All right, thank you very much. The mayor will be joining us momentarily. So at this time, I would now like to call the October 20 2020, Longmont, city council study session order. Could we please start with the roll call?
Councilmember Christiansen here.
Councilmember Adolfo fairing here.
Here. Councilmember pack
here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.
Councilmember waters here.
Mayor Pro Tem you have a quorum.
Thank you very much. Just as a reminder, meetings are being held remotely due to the ongoing novel coronavirus pandemic. At this time, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. Let’s see. I think I’ll just go ahead and do it myself instead of calling on somebody. All right. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation nation under God, indivisible, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All righty, thank you very much. Just as a reminder, anyone wishing to provide public comment during public invited to be heard must watch the live stream of the meeting and call in only when I open the meeting for public comment or when they’re badly does if he gets on. Prior to this agenda item. callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time.
I believe the screen is up. Yep.
Yes, it is
already the toll free column number as seen. Watch for the instructions to be displayed and write down the meeting ID which is displayed at the beginning of the meeting. You’ll wait for the mayor or myself to open public comments and direct callers call in. When the prompt is given to call in dial the toll free number enter the meeting ID and when asked for your participant ID press the pound sign. please mute the live stream and listen for instructions on the phone. Because there is a delay between the stream as versus what’s going on in real time. callers will hear confirmation they have entered the meeting and will be told how many others are already participating in the meeting. This includes staff and council and will be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted into the meeting. Once admitted to the meeting, callers will be called upon by the last three digits of their phone number and allow to unmute to provide their comments. Comments are limited to three minutes please. Each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Once done speaking college please hang up. At this time motions direct the city manager and add agenda items to future agendas. Seeing none, I guess let’s move on to public invited to be heard. We will take a brief break to allow people to call in and
Alright folks, if you’re joining us for public invited to be heard. Just to reiterate, make sure you mute your live stream and listen to the instructions on your telephone will begin admitting you into the meeting and when it is your turn we will call you by the last three digits of your telephone number.
thanks again for joining us. This is just a reminder that as we go through public invited to be heard, we will call you by the last three digits of your telephone number, at which time you will by the last three digits of your telephone number at which time you’ll have to state your name and your address for the record and you’ll have three minutes
and we will get started here again in just a few minutes.
Alright, let’s get started.
Alright, Mayor Pro Tem Give me just a few moments and let the live stream catch up to us and we’ll get started here.
All right, thank you folks for joining us.
Alright, everybody, we’re gonna get started with the public invited to be heard. Just a reminder is three minutes per speaker. And please give us your name and address prior to your comments. Thank you very much. Let’s start with the first caller.
All right, so this is caller 347 caller 347. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes Hello, hello.
Hi, my name is Mary Lynn. And I’ve lived in Longmont for going on seven years 744 at what I sent the city sustainability board where I see the city struggle to balance stated environmental goals with the funding available. For example, for funding a hardwired smart meters in lieu of the microwave and ones which are more costly as Marcia Martin has mentioned in a recent meeting tonight in calling to ask you to consider a new old idea that sweeping the nation that can be leveraged to meet our sustainability needs better public banking. So I’m wondering how much money the City of London Longmont lays out every year to pay interest on it
debts, and what is it I don’t know what that is it is a million dollars is it 2 million, and that is money that could be recouped and not have to be spent. If the city of Longmont had a public bank was probably thinking those precious resources could be built to spend on sustainability projects. Public banks are owned by the people of the of the city or state or other community or nation, North Dakota and the first and only public bank is the only bank that is the only state that didn’t suffer economically from a 2008 nine recession. Public bank service a depository for local government funds like taxes and fees save state and local governments millions or even billions of dollars by cutting out middlemen and private shareholders. In financing projects at much lower interest rate, property reinvested into the community for infrastructure, renewable energy in affordable housing. Public banks create new jobs and spur economic growth by supporting small businesses, and they partner with and support rather than compete with local community banks. In short, they are lenders during a time of stress and crisis to build a healthy local economy. And right now 30 of our 50 states have public bank on city and state level projects that are being developed. And we have founders here in Boulder County who could be tapped with spoken to us today, who would be willing to help the city to create and put in place this important jewel in our necklace of groundbreaking innovations that make Longmont such an extraordinary place to call home. More information is at public thinking institute.org. And I’d be happy to share any information that I have this on call to do so thank you.
All right, thank you very much. next caller please.
All right. Let’s see the caller ending in 488. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and then you have three minutes.
All right. My name is Scott Cunningham. My address is 3771 South Narcissus way in Denver and I practice integrative internal medicine. I’m calling to provide a contrasting opinion to Dr. Bruce Cooper’s statement from 2011. That was included in your study packet stating his assessment of the then current scientific literature on potential adverse health effects of the radio frequency fields emitted by wireless smart meters such as the AMI smart meter under consideration in this study session. Dr. Cooper’s review focused on then recent ascent assessments by mostly government agencies and included review of only one actual scientific study. My own assessment of the potential adverse health effects of the radio frequency fields emitted by these smart meters, in contrast, is based on direct examination of the peer of the peer reviewed scientific literature on this subject. For example, Chaturvedi, his group detected DNA strand breaks in brain cells, loss of spatial memory, and increases in red and white blood cell counts in mice to reddys group found multiple pathologies in rat, kidney and bladder tissue. Among the human studies that we have avendano his group found sperm DNA fragmentation and caranas group observed an increased prevalence of adverse neuro behavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living in distances less than 500 meters from cell towers. Thus, while Dr. Cooper concluded in 2011, that quote, no adverse health effects have been established from exposure to low level radio frequency and quote, that obviously is not true in 2020. I’ll leave you with this. Wireless radiation has been deemed uninsurable by wired by by Lloyds of London and every other specialty insurer. As a result, when reports of injuries from wireless devices inevitably, such as the AMI meter start rolling in. If they have long months names stamped on them. It could become a costly ordeal for the city. And I respectfully recommend that now is the time to choose wisely. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. next caller please.
All right, that color ending in 499, you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
And hear me,
we can go ahead.
Okay. This is Joe Kelly of barberry drive in Longmont. I first wish to thank you for being responsive to the voices of the citizenry by holding this wireless smart meter study session. So thank you. I have a couple of questions for you. I read in the meeting packet and also in yesterday’s Longmont, leader article about this meeting, that the equipment The city was going to use only puts up radio frequency aka microwaves, in bursts and data packets approximately 15 minutes apart. Can you tell me and the public what specific
of meters you’re planning to use? And will they be utilizing a mesh network or a point to point system? As I understand there’s a big difference between the two in the amount of actual radio frequency emitted. Next, in reference to the 30,000 defective wireless smart meters that had to be replaced in Fort Collins mentioned last week on the call. Have you factored into your budget the cost to We the People should long month suffer a similar fate? Or a planned obsolescence of this equipment with a subsequent early replacement of its wireless meters under this proposed program? Current wired meters last decades. How about wireless smart meters? Has the city made any projections based on these very real possibilities of replacement when thinking about this plan? And if either of the above scenarios were to transpire? Have you accounted for the extra carbon footprint each would cause city? can you compare this against whatever the cost would be including the carbon impact? were we to remain with wired utility metering in Longmont? I’ve told you some of my personal story of being a canary in the coal mine and of having become electro sensitive when overexposed to post microwave radiation from two wireless routers running currently in our house, one of them the next flight. What I did not tell you was that I had been receiving sessions and the type of energetic brain mapping at the time with a local therapist who, after my injury was able to quantify it via a before and after brain map comparison. The map done afterwards within two weeks of this injury was totally different from the one done with her approximately a week before the injury and as interpreted by her showed distinct and clear evidence of a trauma to the brain. In today’s online news, I note an article about the mystery Havana syndrome where multiple us diplomatic and other agents were apparently targeted with something that here to forehead received much speculation as to how multiple personnel in multiple locations in the world received dramatically similar neurological injuries. So much so that us personnel were evacuated and offices closed in certain countries. My time is up and I will bring you part two of this commentary next time. Tune in next week. And again, thank you for your time and service.
Thank you very much.
All right caller ending in 378. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
Hello, can you hear me?
You’re a little quiet, but we can hear you. Okay.
Can you hear me now? Better?
A bit better? Yes, thank you.
My name is Carolyn wolinski. And I live in Boulder on 16th Street. And, you know, unfortunately here in Boulder, they do have smart meters on homes. You know, I never really was able to understand the reason for these things. We were originally told that, you know, people would look at their smart meter to figure out how much energy they were using. I don’t think that is really ever happened. I do want to say that wireless radiation from my reading is about a million times background. So that means we are exposed to a million times the amount of wireless radiation on a regular basis.
than that, which we involved with.
Most people don’t know about the dangers of wireless radiation, because it’s really not covered by the media. Of course, the media gets a lot of money in advertising from the big telecom company, so they’re not gonna expose the dangers caused by these companies. So most people aren’t complaining, that’s probably why you’re not hearing about it. They don’t know. And they don’t connect their injuries or illnesses, to EMF, because how can you connect something that you don’t know about? People who do know often try to minimize their exposure, they will make their cell phone use, they wire their homes, and they take other steps to avoid experiencing EMF and I happen to be sensitive, and I do those things. But when you put a smart meter on a person’s home, they don’t really have any choice. And
so, you know, the,
quote a bit from a study from EMF, scientists, this was an international appeal. They say we’re scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non ions and nine non ionizing electromagnetic fields. And they talked about we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF rated by wireless devices. And they mentioned smart meters in there as one of those market wireless devices. And then they say, numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at all levels well below both international and national standards. So in effect, we are exposing people to higher and higher levels of radiation. And these effects include cancer, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficit, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well being All right,
thank you very much. That is three minutes. Thank you very much for your your thoughts on this subject. next caller please.
All right, give me just a moment. Caller 418 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
All right, we will move on to color 084.
Call or 084 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
Nobody on you are.
Thank you. Hi, my name is David Goldberg. My address is 200 East 23rd Street in Loveland. I don’t live in Longmont, obviously, but I am definitely concerned about EMF everywhere all over the planet. I think when we wake up in the morning, till when we go to bed at night and even beyond then we are being exposed to electromagnetic fields from so many different sources. From our cell phones, my wireless from our light bulbs, to just the wiring in our houses, to smart meters everywhere we go a constant barrage of these emfs and that’s not good. Numerous studies, many of them cited by people on on the phone calls and already have shown that EMF can have definite negative effects on people and their health even though there are there are big arguments on the other side that they don’t cause any harm because they’re non ionizing peer reviewed studies as we’ve heard show otherwise. And there’s a tremendous amount of sickness that is being caused by EMF everywhere. I think if if you as a council and we all of us are really serious about addressing COVID We would want to do everything possible to ensure the health of all of our citizens. I think all of the steps that are being taken by government and that have been recommended, like face masks and vaccines and social distancing, those are great. But I really think the number one weapon tool that we have to fight disease is to create healthy people that can fight off these diseases. And if we keep exposing ourselves to all kinds of environmental toxins, including EMF and smart meters is just adding another layer upon layer of things that our body has to fight off and leaves us vulnerable to disease like COVID. Finally, you know, I think it’s kind of a no brainer for the city of Loveland. Longmont, I just heard recently about your amazing award winning I guess, fiber optic net network. I’m not sure how the architecture would work. But if there were any way that the fiber optic network could be used in lieu of wireless smart meters, I think that would be again, such a no brainer to avoid another level of wireless radiation and go the smart, safe way, which is a wired technology wherever possible. So thank you for letting me speak and I and I really do appreciate you listening to the public and doing what you can to support our health. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your call. next caller please.
All right. This is our final caller. This is not a telephone number. This is Collin, user underscore one. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
Calling user underscore one. Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record?
Can you hear me?
We can welcome
I’m Laurie Stanley and I live at 1015 Long’s peak Avenue. Thank you Mayor Bagley and the Longmont City Council for the opportunity to speak I would like to talk regarding accessory dwelling units or the ad EU and more specifically the permitting process and five foot side yard setback. I think most of you are aware of the at 630 gay street this particular ad uses five feet from our back fence and directly is adjacent to five yards and kitty corner to two other properties. This ad was built without neighbor input in the permit process. It has pushed every limit of size and height. If any city council people are not aware of this situation, please contact me and I’m happy to show you through our backyard. I’ve lived in our house since 1999. And this is the only undesirable situation I am aware of in that 21 years in our wonderful neighborhood of Old Town Longmont. I love living here I can walk almost anywhere I would like to go There’s wonderful neighbors and the neighborhood shops and restaurants. I would like to speak specifically to the five foot setback not requiring neighbor input. As an example, we wanted to replace the front porch of our house that was removed in the 1960s. We had to go through the variance process due to the front yard setback. We did not find this process cumbersome and we’re glad to ask for neighbor input. I respectfully ask that the members of the council and city staff please consider requiring a variance is there if there is going to continue to be a five foot setback. This not only encourages neighbors to be aware of what is happening in their neighborhood but also allows them to voice their opinion, especially when it directly affects their property. It allows good neighbors to be good neighbors and have dialogue and discourages bad neighbors from going around the rules. If someone had objected to our porch, we would have gladly work to find another solution. We had several objections to the ad u at 630 gay street but due to the new permit process that allows five foot side yard setbacks and Old Town, objections were not allowed. I remember a comment by one of the council members a few weeks ago that stated that residents should be aware of the rules that are being passed and pay attention at council meetings. I wholeheartedly agree with this and I should pay more attention however, had I been listening to this discussion about the five foot setback. I may have thought it was a reasonable idea However, after seeing the after effects of this decision and such a huge ad you being allowed five feet from fences of three neighbors. I see now how much of a horrible decision this has been. Old Town is a single family residence neighborhood with irreplaceable charm for the town of Longmont. Why do we want to create more landler Lord properties in Old Town. And our experience the people who want to build at us are contractors or realtors buying properties and trying to make money but do not care about the character of the neighborhood. If you want to preserve the character of Old Town Longmont, please stop allowing the building of ideas that are five feet from their neighbors. Thank you.
Thank you very much. That concludes public invited to be heard for this evening, apparently, at this time, we’ll move on to special reports and presentations, which would be the update on COVID-19 by Harold, Harold, it’s all yours.
Mayor Council. Good evening, I’m going to cruise I’m going to present some slides that we received from Boulder County in a few minutes. But I did want to let you all know that I did reach out to Jeff sack and his staff. And as we’re getting close to the end of the week, or end of the week, end of the month, it’s been a long month thus far. But as we get to the end of the month, I did ask him what his recommendation was for November in terms of council meetings and board and commission meetings. And he did indicate that they are going to get an email out to us but based on what they’re seeing in terms of the case loads in the county surrounding us and where the numbers are. The recommendation is for November to continue staying in the remote meetings for both boards and city council meetings. So I wanted to provide you all with that information and see if you all concur with continuing to stay remote during the month of November.
Calculate for Christiansen
Thank you, Harold.
I think we’d all just love to be back in council chambers and see the public and be normal. But you know, I do think that this is such a very tricky time we’re seeing in various places COVID. Coming back again. We’ve been doing very well in Boulder, county, and most of most of us have been we have a higher population in on the front range. So that’s one reason why we’re seeing a greater rate. But anyway, I’m in supportive as toughing it out and continuing to zoom along here. It requires a lot of patience on everybody’s part. But we just have to
stay steady. And
it’ll it won’t last forever.
I just wanted to say, obviously, we’re allowed to revisit these decisions almost at any time. But I thought at one time we had informally agreed to not holding any in personal meetings until the new year. I don’t know if I’m incorrect in remembering that. But
um, you know, I couldn’t remember that. I just know we were going to update you based on what we were hearing for Boulder County Health and on that. And so I just wanted to make sure that you are in agreement with the, you know, the the recommendations that were received. And then because you did all say that I just wanted to have that conversation with you.
Yeah, I feel there’s no reason that continuing to exercise caution is a bad idea by any standards. You know, I think that we’ve gotten used to it to the point that were fairly functional. So I don’t I don’t see a problem with continuing forward. And I don’t think I see any disagreement among Yeah. councilmembers. So,
okay, so now I’m going to share my screen with you. I’m really talking about numbers. So if you tell me, do you all see the one with the little COVID and the Boulder County update?
So and I think to that point, you know, I’ll start off with this slide. If you remember when Rachel presented this information in terms of you know, this is the base data in terms of what goes into the COVID. Dial. So on the COVID data, we are still in safer level two. I think what’s interesting when you look at the two week cumulative incident rate we were obviously earlier on one of the counties that was in the orange and red now you’re seeing that continuing to spread to Jeff’s point about they’re seeing the spread of cases and other counties surrounding us. When you then go in the two week testing positivity rate, the current Boulder County rate is 3.1%, which you can see is up. But you can still see many of those communities are starting to move up into the higher categories and then finally the hospitalization status. I think this is the first time I’ve seen what I’ve read in terms of what’s going into the dial. So our current Boulder County status is nine days of discrete decreasing or stable admissions in terms of what we’re seeing. So we’re still in safer at home level two, but you can obviously see the various counties are experiencing different pieces on the data. I’m not going to talk a lot about this, because this is really more of what they’re dealing with. But you can see the different levels that they’re they’ve put in place in terms of adult gathering, young adult gathering and the metrics that they’re using, at the county level to deal with this situation. And then, as we start getting in the numbers, the reason I wanted to use this is because they actually have 1019 on this versus what’s on the website. And so you can obviously see, again, much better than we were but you can start seeing the movement up and down with the high point A few days ago, 48 cases. When you when you get to that number 48. Most of those cases, we’re actually not, we’re Boulder County residents not necessarily see students, you only see one there. So so that the numbers look different as we continue to move out in time. Again, when you when you look at this in terms of associated with long term care facilities, again, it is good that we’re not seeing a lot of the orange, although it still is in some of the cases. And then you can see the five day average and the number of new cases. So you saw the peak we dropped and a spike. And it’s still a slight trend upward, again, to the point of what we heard from Jeff, in terms of how we move forward. The other reason I wanted to use this is you’re seeing very similar the same information you saw from Rachel last week. So this is when you normalize on 100,000. population. Again, this graph still looks consistent with what we saw last year, or last week. Now this is basically what the cases look like in terms of the dark blues, Boulder library is long, my yellow is Lafayette, Lewisville and superior and the green is other municipalities. So you can obviously see that while we were a larger component in last week, when we looked at this week, we’re still a fairly significant component, but not as much in terms of the overall numbers. Again, still seeing a lot of cases in attendance 19 and 2229. And this is a slide that I thought was really interesting when you look at cases among children zero to 17 years, you know, in the last two weeks, 10, five to 1018, zero to four, there were five cases, the previous two weeks, there were seven, or 910, in the last two weeks, 11. So again, somewhat stable 10 to 1417, within the last few weeks versus 12. And then 15 to 17 is 16 and 16. So I know you all have asked for and and what’s happening in that demographic. So I thought this was some good information. Again, you’re seeing the trend, and so continues to move down, but you’re seeing that leveling off. And then everything’s coming together when you look at it. And again, you know, they’re looking at it on 100 per hundred thousand. So this is an actual cases, but you can see the movement in the different age groups when they’re normalizing are 100,000 population. And then again, you know, as a county, this was actually down in the 27 range. And now it’s back up to 28.3. And I’m going to talk a little bit about they’re definitely focusing on that, and increasing testing throughout the county. And then again, when you see the numbers, white, non Hispanic, Hispanic, and then other race, again, you can see,
you know, there’s this there’s a significant component of cases, and so they are continuing to focus on the Latin x population. And then as you remember, are the numbers in Longmont were a little bit different. Again, the five day average percent of tests that were positive 3.7. On September 1, it was 2.4. So we’re seeing that go up, which is really matching what you heard the governor say, in terms of this positivity rate. And then you can see how many tests they’re performing in the county versus how many are positive. Finally, here’s what the five day rolling average of a percent positive looks like. And you can see where we were around the 2% mark, but again, trending up in terms of the cases and when you look at the hospitalizations, again, not hospitalized versus hospitalized. Really Not in this range, but you see it, it’s too hard to tell based on the scale in this graph, and then in terms of where the hospital set and the resources, if you remember last time, they were in a different spot. So the hospital resources are continuing to remain stable. So at this point, that is a review of the data, you can see that we are seeing similar movement in the number of cases, but not to the level of other counties. I think it’s important to to just remind folks to again, this is something that I seem to have been saying a lot recently, especially as I’ve had internal meetings, we still need to pay a lot of attention to the protocols that have been in place because we are seeing those numbers and to echo you know, what the county health officials and cdphp and the governor saying, as we move into the fall, we need to be diligent in this because that starts coming together with flu season, that does present different issues for our hospital systems as we continue to move forward. At this point, I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
I don’t see any questions? ferals. So,
I guess we’ll move on to study session items. Six a CI p e le 099. Advanced metering infrastructure discussion.
Do we have a presentation?
We do give me just a moment.
Very good. Thank you.
Excellent. Well, good evening, Mayor Bagley Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, members of city council. I’m Dave Hornbacher, the Executive Director for long run power communications Council has heard earlier tonight and other times from members of the community. And councils also expressed an interest in additional information on this very important project, which is the advanced metering infrastructure. During tonight’s work session council hear perspectives from three different speakers. So before we get started first mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez the speakers can present their each of their each of their presentations fully with questions and answers help following the entire presentation, or do you prefer questions feel to throughout the presentations?
Due to the zoom format where it’s hard to see all members in the discussion? I would prefer to hold the questions until after the presentations are completed.
Okay, thank you. And that’s how we’ll proceed. And then also Lastly, I’m pleased to announce that we recently have hired Mike Philip Honda as our new ami manager. He started with LPC last week he is an engineer by training and he has experience from Xcel Energy Colorado Springs Utilities, City of fountain and most recently as a consultant. And so I wanted to welcome Mike I don’t know if Mike can is out there to turn on his camera for a moment.
pause here, Mike.
This is Mike. Can you hear me? There we go.
So Mike, do you want to just say hi to your your new city council?
Yeah, good. Good evening. I’m glad to be here. I, I came from a number of the utilities. I have worked with some ami systems in the past. Um, I welcome any questions you guys have for us. And let me know if anything from me. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. And welcome. Welcome for joining a lot of my power Communications. Thank you so much. So with that, probably the next question is Why am I so next slide please. So ami is is really it’s one of the seven integrated electric resources that will work together to help achieve the city’s goal. 100% renewable by 2030 ammy. ami is a key that unlocks it informs it supports and advances many of these resources. Click please. Yep. And so so of these seven elements, the AMI smart grid is is what we’re chatting about tonight. So slide three, please. This is tonight’s agenda. We will have a health discussion. We’ve invited bill Hayes with Boulder County Public Health depart There’ll be followed up by a discussion on intelligent energy from Dr. Shockley. And then we will finish off the presentations with ami state of the industry with Rick Schmidt.
Next slide, please.
So first like to introduce bill Hayes. So Bill, can you unmute him?
And turn on your video?
Yeah. Hello, everyone.
Great. So Bill is the air quality coordinator for Boulder County Public Health, where he has worked for the past 17 years. He has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and a master’s in environmental engineering and as a licensed professional engineer, as part of his air quality work bill has supported energy efficiency measures for residential and commercial buildings. And prior to joining the county bill spent a decade working with rocky flats, the cleanup project there. So again, from Boulder County Health, we welcome bill, you have the floor.
Thank you, Dave. And first, I’d like to thank Harold for his presentation on the COVID data. That’s something I’ve been working on a lot for the last eight, nine months. And I’m happy to be here to talk about something other than fires in COVID. Tonight, and I certainly applaud the Longmont City Council’s decision to continue meeting remotely. answer one question I get a lot. Yes, I am absolutely crushing my office’s COVID beard pool.
So with that said,
let’s get into a discussion of radio frequency engineer radio frequency radiation. So there are two basic types of radiation, non ionizing and non ionizing. And it’s basically a difference between the energy level of the radiation. And so non ionizing radiation is a lower energy level, so that it doesn’t have the potential to disrupt the structure of an atom releasing electrons. And so the release of electrons is what distinguishes ionizing radiation. And that release of electrons causes excited particles that can directly physically damage DNA. And it also creates in the body free radicals that are oxidizing agents that can also cause tissue damage in the body. So non ionizing radiation has a much lower energy potential. And yes, it can cause tissue damage in humans. But that’s through very direct and intense exposure to RF radiation. And the typical effect of that is essentially burning of the tissue. The energy excites the atoms in our body, and causes tissue to burn. So that’s kind of the difference between non ionizing and ionizing radiation. And you know, what we need to keep in mind. And I think one of your callers said it earlier. every second of every day, we are constantly exposed to radiation from a number of different sources, both natural and man made just by the fact that we chose to live here in the front range of Colorado puts us at higher radiation exposures, the higher altitude that you live at, the more solar radiation you receive. And also, because of the Rocky Mountains that we love, that decomposing granite emits radiation that we’re exposed to. So there’s a number of natural sources that we’re exposed to every day. And then there’s also a number of manmade sources that we may either consciously choose to expose ourselves to, or unknowingly be exposed to. And so if we can go to the next slide, we’ll talk about some of those sources of manmade radiation. And so this graphic shows the frequency of radiation, which as I said, you can kind of think of as the energy potential of the radiation, and so the non ionizing over to the left is lower frequency, lower energy radiation. All of our power lines give that off all the time, the TVs and radios in our houses, all of our cell phones give off radio frequency radiation, microwave ovens. And then as you move up into that higher frequency radiation, you get the ultraviolet radiation and we know that that can lead to skin caused cancers, then x ray and then you know, what we often think of is radiation of you know, plutonium, uranium things that are used in nuclear weapons nuclear medicine, that, you know, we know have a very direct and severe potential to cause damage to the human body. So, you know, this gives you kind of an idea of both the devices that we choose or maybe do not choose, but are still exposed to radiation from, and kind of the frequency and the energy potential of those devices. So if we go to the next slide. So this, I really like this graphic, because it shows the relative amount of radio frequency radiation that we receive from these various devices. And so as you can see cell phones, which many of us if not most of us, you know, are carrying around on our person all the time, has, in this graphic, the highest level of radio frequency radiation than microwaves are modems in our house. But what I think’s interesting here is that the human body actually puts off RF radiation, essentially, any object that has, you know, thermal mass, and is shedding heat, so human bodies, plants, animals, all of that thermal heat that you give off is a form of radiation. And it is radio frequency, electromagnetic frequency radiation, the earth itself gives off RF radiation.
And so then at the far right, is the amount of radiation that a smart meter gives off. And so you can see, by comparison, it’s significantly many, many, many orders of magnitude less than our cell phones and our microwave ovens. As additionally, as somebody pointed out earlier, it’s not constantly admitting it’s emitting on about an every 15 minutes schedule, and it’s in our homes. And, you know, I know that now, with COVID, most of us are spending a lot more time in our homes. But during normal times, you know, we’re not in our home all the time every day. And so that relatively small amount of radiation given off by a smart meter often happens when no one’s there to be exposed to it.
with pretty much everything we deal with in public health, we look at it from a relative risk category. And so, you know, I will not say, and I wouldn’t trust anybody that would say, absolutely a smart meter poses zero risk of any adverse health effect to humans. We can’t say that. But so you know, I look to the trusted experts in this field that I rely on not just on this matter, but what we rely on for COVID what we rely on for vaccinations. And so starting with the American Cancer Society, they have a lot of really good information on their website, about RF radiation, and I apologize if you’re hearing a bunch of bloops. I am also on fire response, and we’re getting a lot of traffic on that right now. But so the American Cancer Society has a lot of good information on radio frequency, but they ash radiation, but they actually defined take a position on it. They will not say, you know whether they think RF radiation poses with significant adverse health effects humans are not instead they defer to other agencies that really are looking at Radio Frequency radiation specifically. And so one of those agencies that they look at is the International Agency for Research on Cancer. That is an organization within the World Health Organization. They list RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The American Cancer Society also refers to the US Food and Drug Administration. And the FDA says that, based on a number of reports that they have examined and studies they funded themselves, they conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a console association between radio frequency radiation and tumor formation. So, you know, you’ve got two well respected organizations that again, aren’t saying there’s no risk, but there’s
strongly from our age, when I look at those things in relative risk, with all of the other sources of radiation that were exposed to each day. You know, I feel that the smart meters are an acceptable level of risk. And as Dave started out this presentation, they’re a very critical component to getting to 100% renewable energy. And getting to 100% renewable energy has unquestionable health benefits for our community, for our country and for the world. So thank you for your time. And I think that is everything that I was hoping to cover with you this evening. All right, thank you very much. Could we accept the shared screen to entertain any questions from council?
thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Actually, I am a supporter of ami, and I just want to get that out of the way. But in that, that last spectrum of devices and their RF emissions, I think I’d like to clarify something putting putting a smart meter on the very lowest RF emission end of that spectrum of different devices must refer only to the metrology electronics in under the glass inside the meter. Because depending on the AMI network that is chosen, there can either be no communicating radio under the glass, or there could be a cellular transceiver under the glass, or there could be a 900 megahertz transceiver, which would be equivalent to a cordless phone. Or there could be or an there could be a Wi Fi transceiver under the phone. And obviously, if any of those devices is in the meter, then the emissions of the meter move up along the spectrum. So I just want to be clear about what we’re saying when we put that meter on the one end.
Thank you, Councilmember Martin.
That was the question. I would like Mr. Hayes to confirm or correct me on that.
Well, I’m not an expert on these devices themselves. But yes, what you say certainly makes sense that as we add essentially additional, you know, electronics, there is going to be additional emissions. But still, you know, falling into the range of, as I’ve said, the devices that we’ve invited into our homes already.
And of course, the meter is outside your home.
And most of those
most of those radios don’t penetrate the walls and insulation of your phone. So it’s still not the same as having a cellular phone on your your pillow. But I just wanted to, you know, clarify that.
Yeah, that is that’s a very good point. Thank you. At this time, I’d like to officially recognized that Amir Bagley has joined the meeting. Mary Bagley, I’d like to turn the meeting over to you. That’s great. Appreciate you want to finish
up this issue. Why don’t you go ahead and finish up the issue, if you could there. And then I mean, I could but just You’re doing great. So why don’t you? I’ll take I’ll take I’ll start with 60. But yes, I am back. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, first hand I saw was Councilmember waters.
Thanks, Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Hayes. Um, two thing, two questions. Really? You indicated you’re not an expert on on the devices themselves. So this may not be a fair question for you. But I am curious whether or not the a wired system emits any more or less RF radiation than a wireless number one. And if that’s not a fair question for Mr. Hayes, if somebody else could just clarify, is it the same whether it’s wired or wireless system number one, number two, we heard from a physician in Denver tonight. We’ve heard from him before. Dr. Scott Cunningham, who I don’t know, just other than a name that has come shows up in public invited Have you heard, but he referenced several studies. I don’t know how current those are. I did note that the data is studies we saw in the attachments. The most current one is from 2014. And whether or not what we have from the FCC from FDA, from CDC, how current are those data in relationship to what was even there, I think the American Cancer Society was 2011. The the study from the California Science Technology Group was like 2012. So is that is what we have, from CDC, from the FCC and from FDA, state of the art the most current data available on health risks as relative as they are? I mean, you were very clear that you got away it nothing’s without risk got away the risk against the benefit. So I’m just curious if we’re, if we’re dealing with the most current data on on health risks, and whether or not there’s a difference in radio, in radiation frequencies between wireless wired and wireless, I’ll stop and listen.
Yeah, it is my understanding that a hard wired meter, you know, it still gives off some RF radiation but less than a wireless device. But I actually think the next presenter is probably at a much better position to answer that. So hopefully, we’ll get that next. And then, as far as, you know, state of the art research on this issue from a health standpoint, I really think that 2011 2012 studies are, you know, the most recent that we rely on. And I think part of that is due to it had been studied enough by that point that no one really had an appetite to study it further. I, you know, I won’t say it was conclusive and put to bed and there’s nothing more to learn. But I think it was studied to the point that, you know, you have to get funding, and people think you’re not going to find something new, it gets tough. So 2011 2012 research on that probably is the most recent. And as far as you know, reports, showing that there are health impacts. I get sent studies reports every day telling me that mask wearing is dangerous for us, and does nothing to prevent the spread of COVID. So, you know, I think we all know that you can always find a report that takes a contrary view. Thank you.
Um, thank you. I don’t know. I’m Mr. Hayes, if this is
something appropriate to ask you.
We’ve mostly been talking about the health effects, which of course, are important. But as a sit as a municipal official, I am also concerned with two things that I’ve that opponents to ama’s have talked about. And I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other about this. One is fires started by them. The other is their longevity. They specifically cite the 30,000 while they’re hardiness and their longevity 30,000 that had to be recalled in Fort Collins. And I don’t want us to be spending money to replace device something that will last for five years and then has to be replaced in every city single house every five years or something like that. So could you
address those two issues? And I think again, the next speaker is going to address both of those. So I will defer.
Yes, we’ve got two more speakers after bill and sell Dr. Shockley as well as Rick Smith should be able to address those questions more fully. Councilmember Christiansen
alright. It appears that there are no further questions for Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Hayes, for your time and your expertise. Thank you for having me.
Thank you. Thank you, Bill. And so I’d like to introduce the next speaker. So if we go to the slideshow again, please. Okay, we’ll pause there. And, again, I want to thank all the three speakers tonight. They have, you know, provided their time here. They have different presentation information. And they’ve actually worked really diligently to try and at least have a presentation to five to 10 minutes so that there’s more time for q&a. And so with that, our next speaker is Dr. Tim Shockley. And just a little bit of overview on Dr. Shockley is he is an international consultant in computer and communications engineering and in technical standards, the Development. He presently serves as the Secretary of the ISO IEC s. c 25. workgroup, which is the International Standards Committee for home electronic systems. And he’s also a technical co editor of several new international standards related to smart buildings. So he also is an entrepreneur and he’s engineer the development of the electric utility premise gateways and energy management system for over 25 years and has played a major role in the development of sec technical standards for smart meters. That advanced metering infrastructure is a form of faculty member of the University of Colorado, a College of Engineering and Applied Science. He holds an MS in telecommunications engineering and a PhD in communication policy from the University of Boulder. So again, I’d like to welcome Dr. Timothy Shockley. And, Tim, if you can come on the line and take over your slide presentation, please.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, David.
Yes, and I would like to thank you for thank you all for the opportunity to contribute to your study session. On this interesting topic. The title of my presentation is intelligent energy longmans energy future. I’d like to reference a paper that is in your packet. That is by that same title, intelligent energy operating system for the solar homes and micro grids of the future. This is it published in the latest issue of solar Today magazine, the fall issue. And it’s about a project that, that I’m working on now in the International Electrotechnical Commission, the
As as David mentioned, I had was involved in developing the original smart meters back in the 1990 timeframe, and worked on the technical standards that were published as NCC dot 12, rc 12, later named ami, our advanced metering infrastructure architecture. In those days, it was advanced. And that was, but that was a 20 to 30 years ago. The next generation is what I’m describing in my paper that you have in your packet on page 94 to 99. That is what I envision as the next generation ami smart meter.
If you want to use the term ami,
I wouldn’t use call anything advanced anymore that would be that would soon be out of date.
Going to the next slide.
The this what I like to talk about is getting long one to 100%. Let’s look at the my paper is being passed to do that one of the one of a couple of paths that both of which need to be taken. The goal is getting to renewable, sustainable and resilient energy. long months resilience and reliability has put a high priority on reliance, resilience and reliability and sustainability. We will need the grid as it is today. Plus, we will need this just distributed generation and storage within the city to get to that goal. Most cities lack the infrastructure to enable this. However, Longmont has a head start the next light fiber network is a it has become basically a exemplar of the the the one of the best fiber networks municipal fiber networks in the entire country and the latest. Long one is uniquely positioned to take a leadership role. levering this next light fiber the model for the nation. longmans hist has a history of technical innovation. If you recall a number of years ago, Longmont was levering IBM’s data storage market that spawned a large number of companies in Boulder County and and Longmont became basically known for data storage data storage industry for a long time. I think it could same thing could happen in the energy industry on the so we’ve got we’re going to need both grid scale, renewable energy and distributed. The next slide is
Meeting the challenge of climate change the items that were identified in the your excellent climate action taskforce report in June, identified on page 18 and 19, certain key technologies,
metering Home Energy Management Systems demand response, controlling supply and demand, carbon signaling distributed energy resources, which is kind of a generic term and then transactive energy, which is my interpretation of some of the texts done in that section.
system described in my paper is called Emma, Emma means energy management and metering architecture. The project being developed right now in the ISO and IEC standards committees, we’ve got cut, basically people all over the world working on that right now and, and that’s one of my main activities. But together with that, that is a home and building control system that orchestrates the use of energy inside of a building a home or building premises, along with solar energy from the roof and battery storage and control of the consumption of electricity. We combine that with the idea of micro grids, which are the key to the community resilience, resilience, resilience is the ability to use the solar on your roof when the grid is down. That’s that’s my definition of resilience, the most practical purpose and then the micro grid is an ability to isolate a section of the electric power grid to operate independently, or semi independently, like a community, a campus or a neighborhood when the rest of the grid has failed for some reason or other. That is, that’s another form of resilience beyond the building, the resilience begins with the building or home itself, and then expands to the neighborhood and then into the entire city. The next slide, please. The what is a home and building energy management system, it’s it is in this case described in the paper as a key platform for distributed solar plus storage. It’s my belief that all solar should be paired with storage, you’re not just putting solar panels on your roof, but also combine that with batteries, backup, or battery storage for management of that energy on the premises, and coordinate it with the local grid or micro grid, using some kind of communication, preferably optical fiber. The basis of resilience is this control system for each building. And you need a what is needed as a premises energy platform that thought that also does metering. And that’s what’s described in the paper. If you look on paper in the paper, which is on page 98 of your packet, and figure three, you’ll see a description of what that looks like inside of a building what what the architecture actually looks like. And you’ll notice there’s a lot of metering going on. It’s not just metering the whole house, it’s it’s metering circuits and devices within the house, including the use generation and storage devices. Fiber is the path to that communication, what we need is not a meter that not a meter that only does metering. But if but a control system to use that metering data, that’s how we originally started, when we developed the first smart meters they were used primarily for that purpose for controlling energy on the premises. And then as a as another benefit sending that to the utility for billing purposes. The the the smart meters of today, even the AMI meters do not do that. They are not a platform that can be used for that purpose. The what this platform I’m calling for enables would enable a lot of different rate structures. What we need, we you hear a lot about time of use pricing, but I feel that what we really need is time of renewables fight pricing, and transactive energy which is a real time control and pricing of electricity. It also enables demand response and community sharing of electricity. And there’s some basic principles involved are the energy is best managed at the premises where it’s used. And it is best to generate and store electronic electrical energy as close as possible to where it is used. The next slide is basically a, a little more of thinking about home and building energy management systems.
Thinking about it,
premises as a meter is really a throwback to the old 56 kilobit modems of 20 years ago, and that’s about the speed that the AMI meters operate at in a mesh network. There, they don’t even compare to what you can do with fiber, they may not be the right technology for Longmont, I think the conventional ami meters are basically obsolete. It’s 2030 year old technology and it won’t do the job you think it will or that people are are pitching. It’s it’s not a platform, the kind of energy premises platform that we are going to be needing to control energy to really control and implement integrate
The ms the Emma platform I’m talking about is the premises energy platform. That also includes metering of premises based use and generation and storage of energy. It’s linked with the rest of the community with the fiber network. The guiding principles I mentioned a moment ago, energy’s best managed at the premises where it is used. And we should generate and store energy as close as possible to where it is. The next is a little laundry list here of what I consider the risks of investment in conventional ami meters, you have a risk of obsolescence the useful life is limited. There is a high failure rate on their manufacturers Now typically, whereas the old meters would last up to 50 years, they met the the old analog meters, the new ones last about, we’re lucky if you know, five year warranty, if you can get that out of it, you’re doing well. The radio networks are too slow to meet the platform needs of today, they’re not really two way networks, they will not there that you will end up having to use the fiber anyway, and install something else. In addition, if you go forward with this, with these radio networks, I’m my feeling is you should if you’re going to implement ami meters, you need to do it with the fiber. And there are
interfaces available to do that.
But what as I said before time abuse rates are no longer appropriate. We we need we these time abuse rates were were developed to support baseload coal generation and peak shifting. Now what we need is time of renewables, we need a dynamic rate rate structures or at least rate structures that can deal with supply as well as as demand. And there is also a risk of fire. I think that was a question was asked earlier, you can ask me a little more about it. That’s not I’ve given testimony to various public utilities Commission’s on that topic. There is a risk of consumer privacy. I’ve written papers on that topic too, for the University of Colorado, which I’d be happy to share with you. It’s a it’s a big issue. And there’s also this risk of triggering public concerns over health and safety. You know, I don’t want to get into that topic right now, but because others have addressed it, but in this may, I think they could radio, excessive radio used in our society may turn out to be the next as best as their lead paint or tobacco situation. There’s a possibility of that and there’s research being done even at University of Colorado in Boulder on this what’s what’s called weak field effects of electromagnetic fields. I have written testimony to the public to the Federal Communications Commission on that topic.
The so the fire it’ll slide is
the I think the Climate Action Task Force did a great job. They got the goals, right. And now the technology to do it is on the horizon. In the system I’m working on Emma. Plus, am I metering is levering the fiber infrastructure. It’s based on international standards, the international standards organization and the International Electrotechnical. commission. Emma is essentially ami 2.0. That’s what I call it informally, complimentary to the existing grid is not a doesn’t compete with a grid, it just adds to it. So we can and that’s what’s depicted on the, in my the cover of my paper, in your packet on page 94. there so some, a couple of art artists renderings of electric complete electric power system from the the old centralized grid to the new micro grids of the future. And, and I think there’s a closing, I want to say there’s an opportunity for Longmont to lead once again, in technical innovation using your optical fiber network, which is, as I said, the the best in the nation right now. And I’ve written a lot of papers on that topic as well. There’s a business opportunity and sustainable energy technology using using the fiber network and intelligent energy. There’s this kind of technology could be a kind of an open source, incubator thing for all kinds of business opportunities for for startup companies developing energy management. It’s a path to community sustainability and resilience. You’ll likely hear from the meter vendors that their meters are key to renewable energy integration. Same as hundreds of other utilities are hearing. But my question is, are you going to leverage your unique advantage, your fiber system fiber interface for ami meters is commercially available? We should take a look at that. So thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you, Dr. Shockley. We do have one more speaker tonight. But we will pause for questions like we also did for Bill Hayes.
All right. Thank you very much, counsel. Overpeck.
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Shockley, thank you for that presentation. It’s very informative. Can you tell us of any municipalities that are already using ima and fiber that have already that we could get some information from?
Well, the M is not it? Well, actually, it’s in prototype form. Right now the prototypes that I’m working other researchers on right now are actually in Canada in British Columbia. Those are but those are test sites. And they’re not it’s not a commercially available project yet. And it’s not a specific product. It’s a it’s a set of standards that will that manufacturers can put into energy to create energy management systems for homes and buildings. What’s described in your climate taskforce report as a home hems home energy management system. Those are there are some some examples are on the market today. But they’re very, they’re proprietary. They’re not open, like what Emma would be, is a completely open system that would allow any manufacturer anybody, entrepreneurs or manufacturers to build these devices. The stuff that’s available today is Elan Musk has, you know, the Tesla powerwall system. There’s a European system that’s being sold here called
that’s now owned by Shell Oil. Those those are are good systems, but they are very, they’re proprietary and they’re not open.
Now. When when do you think your testing would be complete? In Canada?
Well, we hope to be able to have more test sites going on test testing this right now. I mean in the next in the next few months, and next year, we’ll have republishing the the some of them The key standards, there’s like 20, or 30 standards going to be involved in this. And some of those are already published and some are being published this year. There’s a section what For example, one is this Panasonic is a manufacturing home batteries. And that is their, they’ve proposed to this, that we standardized that aspect of the the MS system. And that’s, that’s actually being published this this year. Um, thank you. That’s an example.
Thank you very much,
First, I’d like to say, Does anybody else have a short question? Because I have a long series of questions. So if anybody else has a question first, let’s let me go last. Is that okay with you, Mayor Pro Tem?
Absolutely. If you’d like to defer, we’ll go to Councilmember Christiansen then.
Professor Shockley, I have a couple of short questions. Um, the questions that I asked
the previous speaker, who advised me to ask them to do
one has to do with, could you speak a little bit about the fire danger, you see. And also, I believe you were the one who mentioned that there were 30,000 Smart Meters recalled in Fort Collins. And that concerns me as a municipal official having to have a device that will only last a fairly short amount of time, and then asked to be replaced, and then replaced and then replaced all over town. So could you speak a little bit to the fire issue, and also the Fort Collins issue?
I wasn’t the source of that information on the first call. And so I think that was someone that called it on the phone. But I happen to know about it anyway. A little or at least, my understanding is that was a manufacturing defect. And part of the cost of fixing that was covered by a warranty. But it was a big deal anyway.
in terms of fire, the problem is, is that the smart meter, isn’t it is a pretty sophisticated computer. It’s a bunch of circuit boards with computer components in it, and it’s sitting on the outside of the house, and it’s installed on the wrong side of the power of the fuse box or the breaker panel. It’s, it’s connected directly to the 300 or 200 amp service drop, without any protection. And most appliances, you wouldn’t think of putting that kind of an appliance in a house on a circuit that was not protected by a circuit breaker or fuse. But that’s one thing that they do they just and it’s very susceptible to surges on the power line. And, you know, I don’t I know that it’s something that the insurance companies will not cover. And every time there’s a fire, the utility removes the evidence right away. I mean, there’s lots of room, if you can find lots of reports on that sort of thing, where there’s a where the, the nice things are like a high voltage line falls down on a lower voltage line that puts a power surge on the meters, the meters blow out. And they catch fire. The because they’re just not protected. And then once they start burning, they keep burning because they’re being fed, the only way to cut them off is to have somebody come up and climb up on the pole or pull the circuit from the pole. because it keeps feeding power into this burning piece of electronic equipment.
So it’s really,
I think, a bad idea to hang something like that on.
That’s not protected by by the normal things you use for circuit protection.
All right, I believe Councilmember waters is next.
Thanks, Mayor Pro Tem and Dr. Shockley. Thanks for your contributions to the study session. Um, I have three questions. I hope they’re quick. And just to kind of frame for this first one I in my professional life, I ran a research and development organization where we talked about our side selves at times as kind of doing work where the rubber meets the sky in our And our mission was to get that to where the rubber meets the road. And I’m trying to I’m trying to listen carefully as, as you describe the kind of the state of the art weather, how close is is the the system you’ve described to where the rubber meets the road versus where the rubber meets the sky? as the first question. Second question. In figure three, there was a rug, you’ve got in the figure three, you’ve got a gateway platform. So the question is, is that a concept? Or is that a product or a collection of technology, that that becomes a platform? And the third question is, if if one of the premises is that this works, when we generate power, locally? What how close? Are we or how close is any community to generating sufficient power to run the city? And what would have to happen if we’re not there, and I suspect we’re not know what to what to take to get the deployment of micro grids or the various kinds of energy sources that would allow this concept to to hunt or to work in a municipality this size? So I suppose the three quick questions, and I’ll listen?
Well, there’s a there’s a whole lot there, you know,
I’ll try to remember and pleased cue me on on that. The first of all, it’s an adult represent that Emma is that’s described in the solar today article is something available today, but I think that initial versions of that will be or should be available within the next two or three years or so. I, as I said, prototypes are already working and have been working for about a year up in British Columbia, there is a group up there that’s sponsoring that that in a housing development, to test it out, using integrated, you know, energy management on the in the multifamily, you know, apartment basically condominium project that is using it for energy management and,
They’ve been able to interface it to ami meters, and also to have their own metering built into the system. But that’s just a test at this point. We expect to see another one later this year in a different part of British Columbia. And then I’d like to get some projects going around here. I think that Longmont oughta consider looking at test site, I did a project for the city of Boulder three years ago called the solar plus storage demonstration project that was funded by the city. And I have a report a final report on that, that I’d be happy to share with you. But basically, we built a very early version of this concept and tested it out in three houses in Boulder with rooftop solar batteries and, and a control system. And that project was concluded and it’s ready for the next step if somebody wants to step up and do it. That was wasn’t very expensive either. We spent a $60,000 grant from the city to do that. It was a two year project.
Any thoughts on that? Councilmember waters?
Did I answer your questions?
Yeah, I think probably the two follow on questions you probably answered.
With the prototype response about prototyping. And needing further testing there’s there’s there’s a lot of r&d that still has to occur, conclude to see a deployment or the organization of the technologies necessary to make functional platforms.
Yeah, the goal is to make it a mass market product. So unlike the products I cited before, that are highly specialized and proprietary. The idea is here to spawn a market a mass market for these control systems that would then allow mass deployment of solar and storage. There are companies in Denver that make lithium ion batteries for homes. Very practical thing to do right now.
But you’d have to, you’d have to eat, combine the solar storage and the controller. That’s a key element to it.
So it’s the equivalent of creating an open source approach,
exactly the way you foresee the international standards. And they’re open standards available to anybody. And those then are basically cookbook, or people to build software, right software and build systems and, and off shelf hardware that can be used. available today and make products and somebody will make a lick make a lot of money doing that.
Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. First I can clarify, I think more directly one of Dr. Waters questions, which is that an AMA style energy management system does not have to be able to island itself to be useful, it can be used just for energy management and managing a balancing supply and demand. And that it is not a requirement that the city generate all of its own power. So the whole model can exist in the context of a principal power source, being a central generation, like we have with P RPA. And the reliability principles of the things still apply. I think that was your question that didn’t quite get addressed. Am I correct? Or Yeah,
that is exactly right, exactly. Right. This is a an add on to the existing grid system you have, there’s two ways to go two basic ways to go to get renewable energy into your grid and get down to 100%. And that is buy it or make it inside the city or buy it from outside the city, you can go buy a power from wind farms and solar farms. You could put solar gardens in the city, you can put solar panels on people’s roofs on on the roof for commercial buildings, and battery systems, you need to do all of the above. And, and I think that’s the way to get there. And you can do it rather quickly. Because you know, building a solar farm is a big deal. Now you’ve got to get it takes a there’s a lot of approvals and time involved, where people can put a system on the roof and about with about a two month lead time, they can have a complete system up and running.
Okay. And thank you for your presentation, Dr. Shockley, and thank you for the compliment, by the way. Um, I am the principal author of the renewable energy recommendation from Longmont Climate Action Task Force. And I would also like to acknowledge the very excellent work of Miss Amy Schmidt, who was the author of the time of renewables signaling recommendation. And I think you’ll agree that that’s a really it’s a central piece, and we both wholeheartedly agree with you that time of use is obsolete and we should skip that and and go directly to balancing supply and demand. if, if, if we can do it. Um, so a question for clarification that I’m that I have for you, Dr. Shockley, is that from reading what was in the packet that you authored, I did not get the idea that you were thinking about not having any kind of smart meter. You just didn’t want it to have a radio. But some of the things that you said today in your presentation made me wonder if you are at because this is a proposal as well, that you’re thinking about not having smart meters at all.
Is that where are you on though?
I mean, ultimately, I think the Smart Meter gets built into the built into the energy controller, they call it the mF system, which is a is a some electronic equipment inside your house. It’s connected, you know, maybe various places inside inside your bill building because it’s controlling things inside as well as metering.
And how do you get around the regulatory requirements to to have a certified sealed meter?
Well, I think it would be possible to put some kind of a box on the house. I mean, that’s what was there before and it was an old analog meter, you could have some kind of a device that was
That would meet the regulatory requirement. I know that I’ve run I’ve, I’ve had that discussion before that I think that’s entirely possible. I just think that most of the smarts need to be inside the house not hanging on, on on the expected to hang in a box on the outside of your house. That’s a interface that it’s like the telephone network where you have a network interface device, and that’s where the power company interface was. And that’s when an old analog meter did. But you could have a very simple device that would take that would meet that regulatory requirement. The sensor is, is the main thing.
energy management systems today,
which are, as you pointed out, proprietary, although they are moving in the direction of open systems do exist inside the house, and don’t actually require communications with the electric meter outside the house at all. There are reasons why they can do better if they do have communications with the metrology.
Yeah. But you have this Yeah, you have this, this dichotomy between out of band which is essentially over the Internet, and inbound, which is what the what the meter measures and sends somewhere correct?
Yeah, the box on the outside of the house should be the one that just reads the, that’s the sensor or the, the, on the interface. And the there’s just not, it doesn’t make sense to put all the sophisticated control electronics that you’re going to need. Outside the Box connected directly to the power drop.
You can, you can have both, you can
have the smarts installed inside the building in a proper manner, that would because most of the sensing is going to be done inside the building. But you could also have it connected to a part of it that’s hanging outside the building. That’s, that’s something directly accessible to the power company. But they do it in Europe is a good example. In Germany, the system is there’s a requirement that you can’t have a smart meter connected directly to a power company, they have to go through a gateway, just like I’ve depicted in the diagram, because and the reason is privacy reasons. The do not want any external party to be able to gain access to that data. And it’s a serious issue, particularly in Germany, because there’s a history of abuse of people’s personal information. And the they’re very sensitive about it. So they have standards that require a gateway. And the consumer has some control over what data goes in and out of the house. The way these ami meters work today. You have you have no privacy whatsoever, all everything, every thing you do in all your behavior is is is sent to a third party to the power company and then to the third party.
Um, well, I’d like to question that. First of all, and I also was working on smart meters when they were being developed not quite as long ago as you were, I think, but a decade ago. And at that time, it is true that the that the meter data that was collected was not encrypted. And that it could be hacked and somebody could learn an awful lot about what was going on inside your house. However, the next generation of smart meters do encrypt their data. In fact, even though wired ones even with stupid networks, like 900 megahertz mesh, still have the ability to ENCODE data as ipv6 packets and they are strongly encrypted. So I although you I’m not even sure you can still buy a meter that does not encrypt what it transmits, but I won’t swear that you can’t I just wouldn’t wouldn’t recommend that llama would buy one like that.
there are simpler ways of, of making sure that you have data privacy than then going to a whole new architecture that is unproven at this point. Um,
could I address that issue?
Yeah, I’d like to finish the question, though.
Which is, you know, some of
the other things that have
aren’t don’t always happen are that you have an Energy Manager that goes on off to some service site and manages your meter data. In fact, right now, and this is something that I’ve been objecting to for? Well, since I found out about it, which was about 18 months ago, I think, right now, we send a lot of our household metering data up to our transmission and generation provider. And the meter data and billing is handled up there. And I don’t like that. And in fact, the city is working on installing a customer input information in meter data management system, that will be here in house. So we will stop doing that, and, and get rid of that privacy risk. My point being just that those are not inherent risks in the AMI architecture.
What what I would say is that the the issue is not hacking, and the issue is not, you know, this, certainly they’re encrypted, the data can be encrypted, and that’s fine. But that’s not what the problem is. The problem is where the data ends up. And, and this is a, you know, and I think that’s part of the you notice that Google just got challenged on that today by the Department of Justice, the it’s the same issue, the data is, is exposed, and it gets to the, it’s where the data ends up, that data can be collected. And once it’s collected, it gets a life of its own. And that’s the problem. And that’s the problem with the German. The reason is, they said that they have adopted those rules about requiring a gateway and limiting the data that was flow out of the house is because and I was told this personally by one of the
Germany and bond, that if you if you with a present day smart meter, you could not hide a Jew in your house. And that’s, that was a basic principle that
they were following when they adopted that rule.
Marsha, you European muted.
What’s your saying, Dr. Shockley is that with the transactive energy model, personal data never leaves the house at all.
That’s correct, there’s no need for it to leave the house, the data isn’t needed in the network. Its its data is used within the premises to control energy, the utility only needs it for billing purposes, in planning possible, but they can get that that’s you don’t need it, the interval, you know, five minute 10 minute 15 minute interval data in order to build people or the transactive energy or dynamic rates would operate independently, and that data would never be exposed.
I think some of it has to be because you are still
manage the demand from from your large scale generate energy provider. So some of it has to go up. It may not be per household demand. But you know, I’m kind of feeling like that is a a TBD and the reason why transactive energy models are some years in the future.
You know, they’re not yet that hasn’t been all worked out. You’re right. And, but I think the potential is there. See, rates have two purposes. One is revenue for the utility. The other purpose is control the flow of energy. Mm hmm. That’s the real reason. That’s what time of interest Theoretically all about was the idea that we can shift demand, shift the peak by getting people to change their behavior. Well, of course, that doesn’t work without automated premises equipment. But it could work. But now we need something a little more sophisticated. Because we have to control. We’re dealing with energy sources, not a fixed output, you know, coal plant or a nuclear reactor, it’s a highly variable wind and solar. So we need something more dynamic.
Yes. And and, you know, to be fair, I agree with you on about 80% of everything that you’re saying. Longmont has a very, an aspirational set of goals for energy management. And we need to get there
a pace, I guess.
I have been because because many of the documents in our packet this week, were five to 10 years old, on smart meters, spent the last spent the last three days checking out the state of the art with the next generation of smart meters, as well as energy management systems. And what I have found out, and that this is actually a quite an answer to several questions that have been brought up by the public. And by other council members, the expected life of an ami system is now about 15 years, you don’t expect them because they’re electronic, to last 50 years anymore. Um, and that will be true with most of the renewable grid infrastructure that’s just you know, life in the fast lane, or at least during a transitional period. But the new generation of meters are, in fact, exactly what Dr. Shockley describes, only outside the house. They contain computational platforms with a built in AI, and they are software upgradeable. So for example, Longmont could deploy these meters as standard ami smart meters. And then in three years, when Emma is ready for a US pilot, the same meter, without any physical upgrades could host New Home Energy Management Software. And they’re designed that way. And that would probably extend the life of the Smart Meter system for I, you know, it’s hard to predict that stuff, but about, but I would, I would estimate 20 years. And, again, they can upgrade, you can upgrade your system from one generation of technology to another using the same metrology platform. And I think that’s important. I think smart meters are important, because it’s not just building and it’s not just use and balancing the supply and demand. But the renewable distribution grid itself is so much more complicated that to manage it, you actually have to monitor the stresses and strains of power. I don’t want to get into the geeky stuff. But you have to you have to manage the you have to tune up the grid that we used to have to tune up a car. And you need to know what’s going on in terms of demand of devices on that grid. So I’m really reluctant to let go of the idea of meters. And I’m also really reluctant to let go to to accept the idea that we should put our greenhouse gas reduction agenda on hold waiting for technology to mature.
just a second just second, please. I’m sorry doctors. As much as I enjoy this. This is specifically a question and answer time. And unless I did not hear a question there, Councilmember Martin and so are you finished with your questions?
yeah, cuz I do we do have another presentations to the station. Correct. So
I’m, I’m just my question for Dr. Shockley is is your recommendation that the initiative be put on hold for several Yours.
No. And in fact, I wanted to say that we in the prototype system in British Columbia, we’re doing exactly what you described, we’re actually using existing ami meters and reading them from inside the building the Emma system is using that data to to manage energy in the building right now.
That’s a proposal that seems like it could be entertained. Thank you using ZigBee, the ZigBee interface on the meter.
Thank you very much. Hey. So besides mayor, Bagley, Councilmember Iago fairing, and myself, everyone else has asked question, I don’t see any other further questions at this time. So let’s move on with the next presentation please.
Thank you, Dr. Shockley. Our third and final speaker for tonight is Rick Schmidt. And Ricky is the general manager versus Smith utility advisors. Rick has been providing automation and communication services for municipal electric co ops for over 20 years. He has led over 150 engagements involving ami SCADA or mes cis, communications infrastructure and other automation technology. While Rick was recently with black and Veatch, his team performed a ami assessment for the city of Longmont. He normally PERS forms as either the project manager or lead consultant. And he has an MBA from the cardinal Stritch University of Milwaukee, in over 35 years of industry experience. So thank you, Rick, for joining us tonight. And you have the floor.
Okay. Thank you, Dave, move to the next slide.
I’m asked to talk today a little bit about where where is the industry at now? What is the real state of the industry? What are the use cases and applications beyond metering that are being readily deployed in mass today, and, and where where is the state of industry in the home automation area. And, and next slide. And, and where my experience is coming from is really on the, you know, the business side of technology. I’m not a doctor, I’m not an engineer, I’m an MBA. And in, in my experience, over the last 20 years, it’s been helping utilities like you create your requirements for technology on what is practical, what is valuable, what has the strongest, strongest value proposition, and doing a lot of procurement of technology, and selecting vendors. The slide here, we’re really showing over the last 30 or so years of how we went from mechanical meters that are read by a by by employees and contractors walking by, to degeneration of wireless devices that you can drive by and vans and collect meters once a month, basically, a meter reader in a van versus on foot to to the next generation of metering, you started to see mechanical to solid state in the 1990s. And then from around 2007 2010 timeframe, especially with the smart grid funding that came from the first Obama administration, there were I’m going to just I’m going to guess a little bit at the numbers 30 or 40 million meters deployed with the smart grid funding. And a lot of the studies that we saw on fires, some of the studies we saw on on RF concerns for health, a lot of them were done, when we started to see a massive rollout of ami. You’re no longer an early adopter of ami, I believe on electric utility basis where we have exceeded I think 65 pushing in higher percent of the of the of the homes with with with some form of smart metering. So you had a lot of deployments occurring around 2012 in town and in that time frame that often took two to three years to deploy. So a lot of the research was was done prior there was a question on fires. I’ll address it right now. I got I had a client, municipal with a lot your size I had a concern of of what they were hearing with fires. My my previous team, you know, we did web searches We did we talked to vendors, we talked to what we could, we found examples of maybe eight 910 fires that did occur, and typically is occurred at the time of putting the smart meter in, and the wiring inside the home. So sure, yes, there’s there’s fires, but statistically a very, very small on want to mitigate the impact. But it it, it was a small a small size that we were able to find in the industry. We’re at a point now in our development, where, well, there’s been incremental steps every year with improvement. But we still have a proprietary infrastructure, while vendors will talk about open protocols like ZigBee, and others. While they’re open. They’re there. They’re frankly, not easy, and they’re not widely interoperable. So you typically have a solution that’s very much tied to a given ami vendor. And the emphasis is really on use cases I’m going to talk about in just a minute, that are operational improvement for the utility. They’re there. I use the term meter to cache efficiencies, and they’re gaining efficiencies for the utility. And they’re complementing programs like demand response, or complementing renewable energy programs, and so on.
Once you go to the next slide, dig
up just in this short 10 minute overview. There’s really three common primarily two common types of ami technology that’s being deployed in mass the day we talked about a mesh based ami, where meters talk to meters and meters talk to other wireless devices. There’s probably across the cost the country, I would say it’s at least 65 70% of the meters deployed in ami, our mesh base. The next category in the middle is color based
See four wheel back might just not see him there’s Joan
Terrell and Dr. Waters. All right, we got everybody. All right, so let’s go ahead and move on to discussion direction on accelerated dwelling units. Well
could you not see me? Could you hear me? All right good enough. Nobody wants to see me anyway. Alright, so let’s go ahead and go on with ad use Harrell. Very,
very cool. There’s Aaron.
Can you all hear me?
Good evening Mayor Bagley members of council. I’m Aaron fosdick principal planner with the planning division and I’m joined by Eva pinhas. Jeff ski, also a principal planner. And tonight we’d like to walk through some slides to give you an overview on accessory dwelling units. And what we’ll be seeking is direction from Council on what if any changes we should pursue to the land development code regarding ad use. Next slide, please. So we’ll start out with a definition we included a lot of information in your council communication, but we’ll walk through some of that tonight to make sure everyone’s on the same page. accessory dwelling units are often referred to as ad use and that’s what Eva and I will likely be using throughout tonight’s presentation. You may also have heard these referred to as carriage houses or granny flats or myriad other terms we’ll be calling them a to us tonight. Really the important items to note are that these are accessory to single family detached homes. They can be permitted in multiple zoning districts but are really an accessory use to a single Family detached home ad use has been part of long months housing strategy since we first included them in our comp plan in 1995. Today, they also support several housing goals in our comp plan around mix of housing types, affordability and aging in place. So if you want have any questions about that, we’re happy to answer it. But what we’re really going to focus on is what’s in the land development code at us can take many forms, you can see some pictures of ad use, and long month, these are all local examples. They can be detached separate units. Typically, you’ll see these above a detached garage. They can also be separate accessory structures like this read home on plateau road in Longmont. Oftentimes, they can also be integrated into a main home you can see an example here where they’ve kind of built on Agu onto the back of the house. They can also be a basement unit. And we’ve seen some interest in that recently. But they are always a separate dwelling unit. And they also have the characteristic of being completely independent from the main house. So this is not a situation where it’s a room for rent or it’s a basement that still has that still basically talks to the principal unit. They’re completely separate, independent living facility with provisions for cooking, eating, sanitation and sleeping. Next slide, please. So we included a map in your packet, and this is a screenshot of the map, you can see where accessory dwelling units have been permitted in Longmont over the past 20 years or so. Generally, you can see that they’re concentrated in the original square mile of Longmont in the Mill Village neighborhood out towards county line road and East kampot Boulevard. And in prospect. You’ll look at if you look at the permit numbers, you can see there’s not a huge amount of aid to use, especially when you compare it to the overall number of residential permits that we issue. But there has been an increasing interest in the past several years. Interestingly, we should note that there has been a general rise in residential permit numbers in the same years. So it’s not surprising that we’ve seen an increasing number of ad use. I also want to point out that you can see from the table here, the majority of our ad use are constructed in prospect. And obviously you can see that on the map as well. And you’ve probably been there and seen the ad use there. These were really contemplated as part of the overall development plan that was approved for prospect and nearly every detached residential lot their permits and Edu by right and so those follow a slightly different process. But obviously, a lot of what we’re seeing in terms of our permit numbers are down in prospect.
Next slide please.
With that, I’m going to turn it over to Ava. She’s going to cover some of the code requirements as well as the development review process that ideas go through.
Thanks, Aaron. Again, Eva has Jeff ski are with planning and development services Marin Council. So what I’ll do is with this slide is I’ll walk you through what our current code standards are. So you get a sense of, you know, what the average homeowner needs to comply with if they wanted to do an edu. So starting with location in size, you know, in this picture here, this graphic on the right, this is just sort of a typical, like a standard site plan that we would receive for an edu and I’ll kind of walk you through how a plot plan like this is showing how it meets standards. So in general, our Edu standards say you know, it’s got to be in the rear of the property, it can’t be in front of the principal dwelling. So if you see here, this is an example of something on Broad Street on the right, you’ll see a label for Broad Street. So for example, a front yard setback is 20 feet, I don’t this isn’t depicting what the house front setback is. But nevertheless, in this in this scenario, as you can see, the Edu is in the back of the property. And so generally speaking, at use have to be in the rear of the property, they if they are pushed forward, they can’t be in front of the main house, nor can they you know, encroach into the front yard setback of 20 feet. So there’s that.
they have to be secondary in size to the principal dwelling, meaning that what we are looking for is on this site plan, we would look at the footprint. And so obviously, we don’t want an Edu that’s bigger than the main house. And so we’re looking at the square footages. And going with that in our zoning code, it says that an Edu cannot exceed 50% of the finished floor area of the main house. So if you look on this plot plan, you’ll see there’s that square box I’m sorry, I don’t have mouse control here, so bear with me, but there’s the box at the bottom center. You can’t read that it’s really blurry. I apologize can’t blow it up. But what is showing there, what we ask a homeowner to show us is what is your finished floor area on the first floor on your second floor in your basement? What’s the finished floor area, and then what is the floor area of your edu and then we do the math and the ad you can exceed 50% of that amount. There’s a limit of one Edu per residential lot. RVs mobile homes and travel trailers are not permitted as ad use, they need to be on a permanent Foundation. The size, so I went over that, and then the setbacks. Um, so it goes the side yards have to be minimum of five feet on an internal side yard. And rear yards have to be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and 20 feet from the street frontage. And if you’re on a street corner lot than the side yard that’s on a street corner, has to have the same 20 foot setback. And we have seen variances come in in the past, I think with you know situations like that, in the past, the height cannot exceed the height of the main house. And so we don’t have it here. But we would ask for an elevation sheet. And we’d ask them to draw out the main house and label in dimension the height of the main house and then labeling dimension the height of their ad to prove up to the planning department that the ad EU is not taller. And that even includes if you’ve got an say you’ve got an existing garage and you’d like to build above it. Well, our standard is you can do that only if you’re shorter than the main house. So for example, this wouldn’t work in a scenario where you’ve got a ranch house, and you’ve got a garage in the back and you want to add you want to pop the top and add a second story. So something like that wouldn’t work for a property owner with a ranch house that wants to build above a garage. And then lastly, this the standard for property owners is to live in one of the units. It can either be in the edu or in the main house, but the property owner needs to live on the property. And the Edu cannot be sold as a separate unit. So it’s it’s the lot that the house is on and the ad was on it. But it cannot be a separate lot or a separately sold unit. And lastly, so compatibility. The ad EU standards say that we have to review it against neighborhood compatibility in terms of architecture, colors and materials. And so we take all of that into context. We look at the design of what they’re proposing. We go out and inspect, take a look at the neighborhood and determine if that’s got any compatibility issues.
And so next I’ll walk you through the development review process. The 80 eu standards currently in the land development code, say that 80 us will go through a site plan waiver process. And this process is a little more it’s typical of it’s similar to a site plan review, but it’s a little more streamlined in that what makes it different from a site plan, say for a big development is that they wouldn’t have to do you know big drainage reports, big traffic studies, things of that nature. It’s a little more streamlined. But our DRC development review committee reviews the applications, they look at it for electric capacity. Utility needs drainage impacts, parking, if you add an Edu you need to add extra parking for each bedroom. Again, building compatibility and architectural design, we check the setbacks and the height. And in our zoning code, currently, it does not require noticing, but staff does mail notice and post a sign on the property. We do send notices to all property owners on the block.
Aaron, you want to take it away?
Yeah, thanks. Sorry, I was trying to find my unmute button even though it’s in the same place every single time. So what we wanted to kind of end with is some of the things that we’ve heard and that we know Council has heard from the community. And this is sort of on both ends of the spectrum. And so we’ll go through these items. One by one. Next slide, please. One of the big items that we’ve heard from a few residents is that and I know counsel has gotten feedback as well is with regard to compatibility or potentially lack of compatibility within neighborhoods. As Eva mentioned, we Do have compatibility requirements. But as we noted in the communication, this can be somewhat challenging, because compatibility is is somewhat subjective. So as David mentioned, we do look at the neighborhood context, we do look at building materials, roof and building design. But obviously, compatibility can mean different things to different people. And depending on the types of structures, I mean, you can see to two pretty different structures here in the same neighborhood. But I think we would all agree that prospect is a little bit different of a case. And so most of the issues that are being raised, have really related to the the historic districts within the city. So, we’ve also had concerns kind of in that compatibility, arena related to density. And really what that has been related to is some of the, potentially some of the potential impacts that increased density could have. So those would really be around increased traffic and reduction in available on street parking. However, as Eva mentioned, we do require parking for accessory dwelling units. And so we haven’t really seen this be an issue, I think it is, it’s potentially more of a perceived issue that if there were to be a lot of accessory units, for example, on a single block, and there was, you know, a doubling of density, it could have some impacts to a neighborhood. As I mentioned, a lot of these concerns have really related to some of the historic districts. There’s also been concerns expressed that, especially for properties that haven’t been designated, there’s the potential to have alterations or even demolitions to structures that may contribute to a character but may not be designated properties. And so there’s some concern about how we’re looking at ad use in those specific areas. Next slide, please. As Eva mentioned, the height requirements for ad use are really related to the height of the principal structure. So ad use that are located in accessory structures, in other words, not part of the principal unit cannot be taller than the main home. And so as Eva said, a one story home cannot have an Agu built over their garage. That being said, there there have been some concerns related to height in that some people feel that the style of the structure and the roof design can make an ad you feel taller than the principal home. So you might have a historic home, that’s maybe a story and a half that has a highly pitched roof and ad you comes in. And they’re the same height, but it really looks like a two story home. And I think we’ve heard from some folks that this feels like it’s out of character, and it’s not necessarily compatible. Um, you can see this picture here is a recently completed ad at ninth and Alta, you can see that although it’s a two story Edu that has some bulk to it. It is not taller than the principal home. And so as I mentioned, that’s something that we take a look at, as we’re reviewing these with a development review committee. Next slide, please. So I think Eva did a pretty good job of walking through the setback standards, and those are here for your information. We do obviously look at different setbacks for existing structures and new structures. We’re not going to necessarily ask people to move an existing garage, for example, if they want to put an ad on top of it. And so in those cases, we don’t have new setbacks for the detached structures. Obviously, if they’re, if they’re proposing an accessory dwelling unit that’s within their main house, then we would just look at the main house setbacks. But for folks that are constructing a new detached structure, either in conjunction with a new garage, or just a standalone accessory dwelling unit, we do have specific steps setback standards, and you can see those here. The side in front setbacks are the same setbacks that we have for a principal dwelling unit in a residential single family zoning district. The rear setback is is slightly different because in our residential single family, we have different setbacks for an existing for a principal structure depending on if it’s alley loaded or not. But these are generally consistent with the setbacks for a principal dwelling in it.
Next slide, please. I should mention on the setbacks, as you heard from the caller that called in it during public invited to be heard, some of the concerns that are being expressed is that although setback standards are being met, some people still feel like ad use are being built too close to the rear or side property line. And we have some pictures if counsels interested to kind of see what some of the IDs that have been constructed recently look like. The other one of the other issues that we’ve noted concerns with and that I think Council has also received comments on relate to that ownership and residency standard that Eva talked about. As she mentioned, we require that the property owner live in one of the units, it can be the main house, or it can be the accessory dwelling unit. But what we found is that this is difficult to enforce, we’ve gotten calls that there may be properties where this is not happening. And it’s a difficult standard for code enforcement to enforce. And as we noted in the communication, this is a challenge with any of these residency requirement standards, we do get calls in the planning division of folks that want to buy single family homes construct at use and use them as an income property. In other words, rent out both units. And we do advise them that that’s not permissible. So it’s something that we’re honest about, but there is an interest in that. So we definitely let people know that’s not allowed and that the owner needs to reside in one of the units. That’s also a reason why they can’t be subdivided from each other. As I mentioned, they need to be on the same lot. We’ve also gotten feedback on the other side of this requirement. Some folks feel we don’t have a requirement for the principle unit that the owner must live there, you can rent out your home, and that this standard is onerous, and not reasonable that a property owner should be able to use their home or homes the way that they see fit. So we’ve gotten, we’ve gotten comments on both sides of the issue on this one. Next slide, please. And finally, the other thing that we’ll discuss in terms of comments that we’ve gotten really relate to the cost of permitting an ad you and building an ad you and the development process itself. As Eva mentioned, we go through a site plan waiver process with folks before they get to building permit. We’ve gotten some feedback from people that our process is a little bit onerous. As we noted in the communication, oftentimes, in fact, most times, these are individual homeowners, single family homeowners that are going through this process, it’s not a developer. It’s not a professional consultant. And so they’re going through this process, and it feels to them. Like there’s a lot of requirements. There’s obviously a timeline associated with noticing the property, conducting the review, you know, getting revisions going through that site plan waiver process before they can even go to permit. So we’ve gotten feedback from some folks that they feel like this is onerous, and they feel like it takes a little bit too long. And in some cases, you know, they’re trying to construct a unit potentially for a family member or for income property so they can stay in their home. And this is something that they feel is, is a little too much. We’ve also gotten feedback about the cost of an accessory dwelling unit permitting an accessory dwelling unit. Obviously, there are certain permit fees that are paid with with every building permit, for example, a plan review fee, but there’s additional fees that are associated with creating an accessory dwelling unit, because it is a new residential unit. And so we do charge impact fees. So for example, the park improvement fee, transportation fee, school fee, those all have to be paid when a building permit for an ad U is applied for. And then the last thing I’ll mention is, and this, I think is particularly applicable for accessory dwelling units that are integrated into a main structure, the picture that we showed of the ad are kind of in the back of the house or in the basement, there’s a number of building code requirements that need to be met in order to physically separate that unit. And those are those are requirements to address life safety issues. And so I don’t think we’re suggesting that those should change. But they do add cost and process for folks. And so we’ve gotten feedback on that as well.
Next slide, please.
So that’s really what we have for you in terms of the overview of our code requirements, some of the concerns that we’ve heard. What we’re asking for council tonight is to, obviously will answer any of your questions. We’d like to know if you want to direct staff to make changes to the land development code, either with regard to the regulations or with regard to the process, or if we should leave the code as is. If you do direct us to make changes to come back to you with some options for changes. We’d like to know specifically what sections you’d like us to look into more what what should we target? And then what type of community input you need in order to make a decision. Obviously, we’ve heard from a small number of passionate individuals that have been impacted by ad use, but we’re wondering if there’s broader input that counsel needs, and if so, what kind of community engagement effort would you like to see around this? So with that I mentioned we do have some pictures if you’d like to see any of the ad use in Longmont. We’ve just got a few we showed some in the presentation. But with that, we’d like to open it up to questions and comments
throughout the pictures First we’ll please.
Yeah, we’ll just go through those real quick if you could go to the next slide. So this is an example of a detached structure. It’s under construction, it’s in the back, you can see it. It’s small. And this is one of the other comments that we’ve heard some people, especially in the older parts of town, they have a smaller principal unit. And so their ad needs to be small. That’s probably something we should have put in as a concern. But you can see this under construction. Next slide, please. This is a picture of what we showed in the beginning, this is a view from the front of the house. And then you can see the accessory dwelling unit in the back here with a separate entrance. This is down off second, I believe. Next slide. This is the Edu that I mentioned, was recently constructed on ninth and Alta, so you can see this one here on the corner. And then there’s actually an accessory dwelling unit just to the north of this. So you can see that off the alley as well. So there’s two side by side here. Next slide, please. This is an accessory dwelling unit on gay Street. You can see the white unit is the accessory unit. It’s a little bit challenging to see from the sidewalk. But obviously we did not want to trespass on anyone’s property to get pictures. This one has had some concerns raised I believe this may be the one the caller and public invited to be heard was referencing in terms of the setback. So you can see that it is it is built relatively close to the fence line. And you can see that, you know, it’s it’s over a garage here.
Next slide, please.
This is another accessory unit in Old Town. It’s interesting as we went out to take pictures, you oftentimes can’t see accessory dwelling units very well. Sometimes you can see them better, but oftentimes they are behind fences, or behind homes as our regulations are requiring that. So you don’t always have the best view, I think we might have one more. And this is another one that’s in Old Town constructed behind a home. And then one more final one. This is an example if you go to the next slide, the last slide. This is an example of a GPU that’s attached to the main house so you can see the main home there. And then this gated area is where the accessory dwelling unit is located. Not super easy to see, but it is attached. And it looks like people access it through that gate right there. And that’s that’s the pictures that we have. So that concludes the presentation. We’d be happy to take questions. So
can I ask you a quick question my fellow council members before we get going so I don’t want to waste any time here. I understand why we did the EBU changes because we want to make housing as affordable as possible and increase supply of long term rental units. My question is so I live in prospect I have an ad you behind my house a carriage house behind my my house and it’s over the garage and most of my neighbors have them and it is very much the mode of prospect to have an ad you that you either rent out or use. So it’s part of the characteristics the neighborhood my question would be for for like Councilmember Christiansen you have a beautiful home in downtown. Longmont is little Yes. But it’s beautiful. It’s cool. So my question is, if everybody downtown starts doubling the size of their housing, do you guys want to put you know, basically clone the main house? Yes, it has to be a little smaller. But if you take into account the basement, and you say it’s 50% you saw from those those pictures, that there are basically people squeezing in twice the home onto a lot in Old Town, which will change the character of Old Town. So I don’t want to waste any time on this. If counsel is thinking, Oh, that’s great. That’s what we intended. We want it if that’s the case, let’s move on if we don’t if we acted and need to reassess. let’s address it. So my question is, is it currently acting the way when you saw those pictures, if that’s old town from now on, where we’d have no yards and we’re just full of double housing? Is that what we want Councilmember Christiansen
you know, a while ago, I gave everybody a copy of this ARP and the National Builders Association, and it has lots of good suggestions among them ad use, and I I think all of us we talked about this with the Envision Longmont we’ve talked about this extensively on how we can, in many different ways increase affordable housing and That’s a good idea. But everything has to be balanced. Currently I have three. So I’ll just bring this down to my neighborhood because you talked about this. I designed and build a garage. And it took me two years to get it passed the waiver board. Because it was a, you know, I have a very small house. And so the garage was pretty much the same size as the house. When I did that, there was something in our code that we had to we could not impinge upon the sunlight. In our neighbors lots, our lots in Old Town are about 50 feet wide. So our houses are about 40 feet wide. And, um, but the assumption is that you’ll actually have a backyard and a small front yard, but you know, about 15 feet, but a backyard where you’ll be able to sit out in the sunshine, maybe grow some flowers and some vegetables, your dog could play your kids can play. I have lived in San Francisco and I have lived in Denver, and I have seen what happens in Denver, and in San Francisco and in Los Angeles, when they start filling up an entire yards. So there’s nothing left. There’s no sunshine, there’s no place to walk. It’s all solid building. I don’t think that’s what people in this town want. I know what is the I think we can make some changes to the ad EU to encourage people to build these. But I think we need to remember that originally, ad use were called grandma or mother in law flats because it was a cottage or a living space that you had a guest come stay whether it was your mother in law, or somebody who needed some help. It was free. It was not something you made money off of. And people used to live in their homes and not expect to make money off of them. Now we’ve monetized everything. There’s nothing in these ad us that would incentivize people making them cheaper. In fact, they give nothing into the affordable housing fund for affordability. And because we don’t we don’t have any rental licenses in Longmont. So our landlords have no licensing, they have no nothing that they pay into the city in terms of a license. And therefore they have no accountability. So that puts bad luck. Good landlords at the disadvantage against bad lawnmowers. We also have no yearly inspection so we have no idea what’s going on. We need to make a few changes like that. We also I’ll tell you, we have three accessory dwelling units that have been put in to my neighborhood. On the end of the street. There were five waivers on that. No one received any notification One day, a bulldozer showed up and dug a big hole and the guy who lived next door went what’s going on here. There was no notification nobody no posting of anything. Nobody got a letter. The woman across the street who I’m fond of, kind of but she also build an accessory dwelling unit on top of her garage in the back. She has almost no yard left now. Her house is a one story house. And while it is okay to build 35 feets in a residential area. That’s what she built on top of her garage. Her house is one story.
It got approved by planning and zoning.
There was no notification. No letters were sent anybody there were no signs up. The guy next door to me. Same thing he started tearing his house apart to fix it. And pretty soon he was down to the studs because everything was kind of he had to basically rebuilt his house. So he built an ad you. That’s good. He’s an architect. He did a good job. But once again, there were no signs posted. None of the neighbors were notified. Now we have an extra four people in the neighborhood well actually six because people down the street had a family. So we have all those we have extra six extra parking spaces we have to find on the street. This is how the reality of how this is actually working is that we’re not being notified either. Nearby signs, or in the mail, we have no say in any of this. And although I don’t particularly object to all these, I object to the fact that we have no idea what’s going to hit us next. And it is changing the the nature of the neighborhood if you start adding more and more and more, so instead of being a place where most of the people, where we have a nice mix of people who own their homes, and people who rent their homes, and between smaller places and larger places, we have very, very dense things. In Los Angeles, they started allowing places to be built in the back, they was the same size of the house in the front. And then there was no parking available. So then they started paving over the front of the house. So there’s no front lawn anymore, it was all just parking. After a while, you know, you have no neighborhood left, this is this is what’s happened in the Highland district in Denver. This is what’s happened in San Francisco. This is the way it goes. We’re not any of those places. But I’m saying without clarifying the regulations, this is the way it goes. So I would like us to start having rental licenses, so that we know what’s going on in town, and yearly rental inspections. And, and better notification, I think those things would go a long way. I also think that we really need to clarify in the law that you cannot build something that towers over your neighbor’s yard, essentially taking all the sunlight from the yard that they bought, so they could actually sit in the sun in their backyard. Um, I really would like to see that part restored. I also think that five feet is from the fence line is pretty small in the backyard. Because when these neighbors were built, it was assumed that nobody would be in the backyard except the dogs, the kids, the people sitting in their lawn chairs. But now we have people living there, turning on the radio, getting extra pets having their cars, you know, it’s doubling everything. So we need to re examine whether five feet is enough.
All right, great. Thanks, Paulie. I guess I guess I was gonna throw out there. Go ahead consumer pack.
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, I would like to direct staff to look into the possibility of in Old Town, east and west, that this goes to the historic preservation board, that the ad U is compatible with the neighborhood. And with the historic. The historic value, I guess is what I would say of the neighborhood, we don’t destroy the historic, the historic part of our of our east and west side, because we’re building at us that that don’t even look like the house that are not compatible. And in order to and so that’s just one thing. And this is just a suggestion to throw out for counsel. What What do you think the impact of allowing ad use to only be one story. If you have a three or four story house, but you want to build an ad you that ad you can be pretty darn tall, which would address some of the things that Councilwoman Christiansen was talking about. And if it is just an extra space to rent, or I don’t see any any problem with having it be only one story, couple of bedrooms, bath and a half living room garage. It’s not a permanent structure, it’s a rental. So those are two things. I would like you to look at my other problem with all of this, because I agree that notices are not going out. They probably should but they are not. And I look at this as probably a resource problem. Um, we, you know, Joanie Marsh is got an incredible job right now with being the planning director, the Assistant city manager working on the affordable I’m sorry, la che. And is there any way we can beef up getting more resources into this department, to hopefully being able to do what we need to do to control a situation that can get out of end? And the the one more point is that people are renting out Both structures their main house, and they’re at EU, which is changing basically the zoning of that. I don’t think we want our neighborhoods to become become commercial in that in that with the with that, because these would both be commercial properties at that point where people are using them for income totally. We have to have a way to control that. I don’t know. I don’t have any ideas on how to do that other than rental licensing, so that we know which, which areas in our town are actually being rented.
That’s just a suggestion. But that’s it. That’s what I’ve got.
But thank you, Councillor peg, Councillor Martin?
Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Um, I.
I’m not sure where to go with this. I feel I feel like well, first of all, I’d like some clarification. We don’t actually require noticing for an ad you right now, do we? I mean, the code does not require it does it? Aaron?
Mayor Bagley council member Martin, the code does not require it. But as Eva mentioned, we have been noticing and so I think the instances that Councilmember Christiansen and Councilmember Peck are referring to were older than what our current processes age. I don’t know if you want to elaborate on when, when that process started. I don’t recall exactly when that was, but I know it’s recent. And I know we have we have been noticing and posting. I mean, obviously, you saw the picture of the the unit on bras that had the sign up on in front of it.
Yeah. So just to elaborate on that. Yes, the site plan, Weaver process is meant to be a more streamlined process. at us were put in that category, specifically many years ago, because we know that these aren’t professional land developers building these, they’re just homeowners. And so. So they were put in the site plan waiver process, which does not require public notification, because they’re relatively small, easy projects. Nevertheless, we did get some complaints, believe it was in 2019, from neighbors who were unhappy because these were going up and they weren’t being notified. And so at that time, our planning Director gionee directed staff to start doing our own notification where we get a property ownership list of all property owners on the whole block face, both sides, the same faces the subject property and across the street. And I believe also all parcels behind the subject property that could be impacted. And we send out notices to all of them, letting them know that there’s a proposed Edu at that property, send them copies of the site plan if they are in the elevations if they wish to see them. And we also post a sign on the property for anyone who lives in the neighborhood but isn’t on that block face that would like more information, they can get our contact info from the sign and reach out to us. And so we do have a public process now with the ad use, I believe, since about summer of 2019 when we initiated that,
so it’s completely voluntary. You’re just doing it out of the goodness of your hearts.
Oh, we are requiring it. Councilmember Martin
Yeah, so anybody who gets a permit, so just the homeowner, the permit t have to do the noticing you get on a city
staff are doing it right now. I believe I’d have to check with our planner tech, then we may have the homeowners help us acquire the property ownership info from Boulder County assessor property records. But either either we do it or the if the owners having trouble we’ll do it. But if their owner is able to we get the info from them. The letters themselves come from our office, we write the notification letter. We have the applicant provide envelopes that are stamped and labeled for all the neighbors and then we stuffed them all and we put them in the mail.
So it’s a cooperative effort. That’s really pretty nice. My question is, can you build an au and self more park?
Has anybody done that?
I’d refer to Aaron’s map, um, I don’t know off the top of my head.
Because it seems like that’d be a really good place. They have big backyards, and you could put them there without changing the character of the neighborhood.
Yeah, Councilmember Martin accessory dwelling. units are permitted in all residential zones in the city as well as the mixed use downtown zone. As far as I can tell from the map, we don’t have any permitted in South Moore Park. That certainly doesn’t mean there couldn’t be one there. But we just haven’t seen that yet.
And does that permitting is due,
can Hoa is prohibited?
Yes. We don’t can prohibit it. Yes, yes.
Okay. This question I had. Thank you, Mark Waters.
one of my questions, actually, I’ve got a couple. But I’ll just start with kind of building on gutsman. Martin’s last question. How many ad use have been constructed in neighborhoods with Hoa A’s
and countless others in prospect.
Councilmember waters, I don’t have that information readily available? I know there’s been at least a few because they’re constructed in newer neighborhoods. We could get that information to you. But I don’t know that for sure. covenants are something that, you know, we don’t control that that the neighborhood does.
Would it be safe to say that? Very few have been constructed in neighborhoods with Hoa?
I think with the exception of prospect who has a very active Hoa, and again, that’s where the majority of the ideas are. And I am Mill Village as well. I think that’s a fair statement.
Yeah. It seems to me that for neighborhoods that don’t have he always like the east and west side, historic neighborhoods, we owe them. The council owes those neighborhoods. Some role in a tighter controls of what can or cannot be constructed as an ad use in response to your question here in about concerns, or maybe it’s in response to the to the mayor’s question. I do have concerns about setbacks. I had concerns about notification, but it sounds like maybe I shouldn’t have concerns about about notification. But the fundamental question for me is why would we pass any ordinance that we can’t enforce? What I heard you say is you got enforcement concerns? I’m not it may be the last of the enforcement concerns is whether or not they’re occupied by the owner. Right? And how you prove that. But honestly, I can’t imagine why we would adopt any ordinance. It’s not enforceable. And then the question is, what would have to happen in the current ordinance to make it enforceable? That’s what I’d like to see you bring back here are the things where we need to tighten this up, not like, unlike the short term rental ordinance where you got passed in is done enforceable, why would we do that? So what has to happen to make this an enforceable ordinance and protect neighborhood character and those people who are having ad use constructed next to them, even if it’s a five foot setback, we’ve all gone and visited some of these that are just so out of scale, and so intrusive on the neighbor, that they should never have been approved. If they were if they were approved. If they were approved, and they’re not complying with the approval, then it is not. And it’s not compliant with code, but it’s unenforceable. I mean, I’ve been through that conversation. Not that none of that makes sense to me.
So I’m just gonna make a con my comment then we go to you, kay Paulie, the I guess my thoughts are just like what Dr. Water said, basically, he always protect everywhere else, except that downtown Longmont without the HOA, it’s just like, Oh, we can do whatever we want. You’ve got landowners who I think are now taking advantage of the EU regulations we passed a few years ago and they’re just squeezing on property. And while I think councils originally original intent was to create, as Councillor Christiansen said, you know, carriage houses and mother in law apartments in order to facilitate you know, more affordable housing, like my ad you I don’t rent it out. I use it for my family. And so allowing somebody to build an ad you increase their square footage on essentially what is you know, not having to purchase more land at the expense of your neighbors i think is unfair and unwise planning. And so I mean, one of the things that I’ve I’ve been talking to some of the people down your neighbors Councilmember Christiansen and they complain about the extra story they complain that because there’s no Hoa once you build the ad you they come in and pour gravel for parking lots. The I mean, even if you swear on your life that it’s going to be owner occupied. Okay? What if you don’t it’s on an forceable, as we’ve already discussed, and when you sell it, what happens if I move in and I don’t want to rent it, I just want to live in all the buildings, you know, it’s just, I think it’s not what we envisioned. So I don’t so our my proposal is we either need to do away with the Edu ordinance altogether, or, or what we need to do are things like, it has to be 50% of the main building, but you can’t take into account the basement. And it also has to be 50% of any other primary dwelling unit that is touching the property line. Because it’s not Oh, well, it needs to be smaller than my main house, it should be smaller than my neighbor’s house. Some of those pictures we saw are huge. And if you have a small little house, and my phone blew up, and there are several houses, and they’re not 40 feet wide, they’re 20 feet wide, right. And so if you have a 39 foot wide edu, and you happen to own a 20 foot wide house in Old Town, that’s pretty big. So I think a if we don’t do away with it, which I’m not advocating, I think we should a make it so that 50% of the total square footage is half the primary unit, but not including the basement finished square footage. And it also should apply to those main buildings or main residences touching on the property that would assure that they are small. I also think that that that the setbacks on the side of the homes, nobody wants a five foot behemoth next to them. And they also they also I think that those setbacks should be 10 feet, at least from the property line, side and rear. Probably even more. But then again, here’s the kicker. I’m not a builder. I’m not a city planner. Neither are any of us. So I would propose I move that we direct city staff to bring back recommendations to solve this problem. That’s what I was hoping to see tonight.
We’re not okay. Councilmember Jensen. All right. It’s been seconded. Thank you, Councilmember Christiansen?
First of all, what neighbors? Have you been talking to?
No, no, no. I mean, when I say neighbors, I’m not talking about your neighbors. I’m talking about people who live in old down.
As long as they’re not complaining about me. No, no.
They’ll love you. They’ll love No,
No, they don’t. Some of them do.
Yeah, well, I very much agree with Councilman waters that, and I’ve said this for years, too. We can’t. There’s no point passing an ordinance that we can’t enforce. The reason we can’t enforce it is because we have no rental licenses. And, and also because we do not have yearly inspections. These are two things that most other municipalities do. We talked about this apparently city council talked about it a decade ago, and then decided, yeah, but we were a much smaller town then. And that makes a difference. But we’ve become a much You mean, the size of the town really makes a difference. And I do think that we really have to do those because that’s the only way we can actually assure that the people who live in this town have safe and decent housing. And that good landlords don’t have to be in competition with van dwellers. And so that’s why we need yearly leases. The other thing I wanted to point out is the person across the street, who I’m fond of, she’s recently moved. So she’s renting out both those places, even though she doesn’t live there. And when she sells it this is this is how it actually affects to my mind has a potential negative effect on a neighborhood. I bought my home because I could afford it.
Nobody else will be able to afford that house because she’ll be able to sell it for twice what she bought it because it’s now double the size of everything. And or substantially Aaron shaking his head so I want to hear from him but should be able to, in my mind, she’ll be able to sell it for more and that makes the whole neighborhood less affordable. The guy next door will be able to sell his house for a lot more than he bought it for that well all of us are able to sell our houses but this means it doubles the cost of buying a home in my neighborhood, not doubles maybe but makes it substantially more expensive and therefore it’s sort of makes things less affordable in the long run. The people down the street, who just send out a bulldozer one day, it’s an interesting thing. There’s a little tiny house there, and they, they lost their house, they lived there for probably 40 years, and they’d lost it in the meltdown. So whoever bought it made that the accessory dwelling unit, which is also against code, but they build a really nice place in front of it, and it works out fine. You know, the whole thing is that it’s not that I object to these at all. It’s that when you get too many of them, it changes the character of the neighborhood. It just, it makes it more expensive. It adds to the noise, the pets, the people, the it, it changes everything. And it also makes much less sunshine. So but when you sell it, as the mayor pointed out, then what? Is it still an accessory dwelling unit? How will we know? Or is it just much bigger? I mean, there are people doing these sorts of things, converting their garages surreptitiously into accessory dwelling units all over town illegally, and they’ve been doing it for a long time, and they’re gonna keep doing it. We have to be able to reinforce we have to be able to enforce the ordinances that we have. We have to clean them up, clarify them and enforce them. I actually think we’ve got some very careful work has gone into the accessory dwelling unit ordinance as it is. So I’m very, I just think we need to work on this little more.
So just a reminder, there’s a motion on the floor that would direct staff to bring back and Mayor Pro Tem, you’re going next to direct staff to listen to our suggestions and bring back a solution to this, that it sounds like preserve the character of Old Town, South Moore and other areas that don’t have Hoa as and come back with solution. So Mayor Pro Tem.
Thank you very badly. First, a couple of clarifying questions. I’ve heard it a couple times now about the square footage of ad use. Is that based upon the above grade square footage recognized by county assessor, or is it a gross building area where you’re including the basement, whether finished or unfinished in the in the calculation of
it Councilmember Rodriguez, we do take the finished floor area, as corroborated by the boulder county assessor. And that may include basement area as well, because our current ordinance does not distinguish or say specifically, that basement floor area cannot count.
So it’s based on finished area. So let’s say a house has a full basement, but it’s unfinished, that would not count for them. Correct? Okay, that’s interesting. My other question which comes up a lot actually is about density. And I’ve heard different answers when I’ve asked this question myself. For instance, in the residential single family, I believe it’s eight units per acre. And do at use count towards or against the dwelling units per acre.
Councilman, Councilmember Rodriguez at us do not count. We do not do a density check on those.
Okay, those are those those are the two questions I wanted answered. State a quick statement I want to make as the liaison for planning and zoning commission, as well as the Historic Preservation Commission is that we have been seeing more ad EU related issues coming before both Commission’s and they’re a little bit different in nature based on which commission is as you can imagine, historic preservation is having more conversations regarding compatibility for the neighborhood as you know, design standards. And that’s something they may actually bring toward to Council is talking about incorporating design standards, not just for a to use, but also for remodels and things of that nature in the historic neighborhoods. And then with planning and zoning. We’re seeing more of the the common issues that were outlined today. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the mayor’s characterizations, but his motion i think is appropriate, and I’ll be supporting the motion. I and as such, I would like to say that I don’t think that the ordinance in and of itself is too bad. I do see tweaks that need to be made such as related. To the questions I asked, but I will be supporting the mayor’s motion and looking forward to actually making the sausage at a later time. All right, we’re going to go with Councilmember
Susie Duggal fairing only because we haven’t heard from her yet tonight. Okay, Councillor Martin, then you can go next.
It’ll be short. Um, so I am in support of the mayor’s motion. But I wanted to add or make sure that it is added to that recommendations for the enforceability issues, issues around anything you’re finding that is unenforceable. What kinds of recommendations do you bring? Do you recommend that we add to language, and the other one was around? I forgot it. I didn’t write it down. Um, so yeah, if you have those recommendations, that would be that would be nice to see that. And I completely, I failed to write down what the second one was. But it’ll come back to me in the middle of council member Martin’s.
And I will call on you when you raise your hand and go, Oh,
just write it down. So
Councilmember Martin and Councilmember pack.
So I also support the mayor’s motion, I would like to understand when we are going to make the sausage I have just based on the questions that others have asked a couple of things to consider of my own. One is I I kind of am feeling probably with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez that it ought to be above ground space, because that’s what would determine whether the the proportions are right for the EU. And I’m also thinking that the other issue ought to be there ought to be some space left on the lot. And that we could hit that that also feeds into the proportion of what kind of ad EU is there. So somehow, whether it’s just, you know, planners, you’ve heard this from the council or whether we need to formalize that more with separate direction. But I think those things should be taken into consideration. And but I’d like to vote on the mayor’s motion and then have a little more discussion about licensing.
And before I call on you, Councilmember pack, I did tell council member toggle fairing as soon as you remember what you can say we call honor, this is better be good, Susie,
or you can call
Bob above the fold front page tomorrow statement, what is it
that it’s going to be very anticlimactic? Just the notices to the neighbors? You said that this is something you do. But I don’t think that it is written into policy. So you know, I’m thinking long term. So after you all have gone and moved on and other people are coming into your place, is that going to be embedded in the culture? Or is this something we need to have written in language stipulated language to make sure that it can it does happen. So I would recommend that be put in there as well.
And I’d also like to add just very quickly, that it does no good to invite input and give notice to the neighbors. If the ordinance does not allow their input to make a change or a difference. All it does is really upset people. So when it comes back. I don’t know if we have consensus. But I would like the neighbors to be able to stop it if it is not compatible with the neighborhood. And if everybody’s really, really, really upset because it’s too close to homes too big, etc. So I’m not a planner, but that’s what I’d like to see. All right, Councilmember pack.
Thank you really fast. When you bring back your recommendations, I would like you to in order for us to actually recommend this, I would like you to put in there the resources you need in your department in order to make this work. Because as council member water said, If we can’t make it work with the resources, then this is just a waste of our time. So thank you.
Alright, so before we vote, Harold, I guess and Aaron and Eva, what I’m hearing is a lot of consensus from counsel, on on what to bring back as part of your recommendations. And in what I would tell you in private, I’m going to say in public so you guys can disagree with me. I prefer not to have a list of 10 things where non expert elected officials say well I like this one. I don’t like that one. Bring back recommendations to fix the problem as experts. Don’t give it back to us and say Do you want a variance of four feet or five feet dry mean just give us some expertise and some recommendations. And then we can push back on you if we want to. All right, let’s vote. All in favor of the motion, the directing staff to bring back suggested changes in the EBU ordinance to address the concerns that have been discussed say aye.
Those opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Aaron?
Yes. One additional question. Mayor Bagley, it would be helpful for us to know and we can certainly develop some recommendations as experts in this arena, it’d be helpful for us to know if you’d like us to conduct community outreach prior. So we can have that inform our recommendations, or if you’d like us to present those to you, and then get input from the community because we have heard issues expressed on both sides. Can you hear me?
Yeah, Harold, that basically she asked if you wanted if we if council wanted them to seek community input for input before bringing it back. I think community inputs always good. And anybody opposed to that? I think we have consensus indicating that you should go ahead and open it up to the community. And make sure that those neighborhoods without Hoa Hayes
get an opportunity to discuss this. So
yeah, and I think, to your point, Mayor, I think we we now know, the issues that you are focused on as a council, and I think I can work with Joanie and Aaron and Aaron, and even the staff to really refine that in and bring back some very specific recommendations based on what we heard tonight.
Cool. Are we doing okay, do we need another? counselor Martin gives him the same question.
Yeah, I move that we direct staff to bring back a plan for rental licensing.
all right, um, there’s a motion for a plan to bring back rental licensing? I don’t see any, I just don’t see what that would do. Meaning that. But I guess what I’m saying is that, again, we would require someone who wants to rent I mean, if if we really want to allow rent, and if we want to make housing affordable, is someone who already is not running out his ad you because it’s too problematic. There’s no way you’re going to get me to rent my ad you for any price. If I have to go get a work with the city. I just won’t do it. I’ve got three properties. I could rent. I currently don’t do it because this council makes it too hard. Next, if if we have a rental license, all we’re doing is saying Harold come up with staff that’s going to go out and enforce the rental licensing. Because if I don’t get a rental license, who’s going to show up? Is Eugene going to take me to court if I don’t have a rental license. And last but not least, if the purpose is to make sure that that the rental license is assuring that we have good landlords, that’s not going to do it. I mean, all it’s going to do is just be one more cost, saying that, before I can rent, I’ve got to meet these criteria and pay some money. And so I’m not gonna vote for that.
Do I still have the floor?
You can have it back. And then I’ll go with customer criticism and Councilmember Lago fairing.
So this is the first place I’ve ever lived, where you didn’t need to rent a license. And we have heard a bunch of Resident complaints that, you know, about at us about short term rentals. And all of it has to do with we can’t enforce anything, because we don’t know who’s doing it because we don’t require a license. So that’s the argument on the other side. And I think, you know, especially with Well, you know, as soon as somebody advertises something, we know they’re doing it. So it’s not so impossible to enforce licensing. You know, we, all we’ve asked for at this point is, is to request a plan. If the staff says, oh, there’s no, we can’t come up with a feasible plan, and we can’t find any other cities that have successfully done this. Then they can tell us So, but let’s look at it because we hear a lot about you know, this or that is not enforceable because we don’t have licenses.
I guess. If we pass it on, then we’re gonna play a game. I’m going to tell everybody as mayor that I’m going to rent my ad you win. I’m not going to have a rental license. You catch me. But I’m going to tell everybody here. I’m going to do it. And then I’m going to show you how enforceable it is Councilmember Christians lobby a good level.
Well, don’t worry, Mr. Bagley, I will not be renting from you.
Good. We’ve agreed on something.
Alan Martin does rent places. And when she brings it up, she understands it as serious, you know, people, most people who rent want to be good landlords, they want things on the up and up, they want things to be regular. They want their tenants to pay on time, they want their tenants to keep a good place. They want to keep a good place. I I don’t understand what what people find problematic about this. This is what every other medium sized to large municipality does. It is not onerous, and it doesn’t have to be expensive. And the city of boulders, yearly inspection fees are pretty modest, you know, that keeps everybody honest that that way, tenants can complain that, oh, the landlord’s not fixing anything? Well, maybe, you know, maybe they’re not telling the truth, either. Everybody has a record that they can agree on. That’s the kind of basic idea of law is that everybody stands with some some middle ground where you can agree on something. To me, this just is what a sensible modern city does. It makes us able to understand what is going on and keep statistics, it makes us understand able to understand where our rentals are, and what they’re doing. We can communicate better with landlords, we can communicate better with tenants, we make sure that everybody in town has decent place to live, not like the place that I lived, where there was a gas leak, and the landlord wouldn’t fix it.
Things like that, you know,
it’s it’s just a very logical thing to do, whether you can’t enforce anything. I mean, people were have been building had been renting out as short term rentals for a decade now when it was illegal. People have been smoking marijuana for 40 years. It was illegal people doing all kinds of things that’s illegal, whether it is enforceable or not. It sets a basic tone of the fact that we want fair and decent housing here. And we want all landlords to be operating on the same principles so that good landlords don’t have to be in competition with bad landlords, you can’t make a good landlord with the law, any more than you make a good tenant with the law. But you can say this is what our principles are. And this is what we stand by.
That’s the point of it.
That was very eloquent argument. Councilmember Christiansen All right, who else? Councilmember
makena ran from you.
That still not gonna read to you, Councilmember Iago fairing? And then Dr. Waters.
Okay, so I actually just had a couple of questions am and it was really around how many of the complaints that code enforcement receives that could be resolved if we had licensing in the city for landlord licensing. And the other one was around would it serve community with the community resources department, Susan Spaulding who works with landlords, for her to collect a better database and understanding of what’s happening in the community and just building those relationships between landlord between our the city and landlords in the city with tenants?
So I think I want to jump in it’s a it’s hard.
We can’t answer that tonight, because it’s actually a different group of staff that would work on that with code enforcement and the other group, so we would have to look at that and get back to you all with the answers to those questions. It’s just a different group that really handles those issues. Okay.
Well, maybe Harold, then you can’t answer this question or Joanie. I saw the Joanie. Turn on her video, if the motion is to bring back a plan for rental licensing. So what my question is, is that a solution to a problem or is that the new problem? In terms of enforcement, we’re going to solve enforcement problems. Are we going to create a new enforcement problem if we create rental licensing.
So Mayor Begley, members of council, Joanie Marsh, assistant city manager. So I think that’s actually a good way to state that question. I think that
that’s going to take us some time to evaluate out of our 41,000
dwelling units in the city. How many of those are rental?
What is the volume of an annual rental program? necessitate in terms of staffing? Currently, we have one code enforcement housing Inspector, for all of our ipmc, international property code, maintenance complaints. All of those complaints are largely complaint driven, that comes through to rectify
issues in both rental housing,
both multifamily and any of the things we’ve talked about. So I think there’s a whole gamut between short term rental at you, and then also your day to day, plumbing, heating, all of the necessities that we expect people to have in their home to live comfortably. I think Harold and I are going to have to spend a little bit of time along with Susan, to think about what kind of staffing that would take to actually stand up a program. And then what kind of ongoing resources would that generate revenue wise to support that program?
Well, I don’t, since there’s a motion on the floor to give direction to you and your staff to bring back a plan. I’m trying to decide whether or not to vote for that motion. And and I and your answer to my question is, I don’t know if that’s a problem or a solution. It’s a problem if we if we don’t have a plan for generating more revenue, to hire additional enforcement staff. That’s what it sounds like. But, but I don’t, but I don’t want you. But I guess I’m not crazy. But given all the things that staff are working on to give them one more thing to chase, without without knowing it’s a solution as opposed to the new problem. Right.
I think we need some time to look at some of the factors that go into it. So I can better answer
that question. I just don’t think tonight, I’m prepared to understand
exactly what that would look like.
And I guess the other thing is that on the agenda tonight, I guess, what I what I would propose and what I would vote for is treating this motion. Because this is basically not we’re not talking about AD use anymore. This is a totally different topic. It has to do with housing, and but it’s not ad use. And so this is more rightly brought up at the beginning of a council meeting, which we’ll vote on. And now that’s fine, saying let’s put this on a future agenda. And I would suggest that the motion should be to ask staff would rental licenses solve some of our problems, and then ask what they think we should do? And if they come back and say yes, rental licenses will, will will solve the following problems 12345 we act? And if they say no, we shouldn’t, because based on our experience or other cities, we should not if that were the motion, and it will put on a future agenda. I would be all for Oh, what is the motion? What is the motion? Marsha? Can you restate your motion before? Yeah,
I said that we should ask staff. And I didn’t put any time limit on it. Because I do think this is a long public engagement. But I was acknowledging that we have two contentious issues in front of them. One of them is ad use. And, and one of them is short term rentals. And they are both. They both touch on this licensing idea. And we both were all hearing about them every week, I think we would have to see at least the sketch of a plan in order to be able to judge whether it was another problem or whether it was at least a partial solution. So I I stand by my motion with the caveat that it doesn’t need to be prioritized. It just needs to be in the queue.
And then the motion being
that that staff should bring back the basics of a plan. I’ll amend it that far. To see what the city could do with rental licensing a rental licensing program,
would you say could or should as part of the motion?
I’m not sure that it’s necessary. Okay, that’s
fine. That’s that distinction. Let’s go. Let’s go ahead. Let’s go ahead and vote on the motion if nobody else has anything to add. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed. say nay nay. All right, the motion passes five to two with myself and Dr. waters in the minority. All right, let’s move on to Should we take it’s currently 1054? Can we have a motion to extend the meeting, please? So moved. I’ll second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion do continue the meeting past 11 is been approved unanimously. Let’s go ahead and take a three minute break. And then we’ll come back and talk about land development code amendments. All right.
We’re going to go ahead and start with six C, land development code amendments.
Dawn is there before we start? In preparing this agenda, our legal department had some concerns about what Council was trying to do. Can we start there? And then and then
you don’t? is it part of your presentation?
I do have a I do have a small portion of about a two minute statement that I was going to make that touches on your life etc. I was more going for, to let the council know that we would be sending this to our outside legal counsel for land use to make sure that We’re being a that we are considering the same legal issues that we were looking at with the FCS system.
Right. So I guess I guess my guess my question is, before we launch into a big discussion and debate on whether or not city council will review individual major development applications that are adjacent to city owned parks, greenways and open space, would it be not? Would it be more prudent to have legal counsel say yes, this is what we can and cannot do. Before we start having that discussion is my my question.
What do you guys think? Mayor Pro Tem.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Are you on mute? You can unmute
my mom, you
know, we can hear you. I can hear you. There we go.
I couldn’t unmute myself. I’m sorry. Oh.
So my question is also along these lines in the sense that it seems like the legal had narrowed it down to conditional usage in variances for these kinds of things, not generally all development applications that would come into contact with or a but I guess, city open space or parks. So to me, it felt like legal, it already narrowed down the definition is that incorrect. So
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, Mayor Bagley members of council. So I was the person who took the first crack at making the redline changes based on the information that was in the motion that was made. almost two years ago. Now. The the the motion included the language that it was any application that would have gone to the planning and zoning commission. The city council is already the decider for the majority of major development applications like annexations, rezonings, land use amendments and so on. items that are not included in your purview, and that you do not have final review, approval for currently would be conditional use site plans, and other variances. You’ve already given yourself variances for the SAS with the revisions that we did previously. This would be for example, I want to build a hotel, I’m next to a Greenway, I want to build it higher than the building or the the zoning code allows I want to go 50 feet and 40 feet previously, that would have only gone to the Planning Commission. Now, if you approve this, it would come to the city council and you would hold a quasi judicial hearing on the variance itself. And you would make a decision based on the review criteria for variance.
I understand the process. So my question was just that it seems, you know, it said in the packet that there were problems before, and that at a second point in time that the council clarified. So we could be at the point we are at tonight, as far as the redline version is concerned. So I was just wondering, what were the additional legal concerns on top of what’s being presented to us tonight and the red line.
So I think some of the things that we need to be thinking about, for example, are Nexus with these, these, this this change. We also need to be thinking about whether or not there are any vested rights or development, right, that we may be impinging upon with a change to our process. That does not mean that these are not items that can be addressed through code revisions. But these are the things that we need to think about. And then all there’s always the issue that we look at from a taking standpoint. Those are the kinds of things that we would be looking at that we would ask Cory to review, when an IF counsel gives us the direction. The reason that I did not send this through to city council, or I’m sorry, to the city attorney’s office or to our outside legal counsel, was that I was trying to meet the deadline that I had promised the council when we were doing the CES of getting this back to you in October. If this would have been a perfect world, I would have had time to get that done earlier so that they could have reviewed it and given us any comment prior to this meeting
and done my comments. Were not dawn, my comments were not to chastise you for not doing it in town. My comments are also not to delay this conversation. On the contrary, it’s too Make the conversation more effective and efficient, having the information that he just referred to, so that when we come back, we don’t have to argue about ideologies and ethereal ideas. It’s either yes or no, it’s taking yes or no their development impingements yes or no. And we just
do what we need to. Sure. Thank you. Just one final comment on it as the person who made the original motion, Lord a couple years ago now seems at this point, the whole impetus was to bring accountability to the council, who are the elected representatives of the people versus the appointed bodies, such as the zoning commission, specifically in cases where development is occurring next to city owned properties be open space and parks. And that’s the entire motivation event is behind the motion I made a couple years ago. And and where we’re at right now, it was not to add further restriction, it was to work in conjunction with the LCS, as well as the other land development changes that we’ve already made at this point. So it was not to further restrict, but rather just to add a layer of accountability for the voters. Thank you.
So really, what what? So what do you guys want to do? We can either have legal come back and respond. And so we can continue? Or do you want to have the conversation knowing that whatever we decide or talk about it, we might not be able to do? Aaron, it was your motion? What do you think we’re going to go with Councillor Christiansen and Dr. Waters, then whoever else raises their hand?
Well, I’m not quite sure if I’ve gotten the answer from necessarily our legal department. But to me, it sounds like the legal department is at the point where they would like it to be reviewed by special counsel. I don’t know if that’s incorrect or not. But that’s kind of the the characterization I’m getting here the feeling I’m getting. And if that’s the case, I’m okay with making sure that what we’re doing passes legal muster. By all by all means. Outside of that I don’t see many other problems with what I’ve read in the red line, as well as our communication. As far as meeting the the spirit of my motion from a couple years ago.
If for whatever whatever it’s worth in the beginning, I would have been opposed to this. And the red line, I would agree with you. Just so you know. I’m not I’m not opposed to it either. Dr. Waters, actually Kazmir Christiansen, I saw you nodding you agree with Mayor Pro Tem? Or do you have something else that
I do have something that I would like to ask us a question?
Because it’s kind of basic.
The the things that are not covered by this ordinance. Are
there two things?
Anyway, it also does not cover minor development applications. It says, could you give us an example of what a minor development application is?
Mayor Bagley, Councilmember Christiansen so a minor development application would be, for example, a site plan. So it’s a use that’s permitted in the zoning district. And the applicant is proposing to meet all of your regulations that are adopted within the land development code. So those are minor development applications that are approved at a staff level, they don’t go up to the Planning Commission, we review them right before example. And even though you know, if I wanted to build a McDonald’s as an example, and it was in the proper zoning district, and it required a site plan that would be reviewed at the staff level, this would not cover that at all. If the drive thru was a conditional use in that zoning district because it could impact residents or other kinds of businesses in that area, then it would go to planning commission if this changes, approved Planning Commission review, if they’d make a recommendation to the council, city council would hold the final public hearing and make a determination of whether or not to approve that application or not.
Okay, but if if McDonald’s were abutting the riparian area, that would not be a minor application.
So it would depend if they are able to meet the standards that you set. If they can meet all of the standards and they stay out of the riparian area. They meet the setbacks, all of the everything that you would approved with the se s, they would not need a variance. But if they can’t meet those, then it would automatically come up to you.
Okay. Thank you. You’re welcome.
I just in response to your question, Dr. Bagley, I, first of all, Don, I appreciate your, you know, putting on your calendar or getting us back to us. In October, I know, this has been a grind, you know, to work through all the issues around the FCS and you referenced in a perfect world, I suspect the road would be more perfect. If you had those four planners, you’ve been working with out all year. You want to be able to get it all done. Have you been fully staffed, which goes to some of the other things we’ve talked about earlier on this agenda. But I hear badly, I agree with you if if there are legal issues that we need to be paying attention to, we got to do that before we get deeply into doing much more with this rather than spending time on it tonight, and then add that be overruled or have the advice from counsel, that that we’ve gone too far, or we’ve been sloppy in in, in what we’ve done with the redlining.
Just look back, I don’t know why my microphone stopped working away. Seems.
Thank you very badly. I’m so done, as you stated correctly, or at the beginning of this. This was in our this land development code we worked on two years ago. So my concern is if we send it before we before we look at it tonight, we sent it to the lawyers what what timeline are we talking about here? For them to because I don’t want it to be May. And we’re still waiting for this, these ldcs to come back to us. And that’s my only concern is that we keep pushing it off. And then my other question is, while we are waiting for us to adopt this, are developers allowed to develop on the old code? So
yeah, I’m so that’s a problem. I
can you tell me what kind of a timeline we’re looking at if we if it goes to the attorneys first before it comes back to us?
So Mayor Bagley council member pack.
So first, let me let me take one step back. Before I answer, the I think there were two questions in there. But I do see value tonight in discussing this from the standpoint of making sure that what the changes I’ve got drafted, are in line with the motion that was approved by the Council. If something is an error or missing. I’d like to know that because that will be information we need to give to outside counsel. Okay, so that so that’s the first thing. I’m going to answer your last question first. Yes, right now, if somebody wants to move forward, they would be under the existing development code. They unless the council were to pass some kind of a moratorium which we’ve talked about in the past, it didn’t work that they, they they are allowed to proceed underneath the current rules that are in effect when they apply. But once those are adopted, they will be applicable to any development that comes in after they’re adopted by the Council and in effect. And as far as the the time period for getting back, you know, heralded our meetings that we have every Thursday for agenda to discuss, you know, as we look out through the end of the year, there’s not that many more meetings for council to have, and take action on along with the items that I think have been prioritized for bringing back to the council. I don’t know what corys schedule is, Eugene would have to reach out to him and find out when he could get a review done on that and get that back for Eugene to review and discuss with us. So it’s possible that it may be February before we’re able to bring back an ordinance and get on an agenda. But if council sees this as something that needs to be done and prioritized and I think that’s what we need to know so that we can work with Harold, on getting this back on an agenda for you after it’s been reviewed.
Okay, I would like I would like it prioritize, prioritize. Actually, I would like to to look at your redline version tonight and discuss it and vote on it and move it forward. I have a problem with I have a problem with the timeline because once it once it goes to the attorneys that it has come back to us to discuss and then it goes to an ordinance then it goes to a second rating. We’re like Looking at a long, a long haul, and I don’t know that any developer is going to wait for us to do that. So my my comment is I would like to go keep this on the agenda tonight and discuss it. Look at your redline version.
Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I’m Mr. burchette. Um, I looked
at the redline version, and I don’t have any objections to it, it seems consistent with the direction that we gave in the past. And I’m seeing nods around. Do you have a presentation on this? Or it was it just is this just an opportunity for us to ask questions and raise objections to the redline.
Mayor Bagley Councilmember Mark Martin, my presentation tonight was really just an explanation of what the motion was how I believe that the changes actually implement those. I wanted to touch on the process of that after tonight, if we were directed to move to an ordinance that we would be we begin working on that. But as part of our process, we would send this to Cory, the outside legal counsel to get his review of the the ordinance to make sure that we are not treading into an area that we should not be. And then based on his review, that would dictate whether or not we schedule it for a first reading or if we need to come back either an executive session through legal advice or some other kind of meeting or some kind of memo to the council with an update on that. If it’s needed. If if the changes that are proposed do not cause problems, then we would bring the ordinance back to the next available council meeting once that’s been reviewed and approved.
That might be our solution just to move that we proceed with the ordinance and make sure that before the ordinance comes back legal gets the opportunity to review those issues. Second, yeah, that’s a motion. Golly, you’re good Mayor Pro Tem, you got this political thing down. So all right. There’s a motion on the floor directing staff to proceed with the with the drafting of the first ordinance, with the caveat that they should run it by legal first before bringing it back. It’s been seconded. If there’s no further discussion or debate, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right, Dodd. Great, good presentation.
Thank you. Have a good night.
All right. All right. And then last but not least, let’s go to the 2021 budget.
very badly, members of council Jim golden Chief Financial Officer, I’ll try to make this brief. We put this item on your agenda so that we could try to get any final direction on the budget before we present ordinances. Next Tuesday night, we had identified in the communication that there’s $95,701 of one time money that is still on designated. Since I put this communication together here in the last 24 hours or so we’ve identified that next month, the staff and is planning to come back to you with information on the BMX course, at left hand Creek, and there are costs that are identify with the solutions or different options, identify with different costs. So that might be well, that is another unfunded project. What I would suggest this laid our end, given what we’re trying to do anticipation of putting an ordinance together for next week, is that maybe you might direct the staff to take the $95,701 and add it to the council contingency for the 2021 budget so that you can give us direction at a later date when you have heard about all the needs.
Second. Second. It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries. There you go, Jim. That’s great. That’s all we need. Thank you very much. All right, that was easy. All right. Let’s go on to mayor and council comments.
Anybody want to say something Councilmember pack
thank you. I’m I’m trying to pull up what I wrote down that I wanted to say
My Computer died so I didn’t get it. Okay. I this message goes out to our Public Safety Department and I want to thank them for working tirelessly to keep Longmont safe. These are strange times with all the fires surrounding us and the challenges posed with this election. I think they’re doing an incredible job. And I believe I express the sentiments of all of council, when I say that we support you, you can count on our support, because you got a very difficult job. Please feel free to let us know how we can better serve you as you serve our community. Thank you for everything you do.
Thank you, Joe.
Aaron, did you have your hand up? Okay, I guess the only other thing is I got a call today from chairman Lee spoon hunter who’s the elected leader of the Northern Arapaho tribe, they wanted to come down and meet with some council members as well as the sister cities because we have yet to formalize that. You know, the formality thing. And so they wanted to come down and make sure that we’re still their friends. And so, my response was, we have not met face to face as a council for anything. Is there anybody who would feel comfortable meeting with me with them? Okay. All right, there’s four, five. So everyone’s gonna feel comfortable as long as we social distance wear some masks, that kind of stuff. All right, well, I’ll just have a Harold and Maria coordinated then. But they were wanting to come down on
not this Friday, but the following Friday, john?
Um, so how do we do that with the sunshine law? Does this have to be
goes? We post it?
We’ll post it. Yeah. And the, but the question is they have our will, when are we going to sign the official Sister Cities agreement? What about the sweat lodge that we talked about? How’s Walmart doing? You know, they just wanted, they just, they just want to come down to your friend, I think customer Christiansen
I’m really happy to hear that because I attended several conferences, you know, zoom meetings for indigenous peoples day. And I we haven’t done anything, we really need to do more so. And I also, I’m worried about how their health is. So I’d like to know how the community of they’re both as shown as and then Northern Arapaho are doing and if there’s anything we can do to help them.
I think they will find that question and concern heartwarming and welcoming. That’s awesome.
Yeah. So I’m really delighted. I just say that they’re going to come down.
All right, cool. All right. Any other comments, other than the fact that it’s COVID, Northern Colorado burning? We’ve got a presidential election like none other. And it just, it just keeps keeps getting more and more interesting. So Marsha, do you want to introduce your cat, please? And then we’ll, we’ll go to hell.
Sure, this is this is gimbal. He is my last surviving cat. So he’s got to live a long time because otherwise I won’t be a weird cat lady anymore. And, of course, he won’t look at the camera and now that communicate will show your face. Okay. Yeah, that’s how
we’ll keep cat. Harold, you have anything tonight?
I need a quick question for you all. So we were we were supposed to have the joint meeting with the Housing Authority. This Tuesday based on everything we just didn’t have time to get it done. Probably good thing. We didn’t add that to this agenda. We do need to do it on the 27th and wanted to throw it out the council would you all be willing to do a free session with the Housing Authority so that we don’t we start the other one at seven and we can have the public meeting starting at five or 530?
It looks like everybody agrees Harold.
Okay. All right. Eugene, what about you?
Know, comments, Mayor.
earning your money, Eugene. Always.
All right, john. Somebody. Can we have a motion to adjourn, please?
I guess this is my job.
all right, all in favor of the journey say aye.
Opposed say nay. All right, eyes. Have it. We’re adjourned. All right, see you guys next week and then on Friday with the raphoe. Thank you.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai