’t understand it, it doesn’t matter. My bad, so nothing else to talk about. Okay, so the let’s go ahead and move on to Mayor council comments. We have some Marin council comments. All right. Go ahead. Councillor Christiansen, and then Councilmember Martin.
Everybody should have their ballots. My now. Please vote to vote as soon as you can. And vote.
It’s important. Thank you. All right. Hello, Martin.
yes, I I’m always frustrated when I when we can’t engage with people in public invited to be heard that need to be engaged with. And I would like to point out, first of all, that people who don’t live in homes that are attached to net next slide, can still call into city council meetings in speak, using their cell phone. And there are not that many people who don’t have one. So there are also places at least for the be the first call for public invited to be heard. There are a number of public places where someone can access the internet from there. So I just want to say if you feel excluded from from public invited to be heard you shouldn’t be because I think we can find a way to hear from you no matter who you are. The other thing I would like to say is, you know, we do keep hearing, I guess this is for the study session, but we keep hearing about putting meters on the fiber channel, or the fiber. And there is no manufacturer of meters that that makes a purpose built fiber interface for the United States. At the present time, it’s probably three years away, on and we have a climate emergency declared here in Longmont. And so that’s a good reason for not waiting that long. We could do purpose built interfaces that we did ourselves, it would probably double the cost of installing the meters. Just say, I just used to do this for a living.
All right, great. Dr. Waters.
Thanks for your Bagley we got we received from Michelle a couple of days ago, maybe it was yesterday. An update on the status of recruitment in the application process for residents interested in serving on boards and commissions. So first of all, the message we appreciate people stepping up to volunteer to serve. I think we as a council, I took steps in the right direction in the last cycle of interviewing and creating more, I think more rigor in that process. more consistency in that process. I think we clarified some expectations for board and commission members in that process with respect to attendance and whatnot. And more accountability for those who serve the people for whom we did none of that is us in terms of accountability. A clarity on what our responsibilities are as liaisons and what what provoked me for this was looking at the at the fact that we’re going to recruit again. And then I asked on Do we have I’d never seen anything in my orientation about any written statement about out what what my responsibilities should be as a liaison? I’ve kind of made that up as I’ve gone along, that I asked if we’d ever collected any feedback from boards and commissions on what what council members could do or do do to add value or could do to add value? Or what do we do that is distracting.
And it seems to me that
would be a bad idea to give some feedback from from boards and commissions on what council members of liaison should or should not do do or do not do to add value to their work. And that it would be prudent, in my mind to put together some guidance, some agreements on terms of what how we fulfill those responsibilities. So as we think about interviewing folks, and we, we’ve taken steps for their accountability, I’m one that thinks we ought to take a step or two in a direction of creating more accountability for us, by collecting data, translating those data into some expectations or some agreements for ourselves. So that there’s some level of Can I have no idea whether or not I’m doing the job of liaison in ways that are similar to other members of the council? In Should I in what are you doing that would from which I should learn, that would be a greater service to the boards or commissions to which I’m, I’m Elisa. So as we as we anticipate interviewing. And one more time in the next round? I think that’s worth it ought to be done before we interview again, insurance heck out to be done before we go through this interview process and the next one. So I don’t know if anybody else cares about that. But I’ll think about that as we anticipate interviewing folks who we’d like to serve and who would like to serve.
All right, great. Thank you. Because we’re back.
Oh, thank you, I am actually going to reach out to the people who were having the Saturday vigils at sixth in Maine, on both sides of the street. It is it is the right of everybody to protest. But I am reaching out to ask you to respect each other’s ideologies, and your right to peacefully protest. And I would like to also remind the police department that as Council Members, we are neutral. We do not come in wearing anything that addresses our ideologies or our philosophies. We are here to represent everybody and to not push rd our ideologies. I don’t know what the standard is for the police department. But I am asking that when you go into these vigils, please do not wear masks that represent your ideology. Please make them be neutral and not have signs on them or any sayings that would spark an ideology conflict between or among people. Let’s all just live in the city peacefully and respect each other’s points of view. Thank you.
All right. Great. Anybody else? All right, we’ll go ahead and conclude. Marin council comments and I accidentally did that before we did our final call. There’s that color stoma line correct?
There is correct. Give me just a moment here
gentlemen, guests 488 you should be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address for the record and have three minutes
Hello, my name is My name is Scott Cunningham. I’m a practicing internal medicine physician with a focus on integrative approaches and I reside at 3771 South Narcissus way in Denver. I have grave concerns about the proposed addition of the AMI wireless smart meters to Longmont highly functional and safe, optical fiber based next light telecommunication system. I’m addressing you not only from a scientific perspective, but also as a patient who, myself I suffer from specific symptoms. when exposed to the very telecommunication carrier wave frequency the debt the proposed ami wireless smart meter emits. My own symptoms generally involve a dull headache, often with drowsiness and debilitating fatigue, and even accompanying joint pains, typically requiring around 36 hours to recover from significant exposure to wireless radiation such as that emitted by the AMI meters. Many of my own patients I also suffer from a variety of neurological and vegetative clinical symptoms attributable to this form of radio frequency radiation. So I am here, to dispel the widely held myth that wireless telecommunication, radio frequency waveforms are safe to biological systems. The actual fact is that radio frequency radiation in the microwave spectrum such as is used by the AMI meters, has been demonstrated by by thousands of scientific studies in the peer reviewed literature to cause harmful effects to every biological system ever tested, including humans. And I’ve previously supplied the council with a sampling of the scientific studies. So I applaud you for the council for facilitating the build out of next slide, which is truly, truly a cutting edge state of the art system of optical fiber connectivity, demonstrating your commitment to the health safety and economic viability of the city that you have been entrusted with. In summary, I implore you to reject the the addition of ami wireless smart meters in favor of the safer and technologically superior options available to keep your fair city moving into a bright into a bright future. Thank you very much.
All right. That’s it for everybody else in the queue. No, correct.
Nobody else in the queue.
All right. We’ll go ahead and conclude. final call public invited to be heard. It’s currently turned on one city manager Harold.
No cop. Well,
I do have one comment. Sorry. The item that Councilmember Peck brought up. I know Rob and I both received those emails. And Rob has been engaging in conversation this week with with his group. And so we talked yesterday didn’t have time today. I will talk to him about providing counsel with the information on that.
Thank you. Sorry.
No comments. All right. Great.
Eugene, anything from you? No comments, Mayor.
Great. Can we have a motion to adjourn? Councillor Peck? We’ll make that motion
and move to adjourn.
I’ll second it. All in favor say aye. Aye.
All opposed say nay.
Look at that. What solidarity passes unanimously. All right. So I’ll see you guys on Tuesday. All right
Transcribed by https://otter.ai