For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:
Meeting Transcription Disclaimer:
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:
https://otter.ai/u/SMvbmoH85gDDNZgo2JhaPHSQDA4
0:02
Tonight’s regular session to order. Let’s go ahead and start with roll call please.
0:10
Mayor Bagley Of course,
0:13
I am here.
0:14
Councilmember Christiansen here. Councilmember Duggal faring
0:19
here.
0:20
Councilmember Martin.
0:21
Here.
0:22
Councilmember Peck.
0:24
Here.
0:24
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez here. Councilmember waters
0:28
here.
0:29
Mary of corn. All right, great. Let’s
0:33
start with the pledge.
0:34
I’m
0:36
lucky sold this evening. Marsha, you looked up. Dry ice. Yeah, you’re gonna go ahead. Everybody’s everybody has turned their mute. Mute off. Okay, we all we all sound equally ridiculous. We go. Right. Go ahead.
0:51
Hi, Julie.
0:53
Flag
0:54
of the United States of America,
0:56
and for which
1:00
nation under God,
1:03
indivisible, with liberty and justice.
1:06
For all. We’re getting used to as Britain mounts now though. Yeah. Thanks, Marcia. All right, quick reminder to the public. Anyone wishing to provide public comment during the public invite and be heard, you’ve got to go and do this, dial that number, enter the meeting ID and then press pound and then you will be admitted to the room according to the last four numbers of your four digits of your phone number. So listen to the live stream and we’ll call on you. According to who comes in first. All right, can I have my agenda back? Okay, next approval of minutes. Can we have a motion to approve the November 10 2020? regular session minutes, please.
1:52
So motorboat
1:54
Moved by Councillor Christiansen and seconded by Councilmember waters All in favor of approval the November 10 2020 minutes say Aye.
2:01
Hi.
2:03
Opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries. Can we have a motion to pass the regular session minutes of November 17 2020.
2:14
So moved.
2:15
I’ll second that was moved by Dr. Water seconded by myself all in favor of the approval of the November 17 2020. regular session minutes say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay? All right, that Motion carries unanimously. Let’s go on to Agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. Before we talk about the weld county issue. Is there anything else?
2:40
Mayor just wanted to note that staff has pulled items nine I and 12 D both are the Longmont Housing Authority items. Those will be brought back later. And Harold just wanted to tell you why.
2:52
I Marin council yesterday, we had some conversations with Jim and our Financial Group. And based on what we’ve learned is if we brought it in at this point in December, even if even that it was only one month, it would have meant that we would have had to bring all of their financials into our Kaffir next year. And so in order to keep things aligned, we want to bring that one on July 5, and turn that study session into regular session for this conversation, so that then what that means for us, the financials come on to the Kaffir in 2022, not 2021, which would create an insane amount of work to bring that in now is my current gym. Yeah, I
3:41
want to correct you said July 5 to mid January.
3:45
Sorry, January.
3:46
And by bringing them in now and bring them into the 2020 Kaffir. And we’re just not prepared to be able to take that on. It’s a very big impact. And we really don’t have enough
3:56
experience with their financials to feel confident to bring those in this year. That’s been Martin, your hand was up.
4:07
Oh, I was going to point out the July versus Yeah. Okay. All right.
4:11
Dr. Waters.
4:13
I guess this would be to Jim, what should we assume in that, as an Li j, now put my j back on, that Li j would probably work in it through you. But would we would arrange for an audit of M financials for Li j independently of the city and contract that service?
4:32
That’s correct.
4:33
Just Just as in the past, but
4:35
we would be working with it.
4:37
And then then ultimately, the council would be at chance to review those the results of that audit. Sure.
4:43
All right. Thank you. counsel will be the board and review the audit but it won’t be incorporated into our Kaffir. ancillary organizations when I thought what’s the technical term gym,
4:55
component unit,
4:57
a component unit
5:01
Okay, great. Anything else other than weld county weld county issue? All right. So I The reason I wanted to move this from the bottom of the agenda up to here, I want to explain what the hell happened. So my council members are kinda up to speed. And then I also, first and foremost, I wanted to take action to put something on the agenda, so we could discuss what’s happening. Okay. So first and foremost, it’s no secret that when I was first told that we’d be shutting down, right, shutting small businesses, restaurants back in March, I took that news on wealth. Let’s put it that way. For the last nine months, we have been dealing with a situation where we have constantly been living for all kinds of reasons. But right now let’s deal with the pandemic in the state of anxiety, fear and threat of all kinds of things pertaining to the virus. I have been a vocal proponent of not shutting down, I have been a vocal advocate of keeping our small small businesses open.
6:10
I like other small business owners March, April, May and June last came close to running out of business had it not been for the PPP loan from the government, I wouldn’t have made it. Other small business owners are in that similar situation. Currently, the reason why I and others are stressing out is because there’s no more powder left the phrase keep your powder dry, there’s no powder, it’s dry. If we go on shutdown again, I and others are worried and I understand the sentiment of people who own small business saying I’m not shutting down again, or restaurants wanting to stay open. I get that as a result of what happened. national news media, I cancelled my cable subscription in April. I have not been watching the national news. I have getting I’m getting all my information from two sources, actually three sources Herald I’m getting it from the state emails. I’m getting it from the city Danny mins updates. So the county state in the city is where I’m getting my COVID information from. And I saw a change. The problem is the government shut us down. And I believe that it was unnecessary before premature, which made us all tired, sick of covid and put us in a situation where we can’t do it again. But the difference is now I’m seeing 31 hospitals are currently full in the state of Colorado. I’m seeing that weld county had 78 ICU beds 76 were full. And I was seeing that Longmont hospitals, we had 10 ICU beds left seven in Longmont. And what I was seeing in these emails and in these briefings was that it suddenly dawned on me that oh my gosh, I agree. Most of us won’t die of covid. You know, a very small percentage of us are elderly are exposed five and a half percent are looking at dying. So you have the left arguing number of cases you have the right arguing deaths. But the reality is, if all the elderly who get covid and need an ICU bed, go and seek help. What are we going to do if we have a car accident? What are we going to do if we have sepsis? What are we going to do if we have a heart attack? So we don’t have enough ICU beds. If you talk, I talked to the CEOs of UC health. And you Ah, they’ve got another problem. That is we’re building beds and people are building facilities. It’s not going to do us any good, because we don’t have trained nurses and doctors available in order to treat people in ICU COVID and otherwise. So now all of a sudden we go into the holiday seasons. And I know about you guys, but I used to have y’all how many people do you know have had COVID? How many people have had COVID? It’s I don’t know anybody who has COVID I know a lot of people have had COVID I’ve had a person in my Lakewood office, two people in my Walmart office, my daughter, my son in law. My brother, his kid, I mean, everybody’s getting COVID which means that percentage of people who need an ICU bed is increasing. And so 23 mayors, I didn’t sign the letter, they did not even ask me to sign it because they just assumed that Bagley wouldn’t be on board but 23 mayors of the metro mayors caucus sent a letter to the governor saying please, please put pressure on counties like weld county so that they will comply with the state mandated emergency health orders. Like it or not the state legislature handed that authority off to the governor from day one. I in this council have said we will back the governor we will comply with orders whether we like it or not. So this last round, he said Ross restaurants are going to close only curbside pickup and carry out whether I like that or not is irrelevant. There are County Health Directors and there are state orders for a reason. They have information that we don’t whether we like it or not. Whether you voted for governor polis or not, he is the man in charge right now trying to get us through this pandemic. 23 mayors sent a letter saying please comply well, county, their response was no, we will not do we will not enforce any restriction pertaining to businesses, lockdowns, limiting gatherings, nothing. So Mayor Bagley being Mayor Bagley basically simply proposed a point, or I proposed an ordinance that was really making a point. If it comes down to it, I never said let’s don’t give weld county and other counties that don’t comply healthcare, what I said is, if we face a situation where there is a bed, or there is a hospital room or a situation where we cannot get the resources, and there are two people needing access to one doctor or one ICU bed, you have one person who comes from a jurisdiction that complies and another one that does not, it would only be fair to say, Hey, if you’re complying, you get access to the bed. I never said we’re going to cut it off from weld County, I was proving a point that you’re either part of the solution, or you are the problem. That was it. And so now I then walked it back, because I don’t I was getting calls from elderly people saying Why are you going to take away my health care? Nobody is proposing that that was never my point. But my point still stands. And my concern still stands and that is we have neighbors to the east, who are by their words are encouraging their citizens and the residents of weld county to not comply with the governor’s health and safety orders. What that means is their hospitals get full they come to us and where I got mad was they had two beds, but they reported having 43 and those 43 beds were located in Boulder, Broomfield, Larimer and Adams. They have two hospitals, but they were counting another 12 to say we’ve got 14 and well County. And I thought that is wholly unfair, completely unfair. So I put it on the agenda. The media caught wind of it. And you observed What happened? So those of you listening on public invited to be heard? I’m sorry, you’re scared? I’m sorry. You’re
12:24
angry?
12:25
I’m sorry. I’m sure many of you are gonna say it’s not human of me. scarcity, I’m sure mostly people who are angry at me or republicans and conservative. Let me say that I also speak that language. I’m a capitalist. scarcity is a resource if you have one bed, one that only to people who need it, the question becomes, what criteria would you impose to make sure that the right person got that bed? Now, we’re not going to do it at a local level. We’re gonna leave that up to the the state’s Hospital Association. But I do think that there are some things that we need to do and say to our neighbors to the east. Joan,
13:04
I believe you have an idea that I am willing to support. Would you like to have the floor at this point? Yes, thank
13:11
you very badly, and I don’t think I need to say anymore except for that I understood what you were trying to do, and the premise of what you were trying to do. So I am going to make a motion I sent to all of council a resolution that I am going to read and then we’ll vote on and discuss if you want to do it or if you do not. So it is a resolution in support of the governor’s temporary restrictions on COVID-19. So I move that we accept this resolution which I will read. It says whereas our nation in the state of Colorado are experienced the Coronavirus epidemic. Whereas the governor of Colorado Jared polis, has issued statewide temporary restrictions to minimize the risk and spread of the virus. Whereas the elected officials of several counties, including our neighbor, weld County, refused to follow the temporary restrictions. Whereas well County’s refusal to follow the governor’s restrictions is impacting the risk and health of Longmont and surrounding cities. Now therefore, be it resolved that long month city council direct staff to craft a letter to the weld county commissioners number one demanding that weld county follow the governor’s temporary restrictions and make a public statement to residents encourage wearing masks, social distancing and hand washing and consider erecting medical tents to add more beds and to care for the county’s overflow ICU patients as other cities are doing. One my city council further direct staff to reach out to other cities in our health impact region to sign the letter and send the letter to Governor polis. suggesting that state funding be withheld from all counties not complying with the state’s temporary restrictions. So Do I have a second on that one?
15:12
I’m sure you have. You might have a few. But I’m gonna let somebody else do it. Kelsey.
15:16
Mr. Christiansen,
15:17
I’ll second.
15:18
All right has been the motion to approve the resolution. Again, resolution is quirky this is just to put it on the agenda. The resolution was to direct staff. So it’s not a resolution declaring anything, it’s just jone resolution smaller saying, we’re gonna direct staff in a very public important way to please prepare something for our next meeting. So it was seconded by Councilmember Christiansen All right, let’s open this matter for debate. Anybody? Let’s go with let’s go with Councilmember waters thing. Councillor Martin and Councilmember Christiansen.
15:57
So do you do you or Councilmember peponi feedback on the substance of
16:01
this?
16:03
Because if it comes back the way it’s worded now, I’m going to have concerns about it.
16:07
I I just like, for example, my concern is I wouldn’t necessarily tell people to set up tents if we don’t have staff. But I think for tonight, I mean, I mean, it’s we’re we’re directing staff to bring something back. But what what would you What would your concern be doctor water would be one
16:24
of the I mean, I have questions about when field hospitals are created to cities do that or to healthcare providers, and you have the staff, etc? What are the liabilities if we do it versus the medical providers? That would be one. The other is it’s my understanding that the legislation that’s going to the governor already contains a clause or provision that would would restrict the allocation of funding or the award of funding, and it’s going to be on application basis. But the counties that don’t comply with the governor’s orders that that’s in the legislation. it’s on its way to the governor’s desk now. So that would be you know what, I don’t think we need that. That’s that’s the point, though. Those
17:08
would be the entry points.
17:09
I agree in concept. I appreciate the effort. And I’d like to I’d like to have a resolution, I could vote yes on. I’m going to beat my two concerns.
17:20
Can I address that
17:21
your battery?
17:21
Of course, you can just go ahead.
17:23
No, Councilman waters, would it be a,
17:26
um,
17:27
maybe a suggestion to amend this to say that we support the legislation going to that is going to be voted on to whatever your wording was?
17:41
I think that would be a I think that would be spot on actually, because that is what what’s going on?
17:46
Yeah. Okay.
17:47
So that’s an amendment you’re making?
17:49
I would, if you
17:50
feel except that in that amendment, I’ll make that amendment. Yes,
17:54
sure. Yes.
17:55
Okay. Harold,
17:59
on that piece, and I was going to touch on this in my COVID update in terms of supporting the governor on that legislation in that piece. Could you all make the motion where we can draft a letter for you all to sign and get out? Quickly, because it’s only a three day legislative session. So if you can adjust that. So we can write a letter declaring your support, so we can get that to you and get it to the governor?
18:21
Let we’ll do that as soon as we wrap up on this one. But actually, let’s do that. Now. is we have consensus on that. Do we not guys?
18:30
All right. Yeah. Let’s
18:30
just like, Can we deal with this?
18:33
We’ll deal with
18:34
this. Although we’ll deal with this one. We’ll do this one and then we’ll come back. That’s good. Marsha, are you done, Doc?
18:40
Well, only No. Well, I
18:41
was I appreciate the cow’s milk back accepting the amendment. I I don’t know what to make of the other tans. I get the point. I just think if it was to support if the city’s this council, supporting whatever our providers would needed to do, to deploy resources to accommodate overflow, something like that, as specific as constructing ends,
19:04
but I just I just be happy if the weld county commissioners stop making statements such as we’re going to embrace our freedoms and constitutional rights while the rest of you cower in your home and Netflix and chill. I’d be happy with just some. I mean, I thought I was the king of stupid public statements. All right, Councillor Marshall, Martin.
19:25
I was just gonna suggest I don’t know whether it’s still true or not. But there was a chance that the legislature was going to wrap up tomorrow. It might be better to have the the staff draft a letter of support to whatever consequences the legislature puts into place and then have the letter sent as as a a, an open letter to All the commissioners.
20:01
Yes.
20:03
Well, let’s let’s let’s deal with the letter after we’re done with Jones, let’s let’s deal with the letter afterward we tackle Jones direction and resolution to the staff work and then all right, then we’ll come back Marsha.
20:16
Yeah, yeah. The just just then to say, let’s let’s just put a little a little flexibility into the into the staffs direction so that based on what the legislature does, they can react to that.
20:28
Okay. All right, Councillor
20:30
Christiansen?
20:35
Thank you, Mayor, I, I am in support of this. I think this is the right way to do it. I think so we need to have two letters, one in support of the governor’s initiative and another seeking the support of Fort Collins and Loveland to react against this I, as I told you on the phone, Brian, when I talked to you I I quoted, I completely agree that their behavior is irresponsible, it’s going to cause death. And it’s, you know, flouting the law is it’s ridiculous. It is totally just political ideology and posturing and it’s going to cost people their lives. I we’re all incredibly frustrated at the I’ve run a small business, you know, half of us have, and it’s extremely painful to see what’s happening to everybody around here. But the businesses are, it’s heartbreaking because some of them will never come back. They’ve put everything they had into their business. And you know, we’re all feeling very helpless about it. It’s extremely frustrating. I am particularly disgusted with the weld county commissioners statement that long on city council is attacking the working class, who are the ones that are suffering from the shutdown. They’re suffering because of people like the weld county commissioners, who encourage people not to follow protocol. And that’s why we have this skyrocketing amount of COVID out here. The working class has definitely suffered the most they always do. And the poor, we have a 40% rate of COVID among the Latinos in Boulder County and there are only 13.8% of the county that is Latino. So that’s, that’s outrageous. That’s because they are frontline workers, and essential workers, when the weld county commissioners accused us of attacking the working class. That is disgusting to me, because that is exactly what we’re trying to protect is everybody. If everybody follows the protocol, we will slowly slowly bring this back down again.
23:13
I wanted to clarify something because we need everybody to do their part. That’s all I’m gonna say, sir. It’s been a long day.
23:22
Amen. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. So we’ve got a motion on the table. And that motion is directing staff to prepare a resolution asking, I’m summarizing here, asking the asking staff to reach out and admonish. I believe the Lord was demand that our neighbor in weld county the commissioners encourage themselves compliant encourage the residents to comply with the governor’s emergency orders pertaining to covid. Reach out to our fellow neighbors and get them to sign on to the letter, as well as draft a letter to the governor asking that encouraging him to withhold state funding from those counties such as well County, that do not comply with his emergency orders. Councillor Peck?
24:09
Thank you, Mayor badly.
24:10
Uh,
24:11
that last part that you just read, remember that Councilman waters made a friendly amendment to this that we were going to support the legislation.
24:21
Yes. Okay. Let her submit supporting what the legislation that’s going to the governor encouraging that the state withhold funding from weld county and other counties that fail to comply with the governor’s emergency orders pertaining to COVID. All in favor say aye.
24:38
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
24:43
All right, that motion passes, carries unanimously. Thank you guys. Yes, Counselor, Martin.
24:50
Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I just want to call on the people of Longmont. First of all, as our numbers are improving. I can say that I think we are doing well in, you know, getting back on track with our compliance. But we need to put our money where our mouth is, which means putting up with getting carried out from our local businesses. And don’t cross that line. So you can eat inside a restaurant, please. Just please don’t do it.
25:26
I was actually invited to weld county to go to dinner. I’m like, you kidding me?
25:30
Hell no. All right.
25:31
Uh,
25:33
do we need to Councilmember Christiansen?
25:40
They might have you for dinner?
25:42
A kid? Yeah.
25:46
Well, the other thing is all the people so we’re about ready to yell that we’re about ready to go into first call public invite and be heard. Actually, we don’t let’s go ahead and do this COVID update, and then a special report. And then I’ll I’ll just gonna, I’m gonna say it again. Everyone needs to direct to the comments to the chair. Good news. Most people can be mad at me and I am the chair. So it’ll be great. But let’s go ahead and city manager for police.
26:10
Mayor council Actually, today, we have a fairly extensive report to you all, based on everything that we’ve been going over with the county the numbers, and I’m going to touch on hospital issues. And then Sandy’s gonna update on the legislative stuff, some of the things have passed. And so Sandy’s gonna jump in and tell you what’s happened recently. The first thing I want to say is, there’s been a lot of activity, and part of it is there have been changes at the CDC level cdphp in terms of how we manage exposures and what we deal with. And so it’s really created a lot of conversations with the county. So we’re in the middle of really readjusting some things based on what happens when someone’s positive, how we go through the chain tracing process internally. And then what does that mean to us in terms of our ongoing operation? At one point, we thought there were going to be some really significant issues in terms of continuing operations based on that. But we’ve had some really productive conversations with accounts, the county today want to thank them for the work they’ve done in their their teamwork that we used in this. So we think we really have a path forward path forward to ensure that we can continue our most critical operations. That being said, there are some things within the new guidelines from the state and from the CDC. That may mean certain operations that are not critical, if we have certain exposures may have to shut down for a little bit based on the new guidance in terms of how far how long we have to potentially quarantine someone, but there’s a way to deal with that. And it’s kind of what you all were talking about. And it’s pretty simple for us. And we’re going to be reinforcing this within our organization. It is wear mask. But now masking is not the big piece, actually socially distancing, and making sure that you’re at least six feet from someone. And you don’t have that continuous exposure for 15 minutes with the same individual over a 24 hour period of time. Those are key components that they’re now bringing into that evaluation, and determining whether or not you need to isolate for 14 days. And so we’re working through a lot of this because it’s a new change. We don’t know everything. But just wanted to let you know if you hear us having to make some adjustments to noncritical operation, it is because of the new guidance that’s moving through and coming down. I’m going to share my screen now. Can you all see the little COVID
28:51
piece a little ball. So
28:54
today I’m doing the presentation, Jeff is going to be able to join us next week, he and I’ve been talking about the numbers and we’ve been going over it. So he’s provided me with their presentation. And then I also have a slide that he wanted me to present to you all. When we look at this, this is what we started off with. And so when you look at the cumulative incidence rate, you can see all of the counties in red. I think the important piece on this is that last week, Boulder County was at 890 1.9. So we are down about 140 on this two week cumulative incident incidence rate. And then when you look at the two week testing positivity rate, you can see that we’re at 6.7% This is the number that Councilmember Hidalgo farion was referring to earlier, but you can see that, you know, counties are all over the place in terms of their incidence rate and to the point you were making when you look along the Front Range. You know boulder is is, you know, in this right performing better, you can see these other counties in orange, but you can definitely see the counties that are in red that you all were talking about earlier. And then when you look at the hospitalization status, you can see eight to 11 days, this is obviously changed since this has changed on the website versus a slide that I got earlier today. So you can see how they’re updating that real time. And so I would refer to the website on this one, that’s where the biggest difference is, when we look at the numbers, and you really see what’s been going on recently, you can see that we hit the high of 327 cases in one day. The key piece in this is that from 1123, to 1129. All of our daily case counts the complete data set was above 100, every day, and we were above 150 on four days. You know, and that’s a lot when you look at where we were in early October. But it’s still better than where we were recently in terms of when we really saw this spike. Now, when you look at this chart, this again, is the chart that they started creating when they saw, you know, in the light blue the cases that were associated with cu. The big piece on this one is that about 8% of the cases in the past week have been about among cu affiliated county residents, and so that they’re continuing to watch that. And then when we look at the number of Boulder County residents testing who are so so considered probable with long term care facility, there have been 113 long term care facility associated cases among Boulder County residents in the past two weeks. This is one of the highest two week case counts for long term care facilities that we’ve had. And it’s surpassed only during the height of the initial surge in late April, early May, there are currently 15 confirmed active outbreaks in Boulder County long term care facilities. And that’s up from five from last week. Now this is an interesting piece, because I want to talk about a little bit as it relates to the work that we’re doing with the Housing Authority. As you all know, a number of properties that we have at the Housing Authority have high risk individuals in those. And so we’ve had to take certain actions based on the move to level red where we don’t allow people to congregate in areas. We are requests requiring the masking and some other pieces. But I also want to let you know that it is based on what we’re seeing in terms of compliance, there’s probably going to be more information coming out for me, essentially saying if you don’t comply with orders, we may have to consider this a lease violation because of what we’re seeing in some of our facilities. We have had in one facility, the lodge in Hearthstone, we’ve had a number of individuals test positive. Tomorrow, we’ve been working with cdphp, where they’re sending in a strike team. So we can test everyone in both facilities if they choose to be tested.
33:23
Because we are seeing a number of cases, it’s not considered an outbreak. And this is what we’ve learned in the process because they’re essentially apartments. And they’re not a long term care facility where they were individuals move in and out, it’s not considered one. But it is something that we’re concerned about Boulder County Health is concerned about and cdphp. So we’re working on this to get the area tested. Unfortunately, we have had two deaths within the last couple of weeks. And so what we do is because of HIPAA rules, we notify individuals who have had close contact and and then we just start working with them in terms of what we need to do to try to keep everyone safe. But we’re going to take more aggressive approach because we’re definitely seen, same thing you’re seeing here in long term care facilities we’ve seen. And to the point you all were making, it is an issue that we’re concerned about. When you look at the five day average of number of new cases, I mean, this is who would have thought that we would have said 157 looks good, but if you can see the peak and where we are, we’re definitely trending in the right direction. I think what I was hearing a lot today, though, is there’s really a lot of concern about what’s going to happen after the holidays. And so if you happen to catch the governor’s press conference with Dr. Fauci, they talked about a surge upon a surge and how people were in how did people congregate during the holidays? And what’s that going to mean in terms of the caseload? So again, we’re still really watching this and so I said, Hundred 57 cases per day, it’s decreased, where we were averaging about 202. When you look at the new case rates by county, I think it’s it’s really important to see the red which is Boulder County. Over the past 10 days, new case rates and all Metro counties have been dropping, but they’re still far above anytime during the recent surge Boulder. Obviously the redline is lower than all the Broomfield county in terms of new case rates per hundred thousand. So again, to the point we were making, we’re moving in a better direction, we hope that we can continue this, we’re going to talk about what we’re seeing in the county. So since the first of October, Longmont has had the highest case rate per hundred thousand of all the municipalities and you can see that’s 2700 versus 1900 or bolder. Again, the data for lions they’re still working with because of Peel box, but you know, there’s there’s a lot of room for improvement in terms of our community. In terms of the per hundred thousand we’ll show you the cases. This is actually one what it looks This graph shows a weekly number of Kobe cases by a select group of municipalities. boulder 381 cases long not 458, Lewisville, Lafayette superior 169 cases and then the other municipalities in unincorporated Boulder County 131 cases. In the past seven days, about 34% of the new cases have resided in the city of Boulder and 40% have resided in Longmont. So what does this mean in terms of age range, you’re continuing to see the same demographic, the same breakdown by age range 18 to 22 still has the majority of cases. As we look at this, and again, this is per hundred thousand, this is not actual cases. So 18 to 22, and 23, to 2425 to 34 and 34. I’m having most we’ve been talking about children. And I think this is you know, when we look at cases among zero to four and 10 to 14 year olds, that has actually remained relatively stayed steady or declined recently, which is compared to the previous two weeks, cases did fall among the five to nine and five to 17 year olds over the time periods, five to nine to decrease by 29% and 15 to 17 decreased by 24%. So I know we were all watching that related to education in in our youth in our communities.
37:48
Trends in case rate by age group, they’re diverging, and case rates have decreased among zero to 44 year olds, they’ve remained Reddit relatively stable among 45 to 64 year olds, they’ve increased by 25%, among 65 to 70 year old 74 year olds and 29% among 75 plus in the past two weeks compared to the previous two weeks. And so that that divergence is important, because as we talked about earlier, and what you’ve heard us say the likelihood of someone being hospitalized is higher in that 65 plus age group. And in then what we tend to see is the severity of the cases are more likely statistically, in that age group. So it’s, and you can see this movement here, where you can see the 75 Plus, and then the 65, you can see where it’s they’re both moving opposite of what we’re seeing in the other age ranges. 75 76.5% of the cases have a no and ethnicity. Only race and ethnicity groups of three or more cases are displayed. We’re continuing to see persistent large disparities among our Hispanic Latin x population. In the past seven days, 43.4% of the cases or 344 have been among Hispanic, Hispanic Latinx. And 52.5% of our cases are 416 have been among client non Hispanic. One of the things I wanted to talk about on this slide is we have been working with the county. And so last Tuesday, we actually started a testing site in the evenings at lashley Street Station because we’re trying to have to create a testing site at this point once a week. Generally in the areas where we’re seeing the cases develop so we can have easy access for members of our community and we’re doing it in the evening because we understand people work and being able to test during the days is not easy. We have really Hit in terms of having our bilingual staff members and cultural brokers at this location. So we have multiple people who are bilingual, to help folks fill out the forms. I don’t know how they did today, last week, because we didn’t have a council meeting, I volunteered, it was not a lot of people went in, but it was Thanksgiving week. And everything tended to be down, I’ll get a report tomorrow to see how many people went into that location. We’re going to continue evaluating it. And we’re going to continue to work with our neighborhood resources group and carbon to really see how do we continue to engage in conversations with our current cultural brokers, so that we can help individuals understand importance of testing, but also what services we have available, because that’s one of the things that we heard. So the two questions that I heard the most of those out there as long as the testing free, and two, if we test positive, what resources are available for unable to go to work. So we’re wrapping our hands and trying to improve that communication. There’s, there has been a decrease in the absolute and no change in the relative disparity in this population. And I think this is what you’re seeing in this in terms of the Latin x population. We’re not seeing as many cases, the percentage and the disparity still tending to trend in the same direction.
41:29
I’m
41:31
five, the average percent of tests that were positive is 6.2. So when you look at this, this is the five day average, not the two week average. So that’s where you’re seeing the differences in the number at the beginning of October were 4.7. So we’re definitely seeing this move in the right direction. When you can see that in this pace, this is a number of tests that we’re conducting. And this is the number of positive tests. And you can see that we’re just able to perform a lot in the sense that thousands the first benchmark The first area here versus before, you would see two 500 700. And so we’re performing a lot of tests in our community. At the fairgrounds, we have a site at the Innovation Center, we have the site at lashley street that we’re that we’re working partnering with the county on. And then you can see what that rolling average looks like. And this is important. This is one of the pieces that we watch really close in terms of how we’re moving in that five day rolling average on percent positive. And once again, and this is just to show the movement really not going to focus. Because there’s a three day lag between the time a test is conducted and when the results are reported. We’re still seeing that movement. And we’re hoping to see that continued movement in this case. Again, similar piece, but what you’re seeing is this movement here in here in 65 to 74 and 75 plus. So here’s the question, hospitalizations. The date at this date is cumulative over time. Most cases have not been hospitalized, more severe outcomes have been seen among the older age groups, which we’ve been talking about. This is where we sit today. And if you remember this early on the staffing dial in terms of what Councilmember or Mayor Bagley was talking about. We were always been in this green area here it’s moving closer to yellow. That’s what we’re hearing from our medical providers in terms of having staff availability. Adult critical care events, you can see here is in the yellow. They’re doing well. But we’re definitely see the dial move and then the ICU beds is what we were talking about. In terms of the hospitals, the number we had today, we had 120 hospitalized in Boulder County that’s actually down a little bit. And we have 38, hospitalized and logmar. So here’s what the hospitalizations in Boulder County looks like. And this is not just specific to Boulder County residents. This is Pete This is individuals that are hospitalized in Boulder County. And you can see that trend in terms of what we’ve seen recently. Again, the number I had when I said 120 this slide was presented earlier today. So obviously it’s not showing that decrease. And then here’s a question that we’re having now with level purple is really the hospital surge metrics. And so the metric the first metric is approaching the need for medical crisis standards of care. Are Boulder County hospitals are reporting that they’re not approaching this utilizing alternative care It’s no critical shortages of people here staff. The reporting sufficient p p e to five Boulder County hospitals are reporting anticipated staff shortages and regionally 43% 13 to 30. Hospitals are reporting anticipated staff shortages, again the conversation that we were having earlier. And then hospitals approaching 90% of the reported search capacity. Boulder County 19% of medical surgical and 17% of ICU beds available. Again, that’s lower than where we’ve been one to five Boulder County hospitals reporting the anticipated ICU beds shortage or transfer capability three to five hospitals report Tyson type ICU capability for covid patients and four or five report type ICU capability for non covid patients meaning being able to transfer into the system. And then 46% of regional hospitals report less than 10% ICU Bed Availability. So this is a conversation you are having this is the data behind that conversation. And then this is what it looks like in terms of Colorado. The blue is confirmed the light gray or light brown is persons under investigation. Again, this is the deaths that we’ve seen recently. And then I included these slides. So this is part of the slide deck because I think there’s been a lot of conversation about the flu and covid and the similarities. In terms of the clue Colorado flu report, we’ve had three hospitalizations with the flu, no outbreaks in long term care facilities, no pediatric deaths. And so at this point, in terms of the flu, not seeing a lot of activity that’s likely to go up. When you look at this emergency department visits for COVID related symptoms and diagnose flu. Bread is COVID related systems. Symptoms blue is diagnose flu. And then green is the total Edy visit. So you can definitely see once again what the hospitals are having to deal with. And then this is what it looks like in Boulder County versus the other counties. And again, this is as you can see for this.
47:27
This is this does not include well in the data set. And then finally, but Jeff wanted me to share with you. In terms of the latest picture, we are seeing cases stabilizing. But we’re continuing to see hospitalizations increasing. were estimated one in 41 people statewide or infectious with COVID-19 actually had a question from one of the members of our community go well, what’s that
47:52
number for Longmont?
47:53
We don’t have that. You know, because they really need to look at the statewide, we may be able to get something on the county level, but I haven’t seen one. As you know, we’re in red. And you have to be in those other levels for two weeks in order to level down. We are expecting to see increases in cases associated with thanksgiving based on what we’ve seen in other holidays. But more importantly, there is hope with vaccine. And so you may have seen before council meeting started, the CDC did vote on on the distribution piece. So they’re looking at two high priority populations health care, hopefully, beginning in late December. Jeff wanted me to reiterate, fallen winter is going to continue to be a challenge. And we’re all indoors more holiday gatherings. And as we know, from the data, the gatherings is where we really saw the increase, obviously flu mixed with it and then COVID-19 fatigue, in that people need to stay diligent, we’re not that far away from getting the vaccine out into our community. You know, we’re now talking months. And at the end of the day, what I will say is our individual behaviors, driver outcomes. How are we social distancing? How are we reducing gatherings? are we wearing masks? And are we hand washing? Because you know, that’s going to be critical for us. As we continue to move forward. I will take a breath. And now answer any questions you will have.
49:38
Dr. Waters?
49:39
Yeah, it’s not a question so much Harold is you might just spend another moment reflecting on what how much authority does city council or does the city of Longmont have over? Not the availability but the priorities for who gets access to a vaccine. We received an email earlier today. From a resident, who has the impression that somehow we’re making that decision
50:05
right now,
50:06
clarify for folks. That’s not we have no jurisdiction over who’s eligible and when they’re eligible?
50:12
No, because I think so. So that’s really important. So obviously, you heard me referenced the fact that the CDC is is voting on how the vaccine is going to be distributed. What they did is they solicited input from states, and states solicited input from the county health department of which we had representatives on the group who communicated. So what the county health department’s did is they made recommendations to the state health department, the state health department sent those recommendations then to the CDC. And then the CDC made a decision in terms of what that disbursement is going to look like. And we’re getting more clarity on it every week. But if you didn’t catch the news, what they really talked about, and I think the available number of vaccines are 40 million, but it’s really 20 million people because it’s a double vaccine that they have to get. And they talked about frontline health care workers and people in long term care facilities. And folks go Why that? Well, because you’ve obviously heard me talk about the impact of the medical system. But no counsel, we do not have a direct role in that other than we do have staff contributing to the conversation.
51:30
All right. Anybody else? Any other questions? All right, let’s move on to the solsmart Award presentation. And then we’re going to take a short break as we get ready for public invited to be heard. Hello,
51:45
this is Tim Ellis. Can everybody hear me?
51:50
Yep. pointin.
51:51
Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Bagley and council members. My name is Tim Ellis and I’m the renewable energy strategy manager for the energy strategy, energy strategies and solutions group at LPC and I’m here tonight, because I’m pleased to present or bring before council the presentation of a soul smart silver award to Longmont. This award provides national recognition of the city’s efforts to help simplify and speed up solar installations by improving the solar permit process. improvements to the solar permitting process that make it easier for residents and businesses to install arrays is one of multiple ways in which LBC in the city are progressing towards our hundred percent renewable energy goal. In addition to the award itself, one example of the national recognition we received already through this award is that long month fees There’s our solar feasibility study, which we have recently completed, was highlighted in the most recent solsmart monthly newsletter, which is great news. Before I hand over the presentation, the word I’d like to acknowledge some of the city team members who made this work possible. So a big thank you to assistant city manager joining Marsh, blas Fernandez and his team from buildings department and and loots from the energy strategies and solutions group at LBC. Without the reference, we wouldn’t have achieved this success in this award today. So now I’d like to introduce Nick Casa Nix, the program manager in sustainability department for the National League of Cities. Nick, can you please go ahead and with the presentation of the word and Susan, if you could put up the slide that I sent over that would be great. also show the what the plaque look like. It’s pretty big. I
53:33
hope to get it in here but
53:35
that is the word
53:39
MC Please go ahead.
53:43
Nikki there um, you
53:51
There we go. Okay, I’m having a little trouble unmuting I’m Good evening, everyone. Happy to be here this evening with you all. As Tim did mention. My name is Nick haza and I’m a program manager on the sustainability team at the National League of Cities. And LLC is one of about a dozen organizations that administer to solve the solsmart program. I’m here to present the city of Longmont with their soul smart silver designation. solsmart is a national designation and technical assistance program that recognizes solar energy achievements of local governments. Smart which is funded by the US Department of Energy also provides assistance to cities and counties to help them improve processes and reduce barriers to solar. spark designated communities are recognized for making it easier, faster and more affordable for homes and businesses to install solar energy as a sole smart silver designee the city of Longmont joins an exclusive group of 389 communities that have been designated across the United States and the city is one of 24 communities designated in the state of Colorado. This designation demonstrates the city’s commitment to sustainable practices and policies and complements the city’s 100% renewable energy goal by 2030. With every home or business that installs solar, the city is one step closer to achieving that goal. This silver designation improves Longmont so sorry improves Longmont approves upon long Motz bronze designation, which was awarded in 2017. Using objective criteria solsmart designation is awarded to communities that have implemented nationally recognized solar energy best practices in areas such as permitting inspection, planning, and zoning. In fact, to complete the requirements for silver designation, staff from the Building Services Department reviewed an online training series about best practices for solar PV permitting and inspection. Longmont has also streamline their solar permanent processes which can save time and money for customers. And this designation is in recognition of the work that the city has done to implement solar energy policies and procedures that are transparent, well defined and documented and predictable. In recognition of their silver designation, Longmont received the great solsmart plaque that Tim was holding up earlier. And as he mentioned, they were also featured in the monthly solsmart newsletter. On behalf of the entire soul smart team. I’d like to congratulate the city and all the staff that were involved, making sure that Longmont received the recognition it deserves for being a leading solar community in the United States. Okay, y’all have a great evening. Thank you very much.
56:40
All right, everybody. Is that it? Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Whenever we get the cool awards, like the soul smart award, it’s awesome. So that means you’re doing a good job. So we like seeing that. Counselor Peck did you want to say something?
56:54
Oh, I just wanna I just waving but hopefully next year, thank you very much. I hope next year we get the gold award.
57:01
We’re gonna
57:04
congratulate them, but just yeah, just yeah, you gotta do better. Sorry, you can do better. All right. So let’s go ahead and take how many people are currently on the public invited to be heard list.
57:17
We are we don’t have a list. We will wait. When we open it up. And they call in. We have a group lined up to speak on the trash item, the waste services item. But they’ve all got to call in first. So
57:30
Alright, let’s go and take a five minute break them back a little bit. Guys. up and back on. We’ll just wait for Councilmember Christiansen to come back to the chair. Jonah pop up. We’ll go for it. How many are in the queue?
57:43
Just trying to count. I think we’re we’re a little over 20.
57:47
All right.
57:51
Let’s start the start the fun.
57:53
Looks like 19 people perhaps?
57:57
Let’s go ahead and start admitting them.
58:00
All right. So give me just a moment here. Oops. And caller number 223. Caller 223. You should be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address for the record and then you have three minutes. Call or two to three. star six to unmute.
58:43
Hi sorry, Molly Briggs at 245. North 39th Street.
58:54
Thank you, Molly. And did you have this video to share with us today?
58:58
Correct. Okay.
59:08
Here’s the deal.
59:09
We have one planet. But if everyone consumed resources like we do in the United States, we need five planets with the resources to keep up. Clearly that math does not add up. Our consumption is not sustainable. Once we extract natural resources to make them into products, we need to maintain the value of the resources that went into making those products so we can get more in line with the limits of our one planet. That’s why we need to keep those resources in the production system as long as possible. By recycling as much as we can. We already spent tons of time and energy and money extracting and refining those natural resources into products. So it only makes sense to use and reuse them over and over rather than putting them in the landfill and starting the whole process over
59:50
again.
59:51
Our first reason for why recycling makes sense is that it saves a lot of energy by adopting Zero Waste strategies including recycling, we could reduce green housecat 400 million metric tons of co2 per year, the equivalent of taking more than 20% of us coal fired power plants off the grid. Manufacturing products from recycled materials saves 30 to 90% of the energy needed to manufacture those products from natural resources, and it doesn’t require additional extraction of trees, fossil fuels or metal ores. Making an aluminum cans out of recycled aluminum saves 95% of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source. By recycling we can also reduce demands on new natural resources. Recycling extends the lifespan of materials reducing pressure on finite natural resources. For example, aluminum cans and glass bottles can be recycled indefinitely. When we recycle these materials, it reduces the need to extract more bauxite or silica from the earth. Once we have those materials, we have them no need to dig into the earth for more bauxite or silica as long as we quit landfilling, the valuable glass and aluminum we’ve already invested in. Here’s another benefit of recycling, manufacturing.
1:01:17
All right, not sure what happened there. But she got 24 seconds left. So we thank you for your comments. So we’ll go ahead to the next caller.
1:01:29
Alrighty,
1:01:30
let’s see here. Caller 192 caller 192. Are you able to unmute yourself state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
1:01:41
Pretty thing. I’m Naomi Curlin. And my address is 2073 Goldfinch court. I’m a board member of sustainable resilient Longmont and share of our Zero Waste committee. Some of our members are here to speak to you as well and we’re very happy status bringing you the waste services presentation tonight. Our Zero Waste team has helped promote composting signups organized community cleanup and held events and educational presentations. This past year with COVID. We’ve put on three zero waste webinars, food waste and climate connection living in zero waste lifestyle in the time of COVID, and food preservation webinar. We also organize a community cleanup in conjunction with the city’s cleanup cleanup program in October, and we plan to adopt the park through the city volunteer program in 2021. We are committed to empowering people with good information about sustainable living, and that starts with our consumption impacts. First, I’ll provide a little context. Colorado is one of the most wasteful states in our nation, recycling only 15.9% of our waste less than half the national recycling rate of 35%. And well behind our state’s goal to reach 28% diversion by 2021. This sad reality is getting worse with all the growth we’re experiencing and the plastics we’re consuming. The data shows that boosting recycling and composting participation can provide a real boon to local economies, while yielding big environmental benefits. in Longmont were diverting about 34% of our residential waste from the landfill, which is better than the state average. However, when it comes commercial waste the factored in we’re only diverting 24% of the total fresh generated the long line, which means we’re spending 76% of the landfill. And the saddest part is an estimated 80% of what’s being landfills could have been diverted through composting and recycling, we can and need to do better. Beginning tonight, you will have a huge opportunity for long want to step up and improve services to residents, reduce trash generated and become a leader in our county, region and state SRL and our Zero Waste team is committed to working with the city to reduce materials to landfill and we need your leadership setting good policies to do so. Our Zero Waste team has identified three top priorities for waste services in Longmont, one providing universal residential composting to requiring commercial recycling, and three significantly improving outreach and education. These priorities align with the city’s sustainability plan and recommendations of Climate Action Task Force. incorporating these three will make a big impact now to provide the most benefit from that climate change both empowering residents by improving services. big problems call for fixed solutions. Thank you for considering some bold actions to empower the people who live work and play in Longmont to step up our efforts to save our precious planet. Thank you.
1:04:43
All right, thank you Next question. Our next next caller.
1:04:46
next caller is caller
1:04:48
962 color 962 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record caller 962
1:05:08
Hi, this is Tim Roderick 615 Lincoln Street, Longmont, Colorado.
1:05:18
Right you have 30962
1:05:22
Okay, there’s so
1:05:24
this is Rachel’s Elia. I live at nine for a Rose Street.
1:05:28
We have two and I’m the Program.
1:05:30
Hold on one second. We’ve got let’s go back to the first caller.
1:05:34
Yep. Caller 962.
1:05:39
Okay, hi, Rachel via 948 Rose Street. I’m the program coordinator at sustainable resilient Longmont and a member of the city’s equitable Climate Action Team. As residents of Longmont, we’re fortunate to have municipal services for our waste collection. In addition to good employment, municipal service provides transparency and accountability. It also allows opportunities for resident input and saves us money. None of that would be true for the for profit private hauler. And to prepare for this evening, we’ve been in contact with Charlie Kemeny DS and Bob Allen of Longmont waste services. Both Charlie and Bob are to be commended for their vast knowledge, commitment and excellent communication. Longman is the only municipality in Boulder County to have municipal waste services. This not only gives us the lowest rates in the county, but also in the entire state. Our residents save roughly 30% on our musty monthly bills compared to neighboring communities who must rely on for profit trash haulers. It also gives us a lot of autonomy concerning goals and services. For instance, Lafayette struggles to get its many haulers to comply with any policy the city passes. But in Longmont, it’s much easier to move forward on our waste diversion goals. Let’s take advantage of that. Another benefit is that we only have one hauler coming for our trash recycling and compost. Other cities have private haulers where residents subscribe to different services which can mean three to five different companies and trucks going into neighborhoods five and six days a week. This not only wastes fossil fuels, it causes air and noise pollution. Because we’ve got municipal services, Longmont is now using waste service trucks powered by bio gas from our wastewater treatment facility. And we’re the only municipality in the entire state with an every other week trash pickup options city staff has to be applauded for these cost savings, innovative and environmentally friendly measures. Let’s keep going by giving residents more earth friendly, convenient and affordable opportunities by enacting universal composting, commercial recycling and robust education and outreach. I look forward to hearing how the city of long running multiple waste services will take advantage of its power to further reduce carbon emissions for our city through increased waste diversion efforts, ensuring that everyone has access to composting and recycling and that we do our part to reduce the effects of climate change. Thank you.
1:08:17
Thank you. All right, next caller.
1:08:20
All right, caller 752752 you should be able to unmute yourself. Call her 752.
1:08:42
Good evening,
1:08:43
Mary Hadley 1615 Bowen Street, Longmont. I’m speaking tonight about srls first priority, which is to provide universal residential composting. Just as we now provide universal residential recycling, by embedding a composting fee and always service subscriptions. Here’s a summary of why we need more composting, reduce waste, saves landfill space, improve soil health, boost agricultural production, conserves water, and helps combat air pollution and climate change. Roughly 40% of Colorado’s trash now being on land filled is organic matter, such as food scraps, yard waste, and shredded paper, all of which can be composted. landfill in organics produces methane, which is many times worse than co2 and causing global warming. Composting organics instead eliminates this problem. Plus when compost is applied to soil, the resulting carbon sequestration fights climate change and our poor air quality. capsule is enriched as compost pulls co2 from the air and stores it underground. healthier soil creates plants that are more resilient to disease and drought. smaller amounts of pollution fertilizers and pesticides are then needed, and less water. Composting not only improves food production, it improves our foods taste and nutritional value. Our grandparents knew the value of composting for their farms, and we should do our part to get back to their wisdom. Currently Longmont residents at 10 for compost service. This requires an extra step to do the right thing and contributes to our low participation rate of only 20%. If people are informed about why Composting is important, and give an education how to do it, and if the service is kept affordable and easy to do, experts predict many more people will get on board. I’ve been promoting city wide composting since I stepped to city council five years ago. Here are the top reasons people tell me they don’t sign up. One, they don’t have room for another Big Ben. Two, they don’t generate much organic waste. And three, they just don’t understand what Composting is all about. That third point will be covered later tonight. To address the first two points, it would be helpful if people could request smaller bins to fit their needs. If all Longmont residents were to have compost service, the economics could support offering bin size options. To keep things simple and financially viable though our composting service should keep rates for recycling and composting constant regardless of bin size. In summary, a city wide composting program would provide a valuable service to Longmont residents, and could be structured to keep costs affordable. It would also significantly improve our landfill diversion efforts and materially address our sustainability and climate change mitigation goals.
1:11:50
All right. Gotcha.
1:11:52
Thank you.
1:11:52
Good Good timing. All right. Thank
1:11:54
you.
1:11:55
All right, next caller.
1:11:59
All right, caller number 785785. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record.
1:12:09
Oh, my name is Anne rude. And I live at the shores McIntosh lake to four or five zero Airport Road. Our second priority is an ordinance requiring commercial recycling, which would also buy our compost to be collected at multifamily complexes or mscs. apartments and businesses produce nearly 50% of waste in Longmont most lack curbside recycling and collection. And we’re not presently aware of any mscs that provide compost collection required requiring recycling for commercial sector and msts provides a universal benefit. As Naomi mentioned, due to low recycling efforts by businesses and mscs were spending 76% of the so called waste generated in Longmont to the landfills and again 80% of this cabinet should be recycled. While some businesses and apartment complexes do the right thing for their workers and residents by providing recycling collection. Most simply do not have this plan to raise that bar in Longmont and I’m, I’m advocating on behalf of my fellow apartment dwellers that in addition to recycling, we’re also recommending that MSC be required to provide the residents with compost collection. I personally used to take my kitchen scraps into my office in Boulder because the office provided composting services. Ever since the pandemic. I’ve been working at home and I have no longer been composting. The convenience of having an easy way to dispose of my compost has just disappeared. If I had on site composting, I could dispose of more than just kitchen scraps like the ones I used to take into my office. All Longmont residents deserve convenient access to both recycling and composting not just homeowners. In conclusion, please direct the staff to write an ordinance requiring recycling and mscs which includes compost collection at residential complexes in doing so will substantially improve our landfill diversion percentages and save and reduce demand for finite resources, energy to water and decrease global warming. Current and future long term residents will benefit from your leadership on this. Thank you for this opportunity and thank you for moving along on forward on waste diversion efforts which improve residents quality of life by doing what’s needed.
1:14:21
Alright caller ending in 782782 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address and you have three minutes.
1:14:33
Good evening Council. My name is Garrett chapel and I live at 878 Elliott Street. Much of what Anne brought up about multifamily complexes applies to businesses as well. Requiring recycling for the commercial sector as well as mscs will provide a net benefit to our community. Currently in Colorado commercial waste collection can legally only be provided by private haulers. The trash hauler lobby was unfortunately successful in getting state laws passed, which prohibit municipalities like ours, from providing the service to our own residents. As a result, they have no interest in helping to reduce the waste stream because the reality is more trash equals more money. We need the intervention of this ordinance to break this antiquated mindset. 50% of long months waste stream is commercial, we simply cannot ignore the opportunity to do what’s right for our community, and require recycling collection as part of our commercial waste services. One of the Climate Action Task Force’s key recommendations for waste management is to increase personal per participation in residential and commercial composting to 75% of all homes and businesses by 2025. Including a requirement that high organic waste businesses need to compost. If we look around our metro area, it is clear what needs to be done for Collins will require all businesses to have recycling services by 2021 and currently requires all businesses to recycle cardboard and for grocery stores to compost. boulder already requires all businesses to recycling compost and additionally asks businesses to separate their own materials. The precedent has been set for us by our neighbors, and we need to step up to the plate as a community. We are urging the city council to take a strong stance on this issue through an ordinance requiring all businesses to provide recycling and seize this opportunity to enact real reform in our commercial sector. Thank you for your time.
1:16:31
All right, thank you.
1:16:33
All right, next caller
1:16:34
caller ending in 350350. You should be able to unmute yourself.
1:16:45
Good evening Council. My name is Jamie ackerson. And I live at 2529 Mountain View app. There are a couple more recommendations we’re hoping you’re also considered before hearing out or third priority. Longmont used to offer a hard to recycle day in partnership with boulders eco cycle, residents could bring their use or broken electronic items like printers, computers, TVs and microwaves. In addition to clothing, gym shoes, books and other things. This happened twice a year at the Martin street center. But it ended because it was so popular that cars were lined up on martin in both directions, causing safety concerns. cost was also cited as the reason that it was suspended as well. But these events were hugely successful in diverting waste. Now residents who want to do the right thing when disposing of these hard to recycle materials must drive to eco cycle in Boulder. And this is not only inconvenient, but it also wastes Longmont residents gas time and money. staffs report mentions possibly extend expanding the Martin street facility to accept more items but have said that this would likely involve a more move and probably to a less centralized location. Other options to reestablish the invaluable service might be to have more frequent events with design crowd control measures, like designating who could attend by Ward or trash pickup day. Better locations might be the fairgrounds or sanitation offices on Airport. The cost of partnering with eco cycle could be offset by a $10 card suggested donation. Perhaps eco cycle could also recruit from the hundred plus long mon eco leaders, eco leader volunteers just like they did in the past to assist with directing vehicles unloading those vehicles and sorting material to help maximize efficiency. very similarly the city used to also offer this stopping job twice a year, which was an alternative to the free landfill job off day. Rather than drive the Erie residents went to the facility on Airport Road where staff would unload vehicles and pull steal bikes stereos and many other recoverable items. The resulting diversion percentages were incredibly impressive, like the charm events. These were also popular with residents, but they were discontinued due to back backed up traffic on Airport Road and cost. So similar strategies mentioned for reinstating hardware cycle events could also apply for reinstating stopping job. Finally, our subscription rates could use some minor tweaks to provide more financial incentive for people to take personal responsibility for the waste that they generate. transmat I was excited to be able to sign up for curbside compost collection, and I opted for every other week trash service.
1:19:32
I have found that my bill is low even though we get the added benefit of curbside compost pickup. My preference would be to offer a smaller compost container and an option for once a month trash collection. When a big portion of our waste goes into the compost bin, not only is it better for the planet, but you simply don’t need the large and more costly garbage bins. I’d gladly put pay the same subscription rate to move to a once a month model but perhaps providing a bigger savings. incentives that help move our diversion needle, while rewarding residents who are less wasteful while we all no longer own unique identity, and we want to keep it that way, we can catch up with our neighbors when it comes to improving waste diversion rates by adopting similar practices without having to reinvent the wheel. Let’s set the necessary policies to improve our landfill diversion rates, save resources and empower our residents. Thank you.
1:20:24
All right, thank you. All right. All right. Next
1:20:28
caller is caller 452452.
1:20:35
Good evening, Sherry Malloy 2113 rangeview Lane, I’m speaking to our team’s third priority. Again, the first two are residential universal compost collection and required commercial recycling. A third priority is significantly improving outreach and education efforts regarding waste reduction. Good ordinances needs to be paired with good outreach, education and support. To bring long one forward with more composting, commercial recycling, multifamily composting, charm and stop and drop events, residents will need to be well informed and well supported. This must start with once again embracing the term zero waste. Zero Waste is a set of principles focused on significant waste reduction. The goal is for no trash to be sent to landfills, incinerators or oceans. A zero waste strategy needs to ensure everyone has access to tools to reduce reuse, recycle waste, where they live, work and play. ordinances which result in changes to human behavior must have community buy in to achieve success. We have a world renowned local community based nonprofit who has been doing this work in Boulder County for the last 45 years. Since 1976, eco cycle has been pushing the envelope to live up to their mission which reads quote, transform societies throw away ethic into environmentally responsible stewardship and quote, long run sanitation and eco cycle works hand in hand for many years, but their relationship has deteriorated over the last several years. The rationale has been that long line would address internally, what eco cycle was doing with its unique improvements community engagement strategies. While that is a rational and understand other approach, it simply hasn’t reproduced the results we need. As Naomi said, we’re setting 76% of our waste to the landfill. To be effective. We need eco cycle. Eco cycle has the massive benefit of ever already having done the heavy lifting of community outreach, engagement, education and empowerment regarding composting, commercial recycling and multi family outreach throughout Boulder County and beyond. With over 130 eco leaders in Longmont ready to help eco cycle can help move us closer to realizing our sustainability and climate action goals. It’s worth mentioning that it was eco cycle who was an incredible resource to myself, and several other invested residents in organizing and lobbying a former city council to get our current curbside compost collection past. They know how to get it done. And we need to get it done. So let’s get it done. our egos? Our zero waste.
1:23:12
Apologies.
1:23:12
That
1:23:14
was on my mouse.
1:23:16
All right. Sure. Sherry, call back in and we’ll we’ll give you your time.
1:23:21
I’ll admit her right now. She’s just in the waiting room. I didn’t I just the
1:23:25
wrong thing.
1:23:27
Give me just a sec here.
1:23:30
All right, Sherry,
1:23:31
are you with us?
1:23:32
Yeah.
1:23:33
Could you back up to the
1:23:34
Oh, sorry about that.
1:23:35
Sure. Could you back up to the beginning of your last point where you said and third? Or rather your there was a there was that you’re starting a thought? So go back to the thought and
1:23:50
start that again, please? Because the thought
1:23:54
no, no, no, what I mean is you we dropped you got pushed to the waiting.
1:23:57
I know. I know.
1:23:59
Just what I’m saying is don’t pick up where you were. Go ahead of that. I mean, go back in time and start with a full thought. So you’re not just
1:24:07
I think Okay, got it. Yeah. Okay. All right. So eco cycle, knows how to get it done, and we need to get it done. They were an incredible resource to myself and several other investment residents in organizing, having our former council to get our current curbside compost collection past. Our Zero Waste team is committed to being a resource and we’ll continue to do Zero Waste webinars for now in live programs when appropriate. We are supporting as VBS D student eco groups advocating for more green start schools in Longmont. We’re here to help. We just need your leadership for not only good policy, but also the right approach. Thank you.
1:24:52
All right. Thank you, Sherry. All right, next caller
1:24:55
Excellent. Thank you. Caller 343343
1:25:04
Oh,
1:25:08
caller 343 you can state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
1:25:13
Okay. Hello, my name is Ana Greer, I live on 205 Avenue. I’m a senior high school student and the president of Loma high schools environment club, and I’m a final speaker on our Zero Waste team. In the wake of dire warnings about the need for immediate action on climate pollution and the equally alarming proliferation of plastic pollution in our oceans, there has never been a more important time for us to double down on our commitment to protect our environment and build smart, sustainable communities. Taking individual responsibility for waste diversion should be at the cornerstone of our commitment. It is an accessible, simple solution where everyone can and needs to participate. People want to do the right thing. It just needs to be convenient, affordable, and well supported by good outreach and education. You have an important opportunity tonight to direct staff to work on design changes to our waste services that empower Longmont residents to move the needle individually and collectively in the right direction. To quote from the report and your council communication quotes. Over the years city surveys have indicated that Longmont solid waste program is widely popular with residents law amongst community awareness for environmentally sound waste diversion options comes from a sense of community pride and doing the right thing. It goes on to read discussions on options and programs with the community are always informed and well reasoned, Longmont residents have continually expressed a strong willingness to pursue increasing Li aggressive waste diversion techniques. Some resistance to program change can always be expected because solid waste programs are built upon customer habits which aren’t always easy to change. For that reason, changes in the way services program are made only when they are built upon clear goals, achievable objectives and reliable revenue projections and quote, some of these clear goals we’re hoping you will direct staff on include universal curbside composting required commercial recycling, improving outreach and education, more incentives regarding the fee structure and restoring the chart and stop and drop events to additional rather low hanging fruit for simple policy improvements include requiring Zero Waste for all city sponsored events, and requiring Zero Waste planning be included in permitting for use of public places. I like to add while our group would love to go further with such things as suggesting a ban on single use plastics and styrofoam Braehead prohibiting yard waste from residential trash. We’re being realistic with what we’re asking for all end with a quote from Staff Council communication. The benefits of recycling are unquestionable. But any community seeking to reduce trash fall to landfills will need to consider programs that work on both sides of the equation, solid waste recycling and solid waste reduction. Thank you for listening to all our remarks and especially we’re moving forward to address the important issue. All right, all right.
1:27:57
Color 795 is next 795615
1:28:01
Lincoln Street. Good evening to the council and Mayor. My name is Tim Broderick. I’m the senior sustainability strategist focused on circular economy efforts within boulder County’s Office of Sustainability, climate action and resiliency. The 2019 Boulder County waste composition study found that nearly two thirds of materials sent to the landfill in Boulder County could have been recovered. recycling and composting these materials would have saved 245,000 tons of carbon emissions, the equivalent of taking approximately 50,000 passenger cars off the road each year. Boulder County has a goal of zero waste or darn near by 2025 and is collaborating with municipalities to reach this milestone. A part of that collaboration is supporting efforts by municipalities to take steps to require composting recycling at residential and commercial locations. boulder County’s Office of Sustainability climate action resiliency, I’d like to publicly support any efforts moving toward zero waste ordinances by the city of Longmont through the 2020 boulder County’s Zero Waste scorecard. We know that these policies have the highest impact on municipal solid waste diversion, and greenhouse gas reduction. If you have any questions regarding the scorecard or county circular economy programming, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time and consideration supporting future city program elements.
1:29:29
All right caller 209209. You should be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
1:29:38
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be here. My name is Tracy Whipple and I live at 19 western sky circle and I’m here to talk about my concerns with a proposed Costco location. Like my neighbor who spoke a couple weeks ago, I bought my home after consideration of the gravel operation east of Martin Street. The gravel operation was not originally discussed disclosed by the builder so some people voice their dismay, I decided that short term digging with mitigations was a temporary inconvenience for the long term ponds and wetlands, as described in Irwin Thomas development plan, previous neighbors fought that plan, but they were told it was a quote done deal. Obviously, it wasn’t a done deal and the city has changed their mind and decided a warehouse in our backyard is better for us than wetlands. Now, I do support the idea of Costco and affordable housing in Longmont and I fully understand that this is beneficial in many ways. But I do not think this proposed location is the best option and I’ll offer some suggestions momentarily. It was stated previously that Costco stores do not have a negative impact on property values. So I thought I’d test that theory. I randomly selected five stores in the Denver area, superior Thornton Westminster Arvada and Littleton to compare homes right by the Costco versus those in the neighborhood. That comparison was not actually possible because none of these stores have single family homes right by those warehouses. Maybe Longmont planning department should review our criteria for zoning and make sure this is really what we want to do to a newly constructed neighborhood. It’s been stated that Costco selected this location, but of course, that does not sound like the proud city ownership and internal locus of control that our city council has or should have for long line. In other words, it is your decision not that of Pasco you can say no. Notwithstanding the modern homes at harvest junction, I don’t think it’s okay to locate affordable housing right next to a warehouse. Why would they want to live in the shadow of a massive warehouse? Do you want to live in such a shadow as a point of reference and Arizona and harvest junction is 634 feet to Michael’s, or as a proposed location of Costco is only 126 feet to the watermark apartments, and 80 feet to the nearest harvest junction home. And it abuts the proposed affordable housing site. That’s our communication with council members has been about tall trees and landscaping as a barrier. But there are better options that have as many people over to your house as you want to. But if any of them get sick that you handle that don’t bring him into our hospitals, and, in fact, our doctors and our our caregivers. And of course the guy wasn’t interested in doing that. So it just made me think of what Mayor Bagley did. And I just want to thank you for stepping up. And I want to thank you for taking a stand on this issue. You just really communicated all of our frustration and watching people not socially distance and wear their masks under their noses and and realize how hard it is to go through this ourselves and how those kinds of folks are putting their own freedom above our community. wealth, welfare. So thanks so much.
1:33:08
And with that, I resigned and thank you Good night everybody in the George can stands it and just call it it call it a decade by that just kidding. All right. All right. Next caller.
1:33:20
All right. Caller 949949 you should be able to unmute yourself.
1:33:28
Hi, this is Ruby Bowman. I have comments about the riverside property 1512 left hand drive in long. city staff contends the represent property is not a former landfill. I do not think the issue has been resolved. Council should look further into the matter. In my written comments to the planning and zoning commission for their February 19. Hearing on the annexation. I refer to page nine of the US Army Corps of Engineer draft St. Frank this feasibility report, which identified the river setproperty has a potential constraint in the study area because it was a former landfill site. Quote, avoid landfill north of Boston Avenue and sunset adjacent to the st. Ring Creek quote. I confirm this with the Army Corps of Engineer official at the Corps meeting in Longmont on September 18th 19. On 2019 the official Tomi the Corps reviewed aerial photos of the property and it showed a lake or pond on the property. The question in his mind was how did the lake get filled up? There is no Lake there now. Two hours before the planning and zoning hearing I received an email from the city planner stating the core changed their mind about the landfill reference and would remove it from its final draft. She wrote we will let the commission no as well tonight. Based on staffs emails I reviewed it Public Works employee contacted the Army Corps of Engineers on the day of the planning and zoning hearing to get the landfill reference removed. Just because the Corps removed it from its final report doesn’t mean it invalidates landfill issue. I was given a copy of an aerial photo dated February 12 1976 by Longmont city official, which shows the lake covering the entire Riverside, Riverside property. The $64 million question for counsel is how did the hole where the lake was located get filled up, and what types of material was used to fill the lake. I also came across a 1980 environmental health report by the Boulder City County Health Department. It was a complaint about illegal dumping on the riverside property. There was a diagram on the complaint showing were clean feel and trash were deposited on the property. Another document I found is a 1976 letter to the state health department in which Boulder City County Health indicates quote, Robo dumping has recently been initiated on unquote, on what is now called Riverside property. The landfill issue is still a viable one council should look further into the matter. Thank you.
1:36:36
Thank you Miss Bellman. How many callers do we have left?
1:36:38
Three left mayor. Okay. All right. So caller ending in 479479. You should be able to unmute yourself. State your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Caller 479 star six to unmute. Oh,
1:37:17
my name is Michael Hannon. I met on 6495 Gray’s way in Broomfield. I represent Holly cook with respect to the request to use the quiksilver road route as a transportation hauling route from the erland Thomas mine. I already have previously written to several officials, including Mr. Harold Domingo’s who I hope may have forwarded my letter on to the members of the council. And first of all, I’d like to congratulate mr. mayor and all the other members of the council for being so concerned about the health of the area residents. And this proposal certainly will affect the health of my client along quiksilver Road. Hopefully again, as I say, I don’t want to have to read that letter into the record, and that Mr. Domingo’s will have forwarded on and made it a part of tonight’s record. But I also want to point out one serious issue with respect to this requirement, I mean, do this application, it is our opinion that this club never has received a legally required notice for this proposal. And as such that we believe that this proposal really needs to go back in time to be properly noticed. So we can go forward. There’s no question we believe that such a proposal will seriously impact the value of a $2 million project that she is proposing to build on this site. And in addition to the negative impacts of the building itself, there will also be negative impacts to the health or family who she and most others actually suffer from asthma. So anyway, again, I really hope that the letter will be made part of the record. I’ve already forward it back on to Mr. Rademacher who was also copied in again at the time back on October 8 of this objection. And I’ve also contacted counsel for aggregate and advise counsel that we were willing to discuss issues with them and provided that she would talk about other possible alternatives but today, I’ve never been contacted for at any response. At this time, I’d really like to thank Council for its allowing me to speak before them and hope that they’ll take seriously the items that have been already written into members of council, both in both of the commission and Boulder, and to various staff members of the city of Longmont. Thank you for your attention.
1:40:17
All right. Okay, next caller.
1:40:20
All right, color 602 color 602
1:40:28
Bingo. Hi,
1:40:30
my name is Heidi McIntyre. I live at 1782 sunshine Avenue. But evening Mr. Mayor, Bagley and city council. As a concerned longtime citizen Longmont and the surrounding area, your continued policies and reactions to COVID-19 have compelled me to call in tonight. In particular Mayor bag Lee’s
1:40:50
behavior and
1:40:51
comments in reaction to the weld county elected officials decisions regarding the COVID-19 restrictions are both extremely embarrassing and disturbing. As he mentioned in his follow up statements on November 25. as elected officials you all take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, Colorado and local laws and yet fail to consider before speaking that the request to pursue an ordinance for denial of healthcare would not only cause every health worker in our city and county to violate their Hippocratic oath, which includes protecting all lives and to renounce self interest in the treatment of patients.
1:41:29
But it also put local puts local residents in danger of not having critical access to health care.
1:41:35
I believe the weld county weld county response to the COVID-19 restrictions as addressed by their Commissioner, in fact take into account the full picture for all of their residents including not only the physical health of their constituents, but also the mental, financial and future well being which I believe is a major part of the picture you all are missing. The City Council’s vision for as long map specifically states that Longmont will be the world’s greatest village where children are most fortunate to be born and raised. elders are supported through their entire life journey and where people will have access to food, shelter and everyone has the opportunity to thrive and feel they belong. From my perspective, your
1:42:17
continued support of the extreme restrictions causing businesses to reduce capacity, close and causing people to lose jobs is in direct conflict with this vision. I would respectfully ask that you take a step back and view the forest instead of the proverbial trees. I believe if you do so you will begin to better understand the unpopular stand that the weld county commissioners have decided to take and putting the overall best interest of their residents above the current fear of the COVID virus. In March,
1:42:46
the leadership said the end goal was to reduce the strain on the health facilities and flatten the curve. Nine months in I would ask you what is the real end goal? Considering the data published on colorado.gov. All of Colorado including weld and Boulder County have the same 1% death rate of those that contract the virus. This brings into question whether the stricter standards you all are choosing to follow is doing anything other than killing our businesses and future sustainability.
1:43:15
I sincerely hope you’ll take this feedback to heart and look forward to seeing changes in your policies in the coming weeks. Thank you.
1:43:25
All right, next caller.
1:43:27
All right. Caller 305305
1:43:34
Hi, everyone. My name is Megan Arnold and I live at one western sky circle. I’m also a member of the advisory board for the Longmont museum and I’m excited
1:43:42
I so let’s go ahead and read the others.
1:43:48
Mayor item nine a is ordinance 2020 dash 65. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for the expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2020. public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 15 2029 B is ordinance 2020 dash 66. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 3.0 4.610 paid holidays designated of the Longmont municipal code on personnel rules. public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 15 2029 C is ordinance 2020 dash 67. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14.8 of the Longmont municipal code by adding section 14 point 647 to allow for adjustment to wastewater billing for commercial and industrial use of cooling water, public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 15 2029 D ordinance 2021 dash oh one a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the reverse annexation, generally located north of Boston Avenue and east of a sunset Street and zoning the property in mooi mixed use employment, public hearing and second reading scheduled for January 12 2021 90. Is ordinance 2020 dash 69 a bill for ordinance designating the James and Francis Wiggins house at 534 Emory street as a local historic landmark public hearing and separate reading scheduled for December 15 2029 F is ordinance 2020 dash 70 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the Real Property known as Vance brand Municipal Airport hanger personal n H dash T two, two k lm o hanger gang LLC. public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 15 2029 G is ordinance 2020 dash 71. A bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 11.04 of the Longmont municipal code regarding the model traffic code and adopting the 2020 edition of the model traffic code for Colorado by reference, public hearing and second reading scheduled for December 15 2029. h is resolution 2020 dash 128 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Department of Navy for cooperation with civilian law enforcement officials agreement. Nine I was pulled from the agenda. Nine G is approved the 2021 city council meeting schedule.
1:46:04
Right, Casper Martin.
1:46:08
I move the consent agenda except for DNI
1:46:11
Jesper Christensen.
1:46:15
Oh, okay, I was gonna call I was gonna pull D too. So,
1:46:18
all right, then we’ll go ahead and take that as a second. Is that okay? Guess where Christiansen. All right. So it’s been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councilmember Christiansen. Any debate on this? Obviously not because it’s consent agenda. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the consent agenda passes unanimously. Let’s go ahead. So everybody who is currently listening to this live stream, if you would, please go ahead and call in now. I don’t care what ordinance on second reading you’d like to talk about? Go ahead and call in now. So we will go ahead and take a three minute break. All right. We’re all back. Let’s go ahead and start with ordinances and ordinances on second reading. Along with the public hearings. We’re going to go ahead with Ken a. ordinance 20 2059 a bill for administrative ordinance approving the grant of a deed of conservation conservation easement in gross from the city of Longmont to the Longmont Conservation District on the newbie farms openspace property. Customer Christiansen
1:47:23
I move ordinance 20 2039.
1:47:28
I’ll second it.
1:47:32
Let’s go ahead and add the public hearing. And then we’re going to redo that motion if that’s okay. All right. So let’s go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 20 2059.
1:47:42
All right. So I believe it is star nine to raise your hand if any of our four callers on the line would like to speak on a please star nine to raise your hand.
1:48:02
Anybody?
1:48:03
All right, Mayor. I
1:48:04
do not see anybody raising their hand.
1:48:06
All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. We have a motion from Councilmember Christensen. I second it will give the second to Suzy. Any further debate on this issue. All in favor say aye.
1:48:19
Aye. Aye.
1:48:21
Aye. Opposed say nay.
1:48:23
The Motion carries unanimously. All right. ordinance item 10. b. For the 20 2060. The bill for an ordinance authorizing the city Longmont police the Real Property known as Vance brand Municipal Airport hangar partial H dash 14 be the Craig Nelson. Let’s go ahead and open the public hearing on Oregon’s 20 2060 it star nine if you’d like to raise your hand. Anybody? Okay, not seeing anybody. Let’s go ahead and close the public hearing. We have a motion. Councilmember Christiansen
1:48:58
I move ordinance 2020 62nd
1:49:02
it’s been moved by Councilman Christensen second by Dr. Waters. All in favor of ordinance 20 2061. Say I don’t like 20 2060
1:49:12
Let’s go I still
1:49:15
I do everybody, right nay. All right, or 220 2016 passes unanimously. ordinance 20 2061. Item 10. c bill for an ordinance authorizing the city Longmont police to Real Property known as Vance brown Municipal Airport hangar parcel Hs 37. Robert singer. Let’s go ahead and open the public hearing on orders. 2020 or 61. Alright, see nobody let’s go ahead and do a motion. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing. Sorry, motion counselor Martin. I’m assuming that was motion, right.
1:49:47
I said I move to NC. Oh,
1:49:49
okay. I’ll second it. All right. Any further discussion debate? Seeing none All in favor say aye.
1:49:55
Aye. Aye.
1:49:56
Opposed say nay. All right, ordinance 2026 to one passes unanimously. Let’s go on to. So I want to just flag anybody who wants to talk about this issue. This is item 10, D, number 12345, and six, we’re going to have the public hearing all at the same time, but then we’re going to go ahead and vote on these individually. So we’re going to go ahead and wait about 60 seconds that if you want to talk on anything pertaining to item 10 D, the Costco economic development setup and associated agreement and purchase of nine acres for the development of affordable housing, we would ask you to call in now.
1:50:36
Hi, thank you for hearing me today. My name is Holly cook. The address for me is 12525 Quicksilver road. I am calling in tonight, because I am highly opposed to the agreement for aggregate industries to use Quicksilver road as a shortcut. I do know that they were already approved to use Kemper highway, which is much better equipped it has the correct infrastructure. I purchased three and a half acres on Quicksilver about a year ago. Primarily because it was on a quiet unpaved country road surrounded by farmland that is predominantly county open space. And as you can imagine, the appeal of that was a quiet country’s location. I am well into working with architects engineers. site plan review the whole process and was accidentally informed of this potential for aggregate to use Quicksilver. Quicksilver road is not really even wide enough for two cars to pass each other. It’s not paved. It’s not rated for heavy weight traffic. And I am very concerned about how it will affect my plans for my family home. Having my children on this road with hundreds of trucks on it every day. A couple of us have serious allergies and asthma. So I’m looking at issues with dust being picked up all day. I’m concerned about my teenage son, being you know, learning to drive and being on this road with big heavy gravel trucks every day. I’m concerned about my only neighbor who has lived on this road for decades, who are entering retirement age and love to be outside. That’s one of the things I’m looking forward to with this new home is being able to spend time in the peaceful outdoors, which is the opposite of 300 gravel trucks everyday passing my house. I did hire an attorney, he called in earlier. I guess it wasn’t the appropriate time. Um, I think you might be going back. And we have made multiple attempts to communicate a lot of concerns about this issue, and try to get some communication going. And really have been stonewalled To be quite honest. There’s nothing I can do with somebody who will talk with me and try to work out some solution. I have proposed alternate routes or suggestions. And I really think that if aggregate was really concerned about environmental protection, there are other mitigation measures they can take. And then possible other location. Thank you for time.
1:53:46
Good timing. Thank
1:53:47
you. All right. Next caller for public invited to be heard on 10 D kasco. Economic Development incentive.
1:53:55
Thank you very much. My name is Michael Gunderson. And I live on Quicksilver road 12335 Quicksilver road and not used to going on virtual here but uh so please excuse me if I mess it up. Anyway dinardo to talk to you people. And I was told that back six months ago from Jane’s I think it was Michael Thomas came over and met with me and Julie had our home and told us that we had the right to deny the use of aggregate industries using our road and as you know, to drive 300 trucks down in a day to transport the dirt over to the other process on plant. So we are gravely we’re begging you Not to us. Not to allow them to do this. We haven’t. I’m kind of shocked because no one’s contacted me and this is this heard about it, but I, I represented 100% of the people living on Quicksilver road. And I represent probably most of the people that are using the bike path, the wonderful bike path the city of Longmont put into it goes to the sandstone ranch. And you know, me and my wife. You know, I’ve been a member, I’ve been a small businessman in Boulder and Longmont for 50 years now. So probably worked on every neighborhood there is in in Boulder and working on working on many, many neighborhoods in Longmont, too. But anyway, we just beg you not to approve this resolution to use our road to transport all that dirt would not work for us. You know, I have asthma and my wife is she can’t go nowhere. It’s because she has macular degeneration and 300 trucks go down our road and we have 12 grandchildren that come over all the time, and we wouldn’t, you know, you would be destroying our family. So anyway, thank you so much for your time. And I just hope you do the right thing and and please let us know what’s going on because no one’s contacted us just like Hollywood called it a Lago no one’s contacted, say, offered to, you know, give us money. And we didn’t talk to the people because we were told that we have to sell out. But they offered to put up a 10 foot fence in front of our house and maybe replace our windows, but we don’t want we just want to live here in peace and quiet. And maybe, no, no, I just thank you for your time. And I’ll let you get on. You guys are wonderful that you put up allow these people talk on and never witnessed this before. So anyway, have a good evening, and put a smile on your face. Thank you very much for your time. Bye.
1:57:16
Thank you. Um, so before we get going, Dale, so my question is, I recall an email saying that before we go through each of these ordinances, I mean, one of the questions I have for I don’t want to start approving ordinances, and they get to a point where we’ve approved something that we need. They’re all kind of gather. So I figure out now, did we contact these people? Because I saw that we tried, but they didn’t respond. And I’m not hearing that. I who owns the road? What’s going on? Do we have to let aggregate use it? What’s the consequences? If we say no? Should we say no? Because if they’re the only people on this is I just feel like we’re about ready to bully a family that doesn’t want this and sounds like it’s their road. Is that true?
1:58:08
So what Mayor Bagley Mayor Bagley members of council, Dale Rademacher deputy city manager, I’ll also offer to have Jim instead the director of engineering speak to you as well. Jim was the city staff member who did talk with the Gunderson earlier this year. And then he had several attempted discussions with them following that. And as I recall, from Jim was was told and pretty much no uncertain terms. They didn’t want to discuss it any further. They just didn’t want it to happen, and refused to have any further discussions with the city staff on that matter. We simply so frankly, it’s very difficult to have a discussion with someone who will not have that discussion. Secondly, this is a Boulder County public road. So it is not a private road. It is a public road under the maintenance and care of Boulder County, which is why the IGA is in front of the council this evening. City negotiated with Boulder County on the various aspects of the intergovernmental agreement that is intended and to address and mitigate many of the potential issues that may impact the two adjacent private property owners. Things that are in the IGA are things such as grading the roadway so that it is safe for truck traffic. Lowering the speed limit on the roadway, putting in dust mitigation frequently to prevent dust, and then putting up a traffic light, a temporary traffic light at the intersection of Quicksilver road. And 119. What’s an important I believe, for us all to know is that the use of Quicksilver road has been the desire of the city for some time, predating any issue with the Costco development. And in fact, we entered into discussions with Boulder County as far back as 2018 on the issue. The reason we believe it is the preferred route is that we believe the intersection of 100 19th and, and Ken Pratt ball of art is very dangerous intersection with very high speeds and high traffic volumes. And when you have left turn, movements being made, as the trucks returned back to the mine, we believe that’s an incredibly dangerous situation. On top of that, the Quicksilver route is by far the shortest route between A and B, resulting in a significant reduction of greenhouse gas generation, which which we all know is part of what we’re all trying to do to be more sustainable in an operation. And so we had months and months of discussions with over county on the matter. The county also indicated that it was their desire that financial mitigation also be provided to the to private property owners, that is included in the IGA as well as the agreement between the city and aggregate industries. It’s a it’s a sum of $180,000 to each of the property owners. So that was an amount that we came up with that amount, maybe staff. Oh,
2:02:07
so so if they don’t own the road, Boulder County is paying each of these property owners 180,000 What are they paying 180,000 for?
2:02:19
So Boulder County is not paying in aggregate industries will be paying them $180,000. And I believe it was the desire of Boulder County to attempt additional mitigation for their county residents. Again, the these two residents are outside of the city limits. They are county residents in the county felt that was an appropriate step to take as well.
2:02:49
So and they they could use the road even if they didn’t pay 280,000. Right.
2:02:56
In my opinion, the use of the public road certainly is available without having to pay. For instance, it is not the practice of the city of Longmont when we are doing construction activities, or using any city street or public road to pay the adjacent neighbors to do that work or to use that public right away.
2:03:21
customer.
2:03:25
Yes, Thank you Mayor Bagley. I understood from the packet that this amount of compensation of $180,000 was actually worked out as proper with one of the residents who then later changed their mind. Dale, is that correct?
2:03:50
Mayor baclayon council member Martin? That’s correct. We received an email from Holly Martin Holly cook, excuse me, Martin Olli cook earlier this year, stating that $180,000 was what was needed or adequate to fully mitigate the impacts of the road hauling on her and her project and her property.
2:04:17
So there was a letter saying no, pay us 180,000 Boulder County said agri pay it they paid it.
2:04:26
And we’re here.
2:04:28
Okay here badly. It hasn’t been paid
2:04:30
yet. But my point is they’re willing they’re going to pay it if we proceed.
2:04:35
Correct.
2:04:36
Okay. Joe, or sorry. Caspar Beck.
2:04:39
Mayor, if I might jump in for just a moment. Pardon me? Sorry. We do have still a couple callers. comment on this item though. Yeah.
2:04:47
We have not closed the public. Okay.
2:04:50
Just don’t want to miss those. Thank you.
2:04:51
Thank you. Jasper back.
2:04:53
Oh, my question about the hundred and 80,000 is there there is no nondisclosure agreement to all agreement that they can never complain about this road. Again, if they if they accept that money. It’s not a buyout is it.
2:05:11
Mayor Bagley and Councilmember pack, there is a requirement in the agreements that they would sign a waiver to not sue, or take further litigation against aggregate the county or the city of Longmont.
2:05:27
Okay,
2:05:28
they can if there’s issues and they’re concerned with it, they can still communicate, because that’s part of the agreement with the county is resolving those issues if they come into play in it, too. So it doesn’t eliminate them bringing issues to the attention of the county in the city.
2:05:46
Oh, good. That’s what I wanted to know to make sure that that they weren’t just shut out completely. Thank you.
2:05:53
Mayor Pro Tem Did you raise your hand? Thank you very badly. Yeah.
2:05:57
My question is, before the Costco project came online, obviously we know this land was was slated to be mined was coke silver, considered to be the route at that point as well.
2:06:15
Mayor Bagley and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez what the haul route said on the approved mining plan that was approved by both Boulder County as well as the state. It did not eliminate quiksilver road but it did not designate it as the route either. What it said was that truck traffic from the point where it enters 119th Street could not go south, it needed to go north. And so it did not limit it. Prevent Quicksilver however, Quicksilver currently has a wait wait limit on it from Boulder County that is also being removed as part of the agreement, again between the city and the county that would then allow quiksilver Road to be a haul route.
2:07:10
So essentially, it was not designated but was never fully say taken off the table of options. Correct. And noting the what the city staff has said about efficiency of movement of the trucks that would likely have been explored anyway, for the general mining operations that were to take place before we chain before the Costco project came on board.
2:07:39
That that into to be clear to Dale’s point back to 2018. We had been communicating with the county that we did not like the idea of putting 300 trucks at the intersection of 119 and cam crap because of the safety issues associated with it. And what we’ve seen it other intersections in terms of wrecks at high speeds on those roads. And so we we had been communicating with the council or the county that we didn’t like the idea
2:08:10
of
2:08:12
all the movements that were occurring at an uncivilized intersection.
2:08:17
Okay, so that brings me to the second point, I guess, in the sense that as we brought up objections to the use of highway 119, for these trucks, that didn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t going to use highway 119. It’s just that’s the city’s objection to it. As similar to this concept of the use of quiksilver. As these residents, the residents as well as property owners object to it, but cannot necessarily prohibit the use of the road. Similar as we probably couldn’t prohibit trucks from using highway 119. We can just state objection and hope for a favorable decision. Is that accurate?
2:09:00
I believe you’re correct. Mayor Pro Tem.
2:09:02
All right. That’s it for now. Thank you. Alright, let’s
2:09:05
continue then with the public invite. Or sorry, the public hearing on this matter. How many more callers do we have?
2:09:13
Mayor there there’s two callers. Give me just a moment here. We are working on reviving our live stream. Okay. Looks like we’re back online caller ending in 479479. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address and you have three minutes
2:09:48
Yes, I would like to bet councils. Yeah, I’d like to beg counsels. Pardon, and that I may Sir, we’re
2:10:07
having a hard time hearing you again. you beg your pardon? And then you went away?
2:10:17
Call her for seven nine. Can you unmute yourself again and give it another shot?
2:10:23
Can you hear me? We can hear you now.
2:10:25
Go ahead.
2:10:26
Okay, thank you like to beg counsels pardon and I may have jumped the gun earlier in the first call Michael Hannon. Attorney 16495 Gray’s Lake Broomfield, Colorado. And I would like to add on to Mr. Cook’s statement. And Sir, we
2:10:53
lost you again. What I’m going to do though your field, you’re free to continue to try, try. But for the record, I’m going to go ahead and make a note if you could put in the notes. This particular color I believe he made the comments during the the first call public invited to be heard. Did you make an a note in the notes? To go back and refer to his comments?
2:11:20
Okay, my back now
2:11:22
you’re back now? Yep. Let’s try one more time. But we’re going to go ahead.
2:11:25
Okay. I’m sorry. I didn’t
2:11:27
know what I was gonna say is before you start the comments that you made at the beginning of the meeting, I’m instructing our our clerk to make a reference saying that your comments in the beginning need to be added here. So that it’s part of Okay, record. Okay.
2:11:44
Thank you so much. Let’s try, okay, I don’t really I don’t even need all the three minutes. But the bottom line is that I’d like to add on to the issue of this hundred $80,000. That that was never, at least in my letters never offered as a settlement for aggregate to go forward with this. In fact, I’ve specifically stated there were other concerns that that would not cover. And I also included Mr. Rademacher and I also sent letters to the attorney for aggregate, that the offer was not an offer and should not be considered an offer in any way, because of these other considerations. And let’s see, and again, this issue of the notice, Miss Holly cook did state I believe correctly, that she accidentally found out because a discussion was made with the neighbor and not her. We believe that adequate notice has not been yet officially provided for this project, and therefore should not go forward and should not be approved at tonight’s meeting until that has been further investigated. With respect to anything else that I might add, I think Miss cook did a pretty good job and and stating what her objections were. And I would again, appreciate the letter of October 8 being entered into tonight’s meeting on the record, I think that fully explains our position on this matter. And that being said, I thank the council for hearing me and again, certainly thank them for their concerns over health and the environment. And I do think that the letter will fully explain that this hundred 80,000 By the way, if you read it in that agreement, but I say the Lord give it sometimes the Lord take us away. Because right in the paragraph just below that 180,000 it basically says if that money is not available or budgeted, then all the parties are relieved from their obligations. So that clause with respect to the hundred and 80,000 could become very meaningless. And therefore, I think needs further investigation as well. But that being said, I think counsel for its listening, and we’ll certainly impose upon them to please not pass this resolution or this amendment to the original use of this property or this road and not do it until there’s further investigation into this matter. Thank you.
2:14:34
All right. Thank you.
2:14:35
So just out of curiosity, we have a copy of that letter. Yeah, we haven’t. We’re in we can enter it in the record,
2:14:44
which which letter though?
2:14:46
He said is October 8 letter that he sent to the city.
2:14:49
I think he’s also sent the same letter to the council members. You all have received that
2:14:54
right but I’m sure that it just gets put into the minutes tonight as part of the public hearing.
2:15:00
I drove me forward that too. Yeah, I will for that to dawn to be included in the in the record.
2:15:11
Okay, great. All right, next caller. All right. The
2:15:15
final caller that we have here is ending in 633. Guest 633 you should be able to unmute yourself. Guests 633. Are you able to join us? star six to unmute.
2:15:52
Hi, hello.
2:15:53
Hello, we
2:15:54
can hear you go ahead and state your name and address and you have three minutes. Oh,
2:15:59
Marianne, great guy. I’ve met 70 21st Avenue.
2:16:06
Aspen Meadows senior apartments, in Longmont. I didn’t want to be asked to speak so soon. So it’s only five to 10. But anyway, um, I’d like to bring up if I may. What was discussed at the beginning of the world near the beginning of the meeting, about the map the virus spreading in Boulder County in Boulder and Longmont in all the towns apparently here in Boulder County.
2:16:39
issue for memory. Yes. I’m gonna have to call back at the end of the meeting. Okay.
2:16:46
I don’t know why she
2:16:48
I don’t know why she asked me to speak now. So I apologize that
2:16:52
the reason I’m doing that is I don’t want to begin. We’d love to hear from you. We always love to hear from you. But if we if we Oh, thank you. I just want to make sure that we don’t have people starting to call in to try to cheat the system by addressing their other concerns when we’re talking. No,
2:17:09
that wasn’t mine.
2:17:11
I know why. You’re awesome. We love hearing from you. But if you could call back. Thank you. Last call public invited be heard. That would be awesome. Okay. All right.
2:17:20
Thank you so much. All right. Thank you
2:17:22
guys. All right. Bye. Bye.
2:17:24
All right, bye. Okay, so any other debate is we will just go with them.
2:17:32
I think you’re just actually first clarification. Since we have to take these one at a time in essence. Would you like our comments to be specific to each one? Or when would you like us?
2:17:45
Let’s just go let’s just go one at a time. And then okay. If somebody has an issue about that specific one, my bigger my overall concern is going is Dale, can you Mike, my question is, are we gonna if we approve all been one, is it going to screw everything up? The answer is yes. And then the next question I have is we proceed forward. Is there any chance whatsoever that we need to go back and give notice? And if we do have to go back and give notice to start the process over in order to comply with the law?
2:18:18
We got her have Eugene address. Aaron council Eugene May, city attorney. I’m unaware of any notice just an IGA with Boulder County and agreement with agri industries. These are properties that aren’t in the city of Longmont. These are Boulder County properties with a Boulder County Road. I don’t know any obligation that the city would have to provide property owners notice.
2:18:46
Okay, so that’s it. This is a bullet to rightfully so what they should go to Boulder County and discuss this issue with them if there’s notice. That’s what I’m hearing. Okay. All right. Let’s go ahead, Jasper. We’re back.
2:18:58
So, just as we thought on these, just so I understand, this is only an IGA for maintenance of this road and it is not for use of the road. Is that correct?
2:19:13
may or may Mayor Bagley and Councilmember pack I would describe it as it is an IGA that is being entered into with the county contemplating the use of the road as the haul route for the money. And I don’t know if that answers your question, but that’s the underlying outcome of it. It includes the various mitigation efforts to address any impacts that that might result from that use of hauling for that interim time while the mining is occurring. Okay,
2:19:53
if I can kind of help on this. It is a Boulder County Road that is open to use by the public Because of the weight limit issue, Boulder County had to authorize the use of the road, and then authorizing the use of the road. They said, here’s what we want you to do and what to look at, in order for us to let you use the road. So the IGA is with Boulder County, allowing aggregate industries to utilize the road of which the county commissioners approved this morning.
2:20:34
Mayor Pro Tem.
2:20:37
Thank you very badly. My comments actually are specific right now to ordinance 20 2062. The first item underneath the Costco list, and it was that we received obviously various emails and have been receiving various emails from the folks in harvest junction, one email characterize my comments the other week as trying to guarantee some sort of specific Greenway buffering between the neighborhoods and the development. That wasn’t the impetus behind my comments in my comments are really that this process is so early, that we can’t make any sort of judgments or guarantees based on that, because it has not truly gone through the development process that the city has. And that’s why I made, the comments I did is that it will go through that that city process, it will have the time to have community, you know, community meetings between the developers and the community in our city staff. And for there to be comments and to be input about greenways and parks, and the siting of things, as well as with the affordable the proposed affordable housing the city is taking on, that’s obviously even closer to the vest for us as the city in the sense that we have much more control over the design, as well as the process of that because we are the the property owners as the city. And so there’ll be a lot of opportunity for the community at harvest junction to weigh in, and to give their input for both developments, because they are separate. Not to mention, obviously, the the pieces that the goldens are retaining. So all of those things will have to go through our development process, which is a ways down, you know, down the road, as I think was indicated by the timeline where we’re not even expecting this thing to be fully constructed until I think are 2022. At this point. I think that was one projection that was said, so I just wanted to clarify that. I’m not guaranteeing parks and greenways. I’m just guaranteeing input will there be plenty of opportunity for input by the community?
2:22:48
Great points. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Councillor Martin?
2:22:53
Yeah, I’d also like to talk about that. Because what I think the mayor pro Tim, can guarantee what we all can guarantee is that the same process that any other building project gets in terms of land use planning, zoning. And approval will be applied in this case. So we’re not absolving Costco of having to meet our building codes, our land use codes are the the obligation to conduct public hearings, all that is still in the future. And you know, when there is uncommitted land in in at any point adjacent to your property. Those processes can apply to the land adjacent to your property. And that’s just the way it is.
2:23:54
All right. Let’s go ahead then and run through some ordinances. All right, let’s start with 10 D one ordinance 2020. So we’ll go ahead and close the public hearing for item 10 D. Let’s go ahead and run through the run through each one. So 10 D one ordinance 2020 to 62. Bill for an ordinance probing public private partnership agreement among diamond g concrete company, Costco, wholesale Corporation and the city of Longmont and further into the development of a Costco membership warehouse
2:24:25
moving toward March 2020. Day 62.
2:24:28
Well, Wherefore warehouse facility, affordable housing and additional commercial retail uses. We have a motion by Dr. Waters. We have a second by Councilmember Christiansen or was that counselor back?
2:24:39
Yeah, doesn’t matter.
2:24:40
All right. We’ll go with Councilmember Christensen. All right, Seeing no further debate or discussion. All in favor say aye.
2:24:47
Aye.
2:24:48
Opposed say nay. ordinance 20 2062 passes unanimously. All right. Item 10. De to ordinance 20 2063. A bill for an ordinance amending title for the Lamont new code on revenue and finance by creating the harvest junction East special revenue fund. We have a motion. I will I will cancel my Martin.
2:25:09
No I’ll move 2020 dash 63
2:25:13
I guess boo boo by doc by Doc Martin move by Councilmember Martin and it was seconded I think by Councilmember Peck by waving her hand first but with all due respect to Dr. Waters, so we’ll go ahead and all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right ordinance 2025 63. passes unanimously. Item 23, or 2020 dash 64 bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities the city allotment for the fiscal year beginning January 120 20. We have a motion Dr. Waters.
2:25:49
Hang on a second.
2:25:50
I’ll move approval of ordinance 2020 days 64.
2:25:54
I’ll second.
2:25:55
All right was moved by Dr. Waters. Second vice Councilmember Duggal fairing All in favor of ordinance 20 2064. say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right ordinance 20 2064. passes unanimously. Item 10. d for resolution 2021 30. a resolution Aloma city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County concerning use maintenance and repair of quick silver road.
2:26:20
do have a motion?
2:26:22
approval.
2:26:24
I’ll second that. So it was moved by Dr. Waters seconded by myself. All in favor of resolution 2021 30. say aye.
2:26:31
Aye.
2:26:32
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right resolution 2021 30 passes unanimously. Item 10 D five resolution 2021 31 resolution Aloma of the Longmont city council approving an agreement in vocable permit with aggregate industries. WC are Inc for maintenance of Quicksilver road and access to North 119th
2:26:53
Street.
2:26:54
We have motion.
2:26:56
I will move resolution 2021 31 was moved by myself and seconded by Councillor Martin. All in favor of resolution 2021 31 say aye.
2:27:06
Aye. Aye.
2:27:08
Opposed say nay. Resolution 2021 31 passes unanimously and finally 26 resolution 2021 32. a resolution along with City Council authorizing loans from fund balance the CS fleet fund to harvest junction a special revenue Fund and the affordable housing fund and providing for repayment of the loans from the harvest judge in a special revenue Fund and the affordable housing fund.
2:27:29
Councilmember Christiansen
2:27:32
2021 32.
2:27:34
I’ll second was moved by Councilmember christison it was second by Councilmember YOLO Councilmember fairing All in favor of resolution 2021 32. say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right resolution 2021 32 passes unanimously. We’ve got no items removed from the consent agenda. Let’s move on to general business. Harold times yours to discuss along the way services counselor Christiansen
2:27:59
we removed item D
2:28:02
Yeah, but we removed it.
2:28:04
We removed it for
2:28:06
the we remove it from discussion tonight. They
2:28:08
went up.
2:28:09
Staff removed it completely.
2:28:11
No Mayor that was item D on general business item D on consent was removed by Councilmember Martin.
2:28:17
Oh, okay. We’ll go ahead and I was I was under the I got those confused. So the is back on the books. So let’s go ahead and proceed. Councillor Martin customer Christiansen What do you want to talk about with number d?
2:28:32
Um, what I didn’t move any remove anything from the consent agenda? I asked that. That. Okay.
2:28:40
That’s where Krishna says,
2:28:43
Oh, I think D did get removed.
2:28:46
It did get removed. So. Yeah. So do we want to do we want to discuss this or? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. castmember Christiansen,
2:28:55
okay. Um, well, we all got a copy of the
2:29:02
environmental report, which Joan Peck Councilman Peck asked for. And I find this really very interesting. I’m looking at the summary. And there are many, many, I’m looking at pages four through six on this summary from 1950 in 2015, march of 2015. And there are nine of recommendations are nine summary items. And I’m not going to read them all because I’m not going to but I assume that most of you read them. And it worries me because I don’t know who’s going to be sure that you know this was passed the planning and zoning board conditional upon them with the condition that they do some that they have an infinite Mental report, and that they do some mitigation. I’m wondering who’s going to be sure that they do this because there are very serious problems having to do with it says Do we believe these concerns can be there the site presents challenges for the planned development, the geotechnical concerns include undocumented compressed fill, shallow groundwater erosion and scour, we believe these concerns can be mitigated with proper planning, engineering design and construction concerns associated with existing fill may influence land use. So there are a number of very serious things having to do with flood potential ground water because it used to be a lake landfill, which is going to cause subsidence. These are, you know, we, I think this is going to be a very good development, or it could be very good development. I’m worried about the people who are buying into this development, though, we want what is built here to be good quality and not cause problems for homeowners, if there is they’re talking about three to three and a half inches of potential sediment for new fill heights of six feet with no building loads. But when you put a building load over that, they’re suggesting that they need to have either deep foundations anchored in bedrock or shallow fannish foundations after Phil removal. I’m suggesting under drain systems. I mean, this is, you know, very challenging. And I’m sure that the people building this, know that but I am just I want to make sure that somebody is going to be monitoring this mitigation, and that we’re not going to be building stuff that’s going to start sinking, leaking, causing all kinds of problems. And also, once they start working on building this leaking, leaching things into the ground into the river that are toxic or damaging to the
2:32:22
to the
2:32:25
wildlife, they’re both at the site and further down the site. Because you know, it’s a beautiful river. So I’m wondering who’s going to who’s going to be sure that this stuff actually does get mitigated in the way that it’s suggested by this or MCs report?
2:32:50
Yes, good evening, Mayor, council members, Eva has jetski planning and development services. We are processing the annexation entitlement application. With our team tonight we have Chris huffer. from public works, who reviewed the environmental reports as well as Josh Sherman, who’s the project manager for the resilient St. Rain project. We also have the applicant and the property owner here David Starnes and David waldner here as well to answer any questions you may have. But in general, your general question is who will over make sure that these are taking care of certainly that’s the that’s the purpose of our public works and our building Safety Department in plan review. Again, this is not a development application, its annexation. So at the time of development application, they would be required to give us a brand new geotech report, update their environmental reports, and our Public Works engineers would ensure that all of the buildings and all of the design, meet city standards and don’t harm the environment. Certainly Chris is here. He’s reviewed some of the environmental reports again, Josh is here if you have any questions about the resiliency brand project.
2:34:09
Polly Does that answer your questions enough
2:34:11
well,
2:34:13
so given that this was the lake because you know what’s left of it is basic Walden Pond a and that there’s a lot of uncompressed fill, which is true all up and down the river. It was you know, for years just a dumping ground. That’s the way people thought about rivers but um, how far down is the bedrock if people want to build on that how far down is the bedrock because it could be extremely expensive if they have to go all the way down to bedrock to build a foundation.
2:34:50
Mayors, members of council Chris hopper with public works engineering. To try and answer your question. The geotech report indicates the bedrock is somewhere between eight and 15 Feet purpose now in that this is not necessarily an unusual event, as you indicated. But as we move forward with the development, yes, we’ll certainly be looking for, as he indicated a new geotech report with more specific recommendations for how they will address these issues. And it will be up to the developer to decide if they are going to over excavate and remove a lot of that material and build it back up, or if they’re going to try and put piers down to bedrock, as he indicated.
2:35:37
Good. Well, we did a lot of mitigate a lot of flood mitigation all along there after the report came out, or I don’t know whether it was after 215 or before because it was around 213 that that flood came. So are we comfortable with the the flood mitigation study, and the flood mitigation work that we’ve done, which will now be maybe somewhat disturbed by any new development there?
2:36:12
So go ahead. No, no.
2:36:16
Oh, Dale. So
2:36:17
the only work we’ve done in that location is actually sunset, as we’re moving, oh, foot to move up with the project. And so Isaac Walton is actually the area that we’re working on with the Army Corps. And then the next phase is where we get into that piece. And that’s what Josh Oh, okay.
2:36:36
Okay, so we just did work around the bridge.
2:36:40
Okay. Did it do the beginning?
2:36:43
I’m trying to not drag this further. But that is correct. The, the Army Corps is certainly aware of any potential issue, their final design will take that into account, which they’re getting underway with at this point. I also recall, and I believe, within the last year or so that additional on site geotech explorations were done based on some questions that we all had at that time, as well. And am I correct on that, Eva, and Chris?
2:37:25
Sorry, is that Can you say that again, down?
2:37:29
I believe last year or so when we had questions about the pending annexation, and Public Works requested that the developer conduct additional on site geotech borings in order to ascertain whether or not there was any potential for contamination or other issues within the area, and I was the official that Ruby Bowman met with, and I did provider the information that showed that this property had been previously mined, and obviously subsequently refilled. But I try to remember if that if I’m remembering that correctly,
2:38:20
Chris.
2:38:22
Yes, there was some additional work done. I can’t remember exactly when it occurred. But there were additional borings that were out there that confirmed the pacification that the site has been filled with sand and rubble material are used or used concrete. And so in looking at that report that confirmed that they had not found any landfill type material other than the sand and gravel and that type of material at that point time. And it was consistent with the application of it being a pond at one point time being higher at both ends and low in the middle. And that’s what we looked at
2:39:12
that point in time.
2:39:14
Thanks, Chris. That was what I recalled.
2:39:17
All right. We’re gonna go with Councillor Martin in are we close to heaven? I have a lot of questions customer Martin and Councilmember waters the customer every level for any customer back.
2:39:27
I wish I had him that was just restraining my cat.
2:39:31
Well, thank you. Customer waters.
2:39:35
The eastern edge of this property. Obviously it is along the same vein. Well, how is it classified in our red,
2:39:45
yellow green?
2:39:49
I don’t know,
2:39:51
tiers or categories with respect to the MCs my assumption is that would be read
2:39:59
David Bell We could probably respond to that Councilmember waters or Don.
2:40:09
Good evening, Mayor Bagley, Councilmember waters, Tom bershad. Plenty manager. So the St. vrain. River is all identified as green on our maps. So I turned it around.
2:40:24
And Dan, I’m sorry. Hi, within the category where we would we would be applying the 150 foot setback. This
2:40:34
falls into that, that this falls into the hundred percent. Yeah, I
2:40:37
flipped I flipped our color code. I apologize.
2:40:40
That’s okay.
2:40:42
And so if there were any variances needed with the development of this property, it would fall under the FCS and city council would be the decision maker on any variances for non conformance to the standards.
2:40:56
Is there any bit any discussion about the donation from the property owner the donation of that hundred and 50 foot setback to the city?
2:41:06
I am not aware of any council member waters. I know that as part of our development review, we typically look at getting our minimum dedications for the Greenway, that are required by the land development code to be given to the city when they plat the property. But I’m not aware of specific negotiations Eva or the Public Works staff maybe but I am not
2:41:31
any of that.
2:41:34
As you go through that process, in terms of the what would be donated to the city to maintain the greenways with this fall into into that, I guess provision or or consideration.
2:41:50
So Mayor Bagley, Councilmember waters as part of the annexation, typically on the concept plan, we identify the areas that are going to be dedicated to the city. The Greenway is one of those areas, we would be identifying typically the width of that that would be given to the city by code. And then at time of planning, we would solidify the design and the dimensions of that property that are going to be dedicated to the city is open space for the Greenway. Again, I’m not aware of specifically what that distance is Eva, may
2:42:26
I yes. Thank
2:42:28
you done. Marin, council members, council member waters, there is a no on the concept plan that does say that they have to provide the 150 foot Greenway buffer. So that is a no on the concept plan. And then if this were annexed, and they come in with a development application, that is where we would fine tune the details of that land area. In the dedication on the plat.
2:42:50
Do you consider that then I don’t know that they would be required to donate that hundred and 50 that whatever that whatever the footage is, obviously 150 foot but to comply with? What we need for greenwise? Yes, we
2:43:02
call it a dedication, but it’s same thing. Yes.
2:43:05
All right. Thank you.
2:43:08
All right, who is next customer though fairy?
2:43:12
miracle.
2:43:15
Has robeck and then Mayor Pro Tem,
2:43:18
thank you for your badly I do have a couple of questions. But um, I just want to state that I thought that the environmental study in 2015 was very fun room, I didn’t um, they didn’t really inspect the land. They just stared at it from outside a fence and then anecdotally asked other people what they thought of it. And I thought it was surprising that nobody asked the golden family about that like, and and their drilling operation. So that was quite fun reading. Um, and I do want to thank Justin McClure for at least in his presentation, he gave aerial maps so that you can actually see the lake. So my other my one question is that the city purchased a portion of that land. Is that correct? So was that was that purchase for the resilient st frame? St. Rain construction or remediation? Whatever you want to call it? Or was it? Well, to comply with the fact that an annexation has to abut city property as
2:44:28
a council member pack it was specifically for the resilient St. Rain project, because we had critical timelines for getting our funding from FEMA. And I believe Josh can answer those questions specifically, but we were in a time crunch. So the city had to acquire that piece. Yes. And that was for RSV.
2:44:49
All right. I that’s what I wanted to know. But I do have concerns. Number one, that we do not have a concept plan with this annexation. And the reason is the very first public meeting that I went to, there was a concept plan with a with a restaurant near St. With near the st. Rain and some work, work. I’m losing my thought process some residents, etc. Where is that come? Where is that plan? Are they going to continue with that concept plan? Is there going to be a different one? And the reason I’m asking is because I’m concerned about the scour risk and the erosion, as we’ve learned, or as I’ve learned from the 2013, flood that water always goes back to its original, original course. So if we’re having underground flooding, it’s going to go back to that same rain, and how will that work with the scour and erosion, I mean, just looking forward.
2:45:58
So Councilmember Peck, Marin council members. So what happened was, initially, an application came in for this property for annexation. And you’re correct, it did have a concept plan was just slightly, some more detail of a mixed use project, that application was withdrawn, and the applicant took that away, and then they restarted the application process again. And when they reapplied for annexation, the second time, they did have a more generalized concept plan that did not have a site specific site plan laid out on it. And that is very typical. It’s not required by code to have a specific site plan in your concept plan. And that’s pretty typical for annexations, where they just come in and they say we’d like to own the property this consistent with whatever is in our comprehensive plan and envision long one. And then once it’s an extend, they they play around with it and try and figure out what the market drive is for that property, what’s the highest and best use, and that’s where they come up with site plans. So that you are correct, you saw something a long time ago, but that concept plan was withdrawn. This application was then re submitted as a brand new application. And the concept plan was left more generalized and vague, didn’t have a specific site plan to it. The traffic study did contemplate, I’d have to pull it up, it was in your packet, but it contemplated a mix of retail office flex office, things that are allowed in the mixed use employment zone.
2:47:39
So I just want to say I totally agree that this needs to be developed. And I understand the zoning through indigene Longmont, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. So I’m very concerned about if there is residential development, that it is taken into effect that this scour and erosion is there. And we don’t put people in a in an untenable position when we are going to have another flood. And the other thing and this is this isn’t really important, but I caught it is that um,
2:48:14
and level of the problem, but I thought that that was was not over are understated. And they did a good job with that next line. One of the projects that we did recently take on that has a net benefit to the city and environment is the conversion of about half of our solid waste fleet over to compressed natural gas, we’re in effect using the gas now that comes from the wastewater treatment plant that we previously had the flame off that we weren’t using and, and moved away from using diesel. We hope to convert in by 2024 convert that fleet over fully, but a good a good project. And if you have any questions about that later, I have the project manager john gage on with us tonight too. And he can certainly help or answer any questions. Next slide.
2:49:15
So I want to start just showing what we have heard most commonly from all sources, stakeholders, community members, other staff members about the future of the program. We’ve heard and I’m not here advocating tonight, that’s not my role. It’s to help facilitate this discussion so that you can give us policy direction. But the three things we’ve most commonly heard is a desire to enhance or expand participation, residential composting, the implementation or adoption of a universal recycling ordinance of some kind, and better options particularly nearby for hard to recycle items in the community. So keep those in mind as we work with Through this and we can certainly circle back to discussion on those and other topics. Next slide. quick background on the program, Longmont trash was municipal alized in 1948. Up until about 1992 we were hauling waste to city on landfill cheap and easy that that closed at that time and now we hallways to the Front Range landfill. Sometime around that time I don’t know exactly when recycling began in Longmont eco cycle was instrumental in helping the community develop that I think it started with some really simple options of setting, you know, melt crates to the curb with newspapers and aluminum in it and progressed to a multi stream recycling options and carts to a single stream option in 2010. In 2017, we added a voluntary curbside composting program. And in 2017 when we adopted Pay As You throw rates are more aggressive pays you throw rates. We adopted also the first every other week trash option in that we’re aware of in Colorado. Next slide. The primary services obviously our core services which are curbside trash and recycle and then the operation of the waste diversion center. As I mentioned, the voluntary composting program. Some all CART services for large item collection, on request and dumpster rentals. Next slide please. supplemental services most of you are aware of these they range from paper shredding to some holiday recycling events are popular leaf, fall leaf and spring branch collection programs. Household Hazardous Waste, zero waste for city events. A few little ad hoc things along with these from time to time, but these are the core ones. Next slide are despite some of the concerns that it’s not easy to recycle some hard to recycle items in Longmont, we actually do have options for quite a few different things at our waste diversion center. In addition to the single stream you can drop off their cardboard, shredded paper, we also take styrofoam and plastic bags, motor oils, batteries, bulky metals, the main operation there is the tree limb reception and grinding and then we will provide mulch back to our residence at no cost. Next slide.
2:53:02
Our current rates I know most of you have seen these, you all pay these. The goal here was to have about double the cost for double the size. So you’ll see that in the rate structure. And as pointed out I think by somebody who called in earlier tonight, you can also rent an extra large or small container and and of course the optional composting. Next slide please.
2:53:36
City also charges a waste management fee. It’s 296 per month per resident. It generates about 1 million annually. That fees used for waste collection, you know for government operations and facilities. So Parks and Recreation, city facilities illegal dumping encampments along the river that we clean up downtown, trash and recycle. That’s from First Avenue up to Long’s peak, city sponsored events. We use it for outreach and education and some of our sustainability work. That’s solid waste related. One thing that I will mention here is there are restrictions legal restrictions on how this money can be used. So we can use it for you know, government properties and government programs, but we can’t use it subsidized programs that are provided by private haulers. So in other words, we couldn’t collect this money and use it to subsidize the cost of a composting program a curbside recycling or composting program. That would be a restriction on the use of that fee. Next slide please. The pays you throw rate structure was implemented in 2017. At that time, before that you paid about 50% more Double capacity, that rate is up to about 90%. More now for double capacity. Next slide, please. So the impact of that this is the distribution of the two card sizes in 2016. And prior to pay as you throw, we had about 80% participation or subscription to the 96 gallon. Next slide, please. When we met with you back in April of 2018, we showed you these metrics and that number had dropped from 970 9%, down to 65% for the 96 gallon container, and our every other week, subscription was up at 7%. At that time, also an increase in 48 gallon subscription. Next slide, please. As of September 2020, we’re at about 58% participation in the 96 gallon container, and up to 10%. In the every other week. The the goal with the Pay As You throw rates, when we set them with our consultant was about 50% subscription in the long term. In the 96 gallon, I expect in two or three years. We’ll probably be there. Next slide, please. In 2018, after about a year of the voluntary composting program, we presented to you that we had 14% participation. And next slide please.
2:56:48
Like, excellent. Huh, I
2:56:59
think we skipped over.
2:57:01
What are you
2:57:02
missing? 21%? The slide remarkably similar. So 14% in March 2018 and 21% in September 2020.
2:57:13
Yes, yes.
2:57:15
They look very close.
2:57:16
Yes, sorry. We’re up at as of September up to 21%. Next slide, please. So, municipal waste diversion. waste diversion for residential waste at the curb is about 26%. That’s a solid number. That’s still you know, in many respects, relatively low. Probably, you know, anywhere from 50 to 75%. Of what I set out at the curb can fairly easily be recycled. So it’s a good solid number, when you include include the diversion at the waste diversion center that jumps jumps up to about 35 to 40%. diversion. So solid diversion rates and they’re really very solid for Colorado, which is was mentioned earlier tonight has a relatively low rate in the US. But long bonds doing a good job, but there is a lot of room there for improvement. total waste diversion is unknown. We do have probably private hauler reporting that is improving. We don’t really know how many businesses and multi families recycle. Some certainly do. But we don’t feel that we have the data to really start advertising the number for total diversion in the city. That’s something we hope to have though moving forward into the future. Next slide, please. So let’s talk a little bit about the future of some of the programs. When rates were set, and a voluntary program started in 2017. Our consultant told us we there was a lot of debate about whether we do opt in or opt out. Our consultant told us that pretty much any approach we took eventually would converge with about 25% participation. That that was what they had seen in study sites across the US. And I think particularly they looked at some locations up in the Pacific Northwest area. We are now getting close to 22%. I noticed the numbers this month. I expect that that will continue to slow down and we’ll probably converge with about 25%. If that is going to change it will probably take and we certainly have spent time in a couple different efforts to promote it. They gave little bumps both times. So they did help and they helped with the awareness but Over time, much like we saw with our recycling program, there was a really a lower not as high return on the investment in the outreach for the program. Now, that’s not to say it’s not important, it is very important still. But what I’m saying is that other efforts will need to be taken if we expect that to increase those efforts could include charging more for trash. So more aggressive pays you throw rates. It’s also likely that if you included the fee in the subscription, much like we do with recycle, that eventually, many more residents would use it. Most people like to use things they pay for particularly when they get a card for it. So those are a couple options for how the needle could move on that program. Also, multifamily Composting is, you know, an untapped opportunity still in Longmont. I will say Longmont sanitation, our program can only serve multi families up to eight units. Most of these are larger complexes that would be served by private haulers. So some of the problems we do see out there is a lot of them don’t have good landings and facilities even for the ones we provide recycle at sometimes we have a lot of challenges getting to the to the dumpsters or the carts and and that’s something that would have to be addressed over time. Next slide, please.
3:01:31
The future of recycle. Certainly we’d like to enhance curbside diversion. We think there’s a lot more opportunity there. We spend a lot of effort on outreach education on that topic. We found really after the single stream program was launched in 2010. It was around 2015 2016, it really participation or the amounts that were recycled really tend to flatten out. So if we’re going to move the needle there, probably need to continue without reaching education, that’s certainly going to be very important. But it’s possible that we would need once again, even more aggressive pays, you throw rates to incentivize that. We don’t know that, as I mentioned earlier, the commercial levels, but that that is also an untapped potential. It’s likely that a future for solid waste and all of Colorado, you know will be common in the US, you know, in general, will become instead of the current weekly trash and every other week recycling compost, and every other week trash and weekly recycle and compost, that would be a real good measure of success in the future. There were comments tonight, and we have heard a lot from residents to provide multiple bins for recycle. We would like to address that with the next code revisions, we think there’s a way to do that there probably possibly could be a little bit of a fee for that that would be up to Council. What I do know, though, is that if we just open it up and offer a second Ben, we do have concerns those bands are expensive, and they’re expensive to maintain, we have concerns that they just get requested and use for other things are not used at all. And, you know, to equip the whole community with a nice six gallon cart is, you know, in the millions of dollars range, it’s above a million dollars, it’s very expensive. So we would have to deal with that and rates or cost recovery. Somehow. There are many ways that could be done, however. Next slide, please. Future rates and pay as you throw, we are currently funded for for the programs that that we delivered today. With some growth in the community. We were at a point now where we need to add an employee. That’s something we intend on doing the first of the year that would be just to address some of the growth in the community. We have not added employees to our solid waste program for it’s been 10 or more years, other than the employees that we added the for the composting program and the equipment we added but we’ve been very stable but we’re getting to a point now where we’re going to overwhelm our our our FTS and our equipment. If we take on new programs, we get much more growth, which I don’t really expect but I do think that if we expand programs we certainly would need to add add equipment and employees Certainly modify modifications could be made to stimulate recycling and composting and and that’s something we can talk about more we can research it your direction, the waste management fee can be changed, we that hasn’t it’s fairly low for the region, it’s charged only to residences. Certainly it could be increased. Or it could be expanded beyond just residential participation, if there was a desire to do that, and that fee, once again can be used for sustainability programs, outreach education, community programs, things that aren’t provided by private haulers or the private sector. Next slide, please. A future the waste diversion center this this one’s a little bit of a head scratcher. It’s been a great, reliable facility for a long time and it continues to provide good service to the community. It is however outdated.
3:06:06
It needs some types of updating. There are programs that we did you heard it tonight, we used to operate out of this facility and the Public Works facility out on Airport Road. Those certainly were programs that were popular, particularly when city population was a fair amount lower they were started when the city was much smaller. Unfortunately, they began to overwhelm our facilities and our resources. And now to make that next changed, if were to have more options for hard to recycle, or, you know, large items that would even go to the trash, we would really have to take a quantum step up in the facilities and the staffing to do that. We think that possibly collaboration with the county is a better option. And maybe some of the options that would be more conveniently located the Longmont we are currently you know in in discussions and some level of collaboration with the county on that they’re looking at a facility we know, in in the county that’s a little closer to Longmont that might help even just a different facility to get rid of green waste could open up some options that could allow us to expand the current facility or maybe move to another similarly sized facility and really just focus on, you know, solid items that are the green waste items. But we think that there is probably more conversation and collaboration discussion to be had there, before we start looking at updating our current site. And for that reason, we’ve held back about 1.5 million that we had earmarked for updates to that facility. Not wanting to spend the money in a way that really would not be that helpful to the community. The charm Sony boulder does offer options. It is a bit of a drive from from Longmont. It’s not horrible, but it does provide good options for hard to recycle items that’s operated by eco cycle. There are a lot of local private options, we put that in the packet. A lot of companies that provide options for many hard to recycle items. We have not advertised those on our website. It’s a little dicey when you start advertising or showing you know private companies, you know more because it can change quickly or they can come and go. But that is certainly something we could look at in the future that might be helpful to residents. Next slide please. So these are some items just so you know that we do not accept at Longmont electronics, you know large furniture and mattresses, porcelain items, fire extinguishers, books or things, you know textiles we don’t recycle. Obviously, we don’t have facilities for construction and demolition debris. And we don’t have local facilities for household, you know, chemicals or hazardous materials. We do have advanced in Longmont for those and then there is a facility in Boulder that our residents can participate in or take materials to. Next slide please. The future of outreach and education, it’s very important that we you know, maintain current levels of recycle and composting. We don’t want to lose ground there. So we do need to keep those programs rolling. You know, to at least keep that in anytime there’s a program change that might affect those programs that we we jump on that With good outreach and good education, preventing contamination, you know, and recycle bins and compost bins are important. Community messaging, you know, enhancing sustainability efforts and regional efforts are important. Improving online outreach is something we’d like to see more of in the future. The our outreach was saying rain Valley School District, you heard some comments about eco cycles greenstar program, we contribute to that. There’s certainly more you can always contribute more to any of these programs and, and efforts. And so they’re important and we intend to continue. To do that. I know eco cycle has offered and continues offer to collaborate on outreach and education, we have done that. There are certainly some opportunities for that moving into the future as well. Next slide, please.
3:10:58
So other other means to increase waste diversion, these kind of circle back to some of the comments you heard from the community tonight. The Universal recycling ordinance could certainly target. You know, in addition to residential, commercial, multifamily, and construction, demolition types of wastes. Plastic Bag ordinance is always something that could be considered, I think the future will probably look more at producer responsibilities to recycle products, that’s probably, you know, more regional and state efforts to do things like that. But as I mentioned, in the white paper, waste reduction is going to be also part of the the equation, it can’t just be recycling, we need to find ways to generate less waste, and to reduce the production of virgin products that you know, cause a lot of you know, that fuel a lot of oil production or mining industries. Not that we have anything against any of those industries. It’s that the environmental impacts that we all recognize that we need to at some level contain. So there are some opportunities here and and certainly some good local ones that we could consider and like to discuss tonight. Next slide, please.
3:12:20
Excuse me. But yeah,
3:12:23
I’d like to move that we extend the meeting past 11 o’clock.
3:12:26
Second.
3:12:28
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, motion passes unanimously.
3:12:37
So I’m really at the point of discussion now. And my last last comments to you are that you know, that this would be a kind of a roadmap for what what could occur. Depending on what you’d like to direct us to do. If you do, it would probably begin with a look at our municipal code and, and certainly, how that could change to do things that might stimulate additional waste diversion in the community, once again, not advocating, but that those are options that you have. And I think that taking that to the next level will probably require some code revisions, that could include, you know, a universal recycling ordinance. Other things that might drive that, if, for example, council were to direct us to study the possibilities of that type of an ordinance, we do that once we got beyond that stage, that would then trigger a lot of actions that would have to be phased in, for example, if, if the city ever adopted something like a universal recycling ordinance, that then would require us to provide composting to all residents. And that would take us some phase and time to do that. Obviously, businesses, multi families, all these other entities out there would be in the same position of needing some phase and considerations to be able to, you know, enrich the, the goals overall. So this is how I would see something occurring as we probably start with the look at the code, then move through what actions that would trigger and planning and analysis. You know, if that would have any rate impacts at all, and then obviously, the implementation phase would be something that would be phased in. With regards to the hard recycle items, there are certainly different options or different discussions we can have. I do think that we’re in a good position right now with our discussions with the county and I’d really like to continue with those as we go Talk about where we move in the future, or possibly before we start expanding our current facilities, but you know, those are options for your consideration. Next slide, please. So here we are.
3:15:33
Let’s start with like Hollywood Squares. Let’s go, Councilmember, toggle fairing.
3:15:40
So, um, I have a question about the Eco cycle partnership, because at one time, the city worked a lot with eco cycle and not so much anymore.
3:15:53
Um,
3:15:54
I don’t know what so can you give you a little bit of history and context with that?
3:15:59
Sure. Mayor and members of city council, yes, the city actually continues to work with eco cycle, they’re a service provider to us.
3:16:09
Mm hmm.
3:16:10
A haul much of our recycling material from the waste diversion center. I’ve worked with them even in the composting program on our outreach and education, we did also work with a another private entity in that that was the first time that we had neither produced the materials ourselves or worked with eco cycle and producing was mixed results, but but it did, it was a good exploration for us and a good learning experience to see also the impacts of working, you know, with a marketing firm on trying to really bump that composting program, but I think we have a good relationship with eco cycle and continue to work with them.
3:16:52
Okay, good. Um, so in the future are you are is the city planning on, you know, kind of building that, that, that partnership, so they they are playing a, a stronger role, especially as we look to recycling, you know, more recycling and composting. And as ours community outreach as well,
3:17:16
mayor and council we, we certainly will keep in mind, they are a service provider, they’re, they’re not an organization that we can, you know, enter into an IGA with. So as we look at ways that we also have to work competitively through our purchasing code, or procurement codes, we serve a lot of options, but there are some, certainly some restrictions on is just opening it up to partnering, if it is a fee based partnership,
3:17:47
okay. And then as far as So, and the reason why I’m kind of pinpointing eco cycle, is the school I teach at is a green star school. And we’ve worked really closely with eco cycle, they’ve come in and pre done presentations, and just work with the students in getting them to understand, you know, the whole component of composting, where even we have our little kinders, you know, our little ones who are separating out, you know, the what goes in compost, what goes in recycling, what goes in trash, and
3:18:19
they,
3:18:20
you know, they they had a system going. So, you know, I think that there’s a lot of value in tapping into their expertise with community outreach and education. So, you know, I want to make sure that, that I mean, I think for me, there might be others, you know, that you would know more than me, but I kind of honed in on eco cycle, because, you know, just my own experience with them as an educator and St. Brain.
3:18:48
Marin Council, yes, they do an excellent job with that program and other programs, and we do provide funding for that program. Certainly, I don’t can’t think of any reason why we won’t continue doing that. Okay.
3:19:02
And, you know, I guess I’ll let everybody you know, I wanted to kind of look, I wanted to offer my input as far as directing staff, but I guess I’ll let other people chime in.
3:19:14
First,
3:19:15
let’s go with calcium repec.
3:19:18
Thank you, we are badly about there are a couple of things that you mentioned that are a little bit troublesome to me and one of them was the hard to recycle items that we did twice a years that correct. And we stopped it because we had too many participants. Um, it seems like if we start getting more people then we should think about enlarging our, our project rather than stopping it. I mean, we want people to participate. So sending everybody to Boulder. I’m not sure that’s the way Loma should go. We should either I would like you, and staff to work to enlarge that somehow and not stop a program that’s working. Um, and also, when we’re talking about you know, it was just mentioned in our last conversation about the annexation, that developers are building horizontal now as we look at more dense urbanization. So having these multifamily buildings residences go up, we need to look at a vision as to how are we going to actually make them recept available to recycle and compost, rather than? not I? In other words, I think that we should be thinking more of the future, and how to continue our programs and just say, this is getting too big or too bulky for us. We’re just going to quit doing it doesn’t I don’t know, that just doesn’t sound right to me at all. The other thing is that when you’re talking about smaller bins for composting, can we not just take some of those Pay As You throw bins, I mean, I know we’d have to purchase more. But put green lids on those of the smaller bins, the 48. Container ones. Those are just some of my suggestions, I actually would like universal composting. And I would like universal recycling. And I know it’s not something we’re going to be able to do tomorrow or whatever. But let’s look at our budget and what it’s going to cost and work toward that sooner than later.
3:21:48
Those of my
3:21:49
parents in Council, I would like to take a moment and address some of Councilmember pecks comments about hard to recycle. We understand. And we’ve heard that numerous times. Let me also describe how that program was once run that we have, you know, 22 employees who are in the operations group who actually do all the collection in the program. And those employees came in on the weekends to do that. And they were actually loading materials from cars, and then loading them off onto a site really wasn’t large enough to receive those items without them being removed quickly. So that was how we kept our rates low. And dealt with the problems we have with building a facility that would require the equipment and the staffing that would not allow us cost recovery beyond Longmont residence. That’s where it becomes really a challenge for us and why regional solutions are without a doubt better. However, we are more than happy to investigate what it would take to do that. But it just would have to be done safely. And with the correct equipment, we couldn’t go back to doing what we did before, which is having In fact, if you go to the charm facility today, you would see that you don’t get any real help on loading, you have to do that yourself. And you dispose of your material. And that’s not how it worked in long. But we run loading mattresses and furniture and doing, you know a lot of large items. And it really wasn’t healthy for our workers to be doing that. So it would take a complete rethinking of that facility, and I daresay considerable expense to do that that would have to be returned back in the form of rates. But it’s certainly something we could look at.
3:23:48
I’m continuing on that subject is not correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t eco cycle help run that
3:23:57
program? They did.
3:24:02
And is there a reason why we can’t continue that with eco cycle?
3:24:07
I that I don’t know. I don’t know that they have the equipment or the employees themselves to do you know the unloading of equipment as we once did. It does take traffic control to do it at the sites we have now. So we’d have to deal with transportation differently. But yes, they did help with those programs.
3:24:27
So would it would be worth checking in with them again, to see how we can perhaps use several sites, different sites different days, more than twice a year to make it more palatable. So that would be my direction is to let’s see how we can continue or read reengage with eco cycle or perhaps another recycling company to do that.
3:25:00
All right, let’s go with the customer Martin.
3:25:05
Yeah, thank you, Mayor Bagley. Bob is is there a cost associated with a cost to the city associated with the wrong stuff being in the wrong bin? b? And let me answer that first. And then I’ll tell you where I’m going.
3:25:27
mayor and council, I’m going to turn that question over to Charlie Kemeny.
3:25:32
Thank you. Thank you, Bob, and Mayor Bagley and Councilmember Martin. That’s a real good question. And I think ultimately, there is a cost to it. In the sense of where we currently take our I assume you’re talking about recycling materials, but even our compost, when those merps, or those processing facilities have a lot more contamination to deal with the value of the product or the cost of us managing it goes up. So having better cleaner materials are better for the processing and the cleaning and all of that. We’re fortunate to work with Boulder County with our murfin in the outreach and education that we have out there is is is good. And the you know, typical contamination overall at Boulder County is within some standards. But go ahead. Yeah,
3:26:26
I have a singular problem that may be unique to my block. Maybe it’s unique to my house, but I kind of suspect to not, which is the passers by have a tendency to dump their trash in in bins that are on the curb. And when they do that, they don’t usually pick the right bin. They just do it in you know, whatever, whatever one is closest to them or whatever. And I am wondering, you know, people don’t people are really good at not tampering with your mailbox. And we have a lot more families now that have installed ring cameras and things like that that might make this particular sort of vandalism detectable and reportable. So could you give me your opinion on what an ordinance that makes it a an infraction of some sort appropriate infraction a code violation to put your trash in somebody else’s bin while it’s sitting on the curb?
3:27:47
Mayor
3:27:47
council?
3:27:48
That’s a good question.
3:27:49
I would have researched that. Yes. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen that ordinance. So maybe here.
3:27:55
Well, that ordinance doesn’t exist now. But I’d I would sure like to have you consider it because it’s, it’s an annoyance to me to you know, when I’m bringing my bins back to have to inspect them to see if there’s something that doesn’t belong there. And as Charlie said, I think it probably cost the city money by reducing the quality of, of the recycling streams in particular. So yeah, that’s, that’s my input.
3:28:33
As far Christiansen
3:28:41
Thank you, Bob. I think this is a really great presentation. I can’t believe how excited I am about solid waste. But, um, so there’s a, I have a lot of things to discuss there are, there’s a little bit of a discrepancy between what the S SRL group thinks is universal composting. And what you think is universal composting and I’m going to go maybe with you, but um, so I, I would, I would like to see all those things happen. I would like to see a scope from I wouldn’t like to see any mandates. Exactly. I would like to see us go from an opt out to an opt in system for composting. I think that would give us some added stuff. We when we had the you know, I’m the person who brought the composting forth in 2000, early 2000.
3:29:43
Did you mean switch it from everyone’s going like this. Did you mean you want to go from an opt in to an opt out?
3:29:51
Yes, you’re right. I’m tired. I know when we had this consultant come and she did a very good job of an hour analyzing different things, I was very disappointed to hear that she said that the top amount we could get probably was going to sift out to 25%. And that no matter what we did, that’s what we would have, and that we would have better. people taking it if better taking if we did an opt in. But you know, the way you gain efficiency is to have more people in. And so I really do think that these programs need to have sort of proof of concept. We’ve got proof of concept for a couple years. But I really think if we had an opt out with a lot of education, we could get more people in. And I do think that would be a very good idea to see, I know Charlie communities has been working on trying to get commercial, you know, apartment buildings involved in this because that would if we can get commercial a commercial requirement that everybody needs to at least recycle. That would be huge. Because that as you say, That’s 50% of the waste that we have. And if we could get apartments, even if they’re just the smaller ones, like eight, that would be a huge amount of stuff, I think to to add to this. But as you say, it’s a balance between having the staff and the equipment to do this, and not wanting to raise the rates too much. But if we involved more commercial stuff in it, then that would help pay for it. That’s what my feeling is. And then the third thing is, of course, well, what Randy Mormon who’s from eco cycle suggested is requiring contractors to pay a fee for waste. I think that’s very interesting. I’ve been trying to get rid of household waste from various projects, you know that you can’t get rid of wood, that’s little chunks and stuff, you have to throw it out. This is ridiculous. And if we could resolve the problem of contractor waste, and home waste of various people’s various little crazy remodeling projects, like mine, just fixing up repair jobs. That would be a huge thing. Right now you just have to throw out small scraps of wood, half sheets of plywood, nobody wants this stuff, because it’s it’s difficult to make use of. But it is a huge amount of waste in this town. I also am very glad that you’re doing stuff with the school system. I think that I am very big on shaming and nagging because it’s the only way to get things done. Sometimes I’m a mother. So you know, if you if you’ve got little kids nagging you to do you know, nagging, which is what I did to my parents nagging them to fix up things that were fire traps, nagging them to not throw stuff out this wasteful, nagging.
3:33:45
It works works on adults, and the future is kids who get this. So understand this. The other thing is that I really think we need to do a massive education program on why really, we’re recycling and composting. It’s not to feel good about ourselves. It’s because we have, we really have a climate emergency and there’s only so much you can do with not having more emissions. It’s good if we, if we can cut emissions, that’ll be great. But we still have the problem of so much carbon dioxide that we’re heating everything up. And the only way to turn that around is what’s called drawdown. You have to do carbon sequestration. Compost Composting is how you do that and better land use. The more land we cover up with buildings, the less carbon sequestration we have. We’re never going to get on top of anything unless we do some draw down. And that has to do with regenerative agricultural and the circular economy and carbon sequestration and recycling things and composting things are the core of that. So I would like us to really think about educating people I, for instance, my neighbor, who’s a nice guy throws out a lot of bottles. that’s mostly what is in his recycling bin. But I okay, I went out the other night at two in the morning, which is when I usually recycle stuff, I’m in my alley, and I opened the wrong band, I open his bin, and his recycling bin is full of leaves. This guy is intelligent. He doesn’t seem to grasp that you cannot recycle leaves. They belong in the compost. He doesn’t have a compost bin, I’ve told him he could put it in my compost bin. Anyway, so we need to educate the adults as well as the children about why this is important. And Firstly, and secondly, what they can and cannot compost and how to keep it from being and what they can recycle. Don’t put your yogurt containers in there without rinsing them. Don’t put your beer bottles in there without rinsing. Don’t put wet stuff in there with your paper because it contaminates everything. I don’t think most people understand how much is wasted in recycling by
3:36:22
by
3:36:24
contamination. Anyway, I’ll shut up. But I do think I I certainly support the three things that you were talking about with the universal recycling or universal universal composting and recycling.
3:36:43
Thanks, Bob.
3:36:46
We are protel.
3:36:49
Thank you very badly, I have a lot of thoughts on this. But I would like to boil it down real quick to this one item in the sense that this concept is very large. And we’re discussing a lot of things without being making any sort of decisions. And I think there’s way too many items here for us to start willy nilly making motions at 11:20pm. So I really would like kind of more of a concrete list from staff that we can go down one by one and make adjustment motions or year yea or nay votes on. Because this is just a circular conversation this point, because I absolutely 100% agree that these are things that we need to move forward, how we get there, and what’s most easily attainable, as well as what’s the furthest from being attainable. I mean, we need some of those we need. We need money numbers as far as the costs for these things as far as rates are concerned, if we get through with things. So I would really like maybe some of these things boiled down to Universal composting for our residents that we can currently service based off state law. So how we, you know, for those people that are currently serviced by the city of Longmont versus private haulers, then we can and separately look at commercial and multifamily as well. I think lumping all these into one thing tonight, after 11 o’clock, we’re not going to probably be able to come to any sort of consensus or decision at this point because there’s just too many details to suss through. For instance, one of mine being is phasing and implementation and economic costs. Because we know that we’re in a precarious position for both residents and businesses right now economically and start issuing mandates at 11:20pm. For way services, I don’t think is wise. So I would like staff to come. I think I would make I would like to make a motion that staff bring back in appropriate pieces, actionable items, because I think everyone on City Council, and we’ll find out if there’s a second or or a vote. But I think city council is interested in moving forward with these items. But right now, I just don’t think we’re going to get anywhere by just discussing our our wants versus our needs and what we’re able to service. I’ll second that.
3:39:22
We just take it as a friendly amendment.
3:39:25
Absolutely.
3:39:25
Well, I would I would ask you suggest, I would like to list going from lowest hanging fruit to hardest, along with the specific costs, in terms of budget money in rate increases, and then we can discuss what things we should attack and do because in a perfect world we do it all but can we afford it? Can we pass on the cost to and again, the problem I’m always faced with is Councilmember Peck once said we’re doing the people’s work will stay as long as possible. I’m willing. My brain however, is not capable. Yeah, so at this point, I’d probably vote for anything and not understand what I was voting for. But would you accept that amendment?
3:40:07
Yes, thank you very badly. It’s a big pie, we need to take it piece by piece.
3:40:11
I except there’s a motion on the floor cast member, toggle fairy,
3:40:15
um, something I, you know, I want to bring up to it the level of urgency as well. You know, this has been on the docket since pre COVID. And it keeps kind of getting pushed down the line. So when it comes back to, you know, counsel, I want I would like to see it come back in a, in a quick return, because I mean, I’m ready to like, let’s, we got to write an ordinance on universal composting. And,
3:40:41
you know, let’s
3:40:42
get this, let’s get this movie, if we’re really serious about zero waste, and, you know, and taking care of our environment, so no, I will, I will support this. But if we can kind of, you know,
3:40:56
and make this a little more pressing. And I would agree with you, I would agree with you. And I know that the P i know that SRL. And many of our our allies and people we respect to the community, I think we’ve been waiting since March was what was said by my Sheree. My only concern, I would agree and echo and Harold, I would ask that we put it on the agenda as soon as possible with the understanding that we’re in a pandemic, and we understand you guys are exhausted. And we give you guys things all the time to do and it’s hard and all that stuff. So you know, so put it on immediately, but with a grain of salt that says, Do what you got to do with the other things that you’re doing to keep us safe. Councillor pack? Um,
3:41:42
I would like to actually make that a little tighter. And then Dale, is there possible to bring something back to us in January. You’re muted.
3:41:58
Councilmember Peck and Mayor Bagley, just a couple thoughts, we can bring it back it really as quickly as we can move through some of these things. And if we come back with smaller slices of the pie, we can bring back things sooner, you know, we can make our first cut at what we believe listening to what the mayor’s emotion was, you know, the lower hanging fruit, we can do some of that. I would recommend, though, that we do some level of analysis so that when we return to you, it’s not just this blank slate. In other words, there’s a sense of the economic side of it, there’s a sense of the gain and the benefit, the environmental benefit of what we’re trying to achieve. That does take some work and analysis to do that well, so that we’re providing you with solid information. I see Becky chimed in, she’s probably going to be doing a lot of this data analysis for us. But I know we can we got the talent to do the work, whether we have enough horses to get everything done as quickly as we can is probably another another question. But again, if we come back with a smaller slice of the thing, I think we can do it. But
3:43:13
guess what I would like to avoid is that in March, it’ll be a year that we extend this out to where?
3:43:21
Agreed?
3:43:22
Yeah, so if we could get something hopefully by that year date or before that would be great. And and I agree with you, Dale, the smaller slices of pie in in mere bags. That’s a good idea. So thank you.
3:43:37
And my only what what literally is what’s going through my head is is rather than give a deadline, my fear is that we’re going to be dealing at Christmas time with pandemic that we are we are we are going we’re going to be it’s going to be bad. And so my fear is that we start focusing on things that I’d like to see us get through the first year. Not because I’m pushing this off, but I have a feeling that staff is going to be really busy in about 14 days. So I saw some hands up, Bob, you want to say something?
3:44:13
Yeah, Marin council I, I want to echo what Dale said, and maybe make this a little easier. We haven’t done a comprehensive review or started this type of discussion for quite a few years. We talked last about composting and pays you throw rates but I would suggest that rather than trying to just bite and get the whole universe of voice services figured out that we start with the few things that are going to have the greatest impact. Those are going to be things that we do at the curbside and the possibility of expanding recycling to beyond just residences in the community. I probably looking at different alternatives for a universal recycling ordinance. I those are going to be that is by far going to be the single biggest thing of everything and those lists that we could do. And if you had us focus on spending some time looking at alternatives for how that could be written, then the analysis comes along with that. And we can continue to come back year after year instead of waiting so many years, and bring other pieces into the program. But without a doubt, there are going to be two or three really large things that we can do, I think, more with education outreach, universal recycling ordinance, exploring these hard to recycle options that are more convenient for the community, those three by far will be the big three.
3:45:43
So it’s your motion, but it kind of sounds like he already jumped ahead and gave us the answer, which is, let’s start with these
3:45:51
things. And
3:45:52
sure, and as he also mentioned, that curbside is a big thing. I think that talking about either universal or opt out composting becomes easily in that conversation as well, because it is a curbside controllable issue for the city. One way or another as far as that’s concerned. My concern? Yes, is now with the timing of it. But I would rather see good work done than hasty work. So
3:46:24
what’s going to restate your motion for us? And
3:46:28
so I believe my motion was for city staff to bring back the larger conversation in pieces that are actionable.
3:46:38
I will I will second that. So do we have any I know that you want to say something, Susie, but can you wait till after the motion is I have to do with the motion?
3:46:46
Can I can I just say that? I think I jumped the gun a little bit. And I believe that Councilmember doggo, fairing was going to make a motion. And I just happened to get called on first. Okay,
3:46:57
Susie,
3:46:58
don’t you want to say, Oh, well, you
3:46:59
know what, so
3:47:00
some of the things that I was listing listing in what people were calling for, are part of that larger, so it could be maybe pushed down to for gift staff time to get a deeper analysis on it. But something that it sounds like, you know, it could be that low hanging fruit piece is putting together an ordinance for universal curbside composting collection, and recycling. So I’ve been I like that idea of universal, let’s take a more aggressive approach than just even that opt out. option. It’s kind of like this is all part of the system. In all, you know, I’ll defer to Bob, if you feel like this is something that is doable. At this time, I would like to make a motion to get an ordinance drafted, at least on that piece. And then have, you know, with deeper analysis on some of those, those other larger components like the recycling, and in multifamily units, and, and all that
3:48:04
well, and I think mayor and council that would all start to feed into that concept of a universal orden. That ordinance, what that would allow us to do is deal with the concept of what we want to achieve, and then start looking at the economic impacts of that. But that would be if you want staff to do its best work, that would be a really good focus area to start with. But that’s not to say we didn’t hear a lot of other things tonight that we are working on many that are a little bit below this radar of necessarily needing direction right away to do things. There, and we are working a lot of those, but that would be one that we could really and and there are many different ways to do that ordinance. So we would i would envision would be bringing back options of what it could look like or alternatives and then getting more direction and dialogue. And using that as kind of the center focal point for where we go. If you decided not to adopt an ordinance of that nature, you’re still going to have the right conversations about what you want from recycling and commercial, multifamily, and expanding the residential if that’s what you want to do. So even if you didn’t adopt that would not be wasted time.
3:49:20
Okay. And also adding a piece in there where we have those Zero Waste practices for city sponsored events for when we permit, give permits for use of public spaces to have those those things so it’s kind of embedded in our everyday behaviors.
3:49:36
So it’s all kind of put out. So right now I’m just going to I’m going to point out we have consensus that in an ideal world, Longmont Would everyone would compost we all have residential cycling, recycling. We don’t have commercial recycling and we would be a zero waste city. The motion on the floor is for city staff to bring back some low hanging fruit, some easy Right now targets that, that they’re going to put it in terms of dollars. So they can start immediately. And then bring us back pieces as soon as they can, in order to push us towards that goal. Is anyone against what I just said? Let’s go ahead and vote on the motion. And then get started on on making our city cleaner and, and and closer to zero waste.
3:50:24
All right, so
3:50:25
all in favor of the motion say aye.
3:50:27
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
3:50:30
All right, the Motion carries unanimously,
3:50:33
Bob,
3:50:34
find some low hanging really good, impactful stuff. Bring it back with some costs. Let’s
3:50:38
get going.
3:50:39
All right. All right.
3:50:41
Okay,
3:50:42
let’s move on to I move that we recess the Walmart city council and convene. Is the Board of Commissioners the Longmont housing authority?
3:50:50
Oh, no, no, that
3:50:50
got moved to the fifth to
3:50:52
Oh, get it. So that’s it, then that’s it for general business. Don’t you’re telling me?
3:50:57
Yes. Hey. All right. Let’s
3:51:00
move on. Then. Let’s
3:51:01
take a three minute break and move on to final call public invited to be heard.
3:51:07
That is correct, Mayor,
3:51:09
Bob, just guessing midnight, say something.
3:51:13
All right.
3:51:13
So let’s go ahead and close the file call public invite to be heard. And let’s move on to mayor and council comments who would like to say some really brilliant things.
3:51:24
Marsha,
3:51:25
Marsha always wants to say brilliant things. Marshall back. Yes,
3:51:29
she’s my Never mind. I couldn’t, I couldn’t become visible for a minute
3:51:37
there. That’s
3:51:39
just like to read into the record for people who are watching the next day that today was Giving Tuesday. And usually, I’m um, you know, you’ve got in your email, and you know, on your Facebook page, and all that stuff, some messages about Giving Tuesday that you didn’t quite get to. And I just want to tell everybody that they’re willing to take your money tomorrow. So if you miss Giving Tuesday, don’t miss Giving Tuesday. All right,
3:52:13
I and I just want to I just want to say that we all joke that 2020 has been a hell of a year. And I just keep interacting with clients and friends and colleagues and the the level of anxiety continues to be just off the charts. And everything’s gonna be fine. So I doubt anybody’s watching. They’re probably all asleep, but life’s good. We’ll be fine. We’ll figure it out. Alright, so let’s go ahead. Harold, do you got anything to say?
3:52:43
comments, Mayor council? Eugene,
3:52:47
no comments from here, Mayor.
3:52:50
All right. We have a motion to adjourn. Please.
3:52:52
move to adjourn.
3:52:54
I’ll second that, john. All right. All in favor say aye.
3:52:57
Aye. Aye. Opposed nay?
3:53:00
Night. All right. Motion carries unanimously. Good night guys. Talk to you later.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai