Longmont City Council Meeting Regular Session – January 5, 2021

Video Description:
Longmont City Council Meeting Regular Session – January 5, 2021

Note: The transcript for this meeting is split in 2 parts due to the length of the meeting.

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:

Part 1.

URL: https://otter.ai/u/0OOUC4e-mNDi1mJ7dcumIu-xhYA

We’ll call the January 5 20 or 2021. La city council regular session to order. Can you start with the roll call, please? mayor’s here.

mayor’s here. Councilmember Christiansen here. Councilmember Duggal fairing,


Councilmember Martin.


Councilmember Peck.


Councilmember Rodriguez here. Councilmember waters. Your mayor. You have a quorum. Right.

All right.

Let’s go ahead and say the pledge. Paula, do you want to start the pledge for us kick off the year with

a good one? Sure.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of

America, America.


indivisible, with liberty, liberty



For all. Thanks, Paulie.

Alright, quick

reminder, the public anyone wishing to provide public comment during the first call public invited to be heard, must watch the livestream of the meeting, in order to, in order to gain access colors are not able to access the meeting at any other time. So we’ll go ahead and throw this up when it’s time. And you can go ahead and call in and then you’ll be notified by the last three or four numbers of your phone numbers. So just pay attention on the live stream. All right. Can I have a motion to approve December 15 2020? regular session minutes, please. So moved.

Some of

all right. It’s been moved by Councilmember waters seconded by Councilmember Christiansen, any debate on this topic, guys. All right, all in favor, say aye.


Opposed say nay. All right,

let’s go ahead. And we’re gonna actually we’re gonna go ahead and mix it up a little bit. First of all, any agenda revisions or submission of documents or motions to direct the city manager? Let’s go with Councilmember Iago fairy. This is the first one of the year don’t blow it, Susie. Okay.

Well, I actually I, I, I have one question. And one, something I want to bring to a future agenda. I’d like to see an update on the work that Karen Rooney and Community Services has been doing in connection with Boulder County around RV services, or just any kind of RV lot. What have they discovered? Um, you know, I’d like to see some kind of I was I guess I was hoping we’d have something before the ordinance came into effect. And it’s come into effect, and I haven’t seen any progress on what we can do to for the RVs that are parked in the streets that have no place to go.

Right. My understanding, did we table this? I thought we passed it and it goes into effect on the first Yes. Right. So so we can we can have, you know, we can have staff bring something back that kind of lets us know what’s going on. What’s the result and that kind of stuff, but it’s been voted on. But it’s already in effect.

Yeah. Bring something just an update as we get more rather than later. And help these folks out.

There’s no more second than you say there’s no motion, but I’ll go ahead and put it on the agenda. But it’s been seconded. So let’s vote on it has been moved that we actually have an update on this. Harold on RB ordinance and how it’s impacting the city specifically where the RV is going. So it was moved, moved by Councilmember Lago fairing and seconded by Councilmember Christiansen any other debate on this, anybody might have come back. Councillor Peck?

Thank you. Um, no, I’m gonna vote for because we do need an update. But I think part of what I’m understanding from Councilwoman Hidalgo firing is are you referring to say flots people who want housing here, okay. Not that how do we house them, but really looking at the solutions aspect of this what we were trying to pass, you know, the ordinance with getting Arby’s off the street. Now let’s start looking getting on getting an update on the solutions for these folks. Thank you. Yep.

Alright, so you want to put the, why don’t you go ahead and make make the motion again, Susie?

So I moved to direct staff to provide us an update on safe lots. And I just, we’re at just an update on how the RV solution is progressing.


All right, so the motion is to have an update on place by city staff on the safe lots program. Uh huh. How the RV ordinance is progressing.

Not necessarily the ordinance, but where do these work and where these folks go,

okay. I’m just, I’m not trying but I’m just trying to restate the motion. I’m not making a motion. I’m just trying All right, so we just need to direct. Harold, you got it. All right. Okay.

Does everybody want to vote on this? Or Harold says he’s got it. And as the mayor, I’ve been going on the agenda. Anybody else? Do we mind just a consensus? Harold says he’s got it. I’ll bring it back.

I feel consensus.

Okay, good. We’re gonna go ahead and just Terrell, can you be on

Tuesday? We’ll add it real quick, because we have that.

Perfect. Good job, Susie. What else? Oh, sorry. councilmembers. I’m afraid what else?

You know, I just had a quick earlier I had made the motion to I wanted an update on what what was happening on North Main Street. As far as in the progress with the comp plan and everything that they had planned for the North Main Street corridor. I just wanted to know when was that planning to come back to us

for an update, when as well

as mayor Begley, members of council, Jodie Marsh, assistant city manager. So we did have an information item about the North Main Street plan in your packet about a month ago, to give

you all an update as to where some of those items were. And we were hoping that if you saw some specific items, you would we could have a conversation with you and then bring that back. We currently don’t have anything scheduled. But we’ll be happy to take a look at them.

Yeah, I just wanted to see what was scheduled as far as

nothing at this time. But I can I can work on

going. So can you go ahead and put that on a future agenda here within the next? No, can you bring it back within the next 45 days old?

Yeah. And I think what would be good is on the information item. And folks can look at that. And that way we can see what is a particular interest, so we can focus on that, too. Okay, that would be great.

Thank you. So I think that was a polite way of saying we have a lot of the information. So read what we got and then come back with questions. Okay. Anything else council members offering? That is it. Thank


All right. Councillor Martin.

Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I’m the Colorado mountain pack is a 501 c three nonprofit that focuses on sustainability regarding the rocky mountain area, and they have prepared a letter which I sent to everybody or had donson to everybody this afternoon. And it’s a letter to the Biden transition team, asking that he emphasize a lot of things that are in our policy such as the protection of public lands, the control of emissions from the extraction industry, I’m seeing nods sounds like everybody’s seeing it. So I would like to move that Longmont sign this letter as a city to the Biden transition team.

All right. the only the only thing is we can put it on a future agenda. But we don’t we only this is a time only to direct staff to do things so we can have it come back. But we can’t take action on anything right now. So we can Harold when when is this letter? Do you know? Marsha when that?

Yeah, they want it? They want it by the 13th. So I did not realize that I could not just put a motion make a motion here.

Can we put it on for next next meeting, Harold?

Yeah, that means the packet will go on. I mean, packets gonna go a little late, but that’s fine.

That Okay, Marsha, we can vote on Yeah. and sign it.

Yes. Okay.

We’ll get that done. Okay. Councilmember pack? I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, Counselor pack.


Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I would like to make a motion to have an update on the Early Childhood Education Coalition. I’ve been attending some of those meetings, and they are doing an incredible job. And I’m very, very impressed with it. Council. Councilman waters also has been at those meetings. But what I’m finding is that there after COVID, there seems to be a move forward on what they where they want to go and their vision etc. And since this is part of our work plan, I think that council should have an update on it. It looks like though from from the from what I’ve read that it’s going to take maybe a couple of months or more for them to get the information together from a survey they’re putting out as well as some of the documentation. So I would like to make a motion that when the Early Childhood Education Coalition has finished with the survey and completed their agenda on where they want to go that we have a presentation in an update. Make sure that it goes with our work plan.


All right, Councillor waters. Thanks very badly for whatever it’s worth and do all the things that I want to recognize there was a motion to place early childhood education, progress, Kazmir package, made that motion to have that brought back in the form of a status report was seconded by Councilmember Christiansen. Okay. Sorry, Dr. Waters. So specifically relationship to the motion

parallel to what’s going on with the coalition. led EP has as one of their priority areas, talent recruitment, with childcare as being one of the areas

in which to develop a plan to help with talent recruitment. And so I in response to the LDP, and in trying to move the dial for early childhood coalition, I’ve put together a draft plan. I’ve had some input from members of the coalition, it’s going to be presented to the coalition next Monday. And it isn’t all that the coalition’s doing. But if the coalition gives it a thumbs up, it would be a set of a couple of goals with a set of objectives with some empty cells that have to be filled in with strategies and activities. But it would be at least would be a mark for what what the work might look like in 2021. And if that would be helpful, I’d be delighted to share that, as part of that update, if anybody is interested in

that would be great. And I was curious as the as to the role of lldp. So thank you very much. I do think council needs to hear that.

I’ll talk more about way back in Mayor Bagley. I’ll talk more about this when we get into the into the both on Monday. And when we get into this with the council. The intent with the formatting would be not only to serve the coalition and lldp but this by to create a platform from which are off of which we can develop proposals for external funding. There’s a fair amount of foundation money that’s being made available to support childcare and early childhood initiatives somewhat through the sorts of center impact Center at the University of Utah. And I there is a keen interest I know in the part of of several who involved with the coalition if we get firm this plan up, put it so it it’s synchronous it’s it’s synchronous with Bulwark county early childhood Council of Boulder County, in advance has led PS interest to kind of get behind going after some external funding to support what we are doing as a council and what what how others are investing in childcare in in Longmont and in Boulder County.

Councilmember Christiansen

actually Aaron was


I didn’t see Aaron. Yeah. All right, miracle, Tim.

Thank you very badly. And thank you, Councilmember Christiansen for acknowledging because it actually is not necessarily a point of order. But to go back slightly to Councilmember Martin. motion, I believe, which I don’t think God second. I would have seconded it. Mayor, are you actually just going to put this on the agenda without a vote? Just for clarification, because I did not catch that. And if so that’s fine. But I’d be happy to have it to seconded as well as have a vote on Councilmember Martens.

What was the what was the what

has been marked for the council to sign on to this letter that has a number of issues which a good portion of them I think are directly related to Longmont? some not so much necessarily.

Right. And so what are you saying Councilmember Rodriguez,

that nobody seconded a motion? And I was just asking for clarification. If you’re putting this on the future agenda to have assignment to it’s coming on Tuesday? via the mayor’s prerogative. That’s my question. Well, yeah, it’s coming on Tuesday, because we didn’t vote on anything.

We know the motion was to actually take the vote. The motion was out of order, because we can’t vote on something only to direct staff. That’s the point of

that. Absolutely. We just didn’t have a second or a vote on that.

Right. And then, and then I took that I and then I just told Harold, let’s put it on the agenda when he says back on Tuesday.

I just wanted to clarify that that was specifically the mayor’s prerogative issue. Yeah,

it is. It will be on the agenda on Tuesday, unless Harold screws up.

Or somebody or

what’s going on on Tuesday. You know, I literally, I personally, I mean, anybody want to give me a call and put something on the agenda? Let’s just do it. I don’t it’s not that big of a deal. No worries. I

was just trying to clarify what just happened there.

That’s it. Nope. Tuesday. We’re gonna vote on it. Okay. All right. Who else wants to say something? Councilmember Christiansen

NLC. The National League of Cities also has a lot of early childhood initiatives. And they have funding available too. So we should definitely look at to getting funding from the National League of Cities for early childhood education and all kinds of education. Thanks.

Alright, the Anything else? Okay, so Carol, you’ve made a list on all those things get put on agendas.

Um, can we just have a vote on my motion?

What was it? What was your motion?

It was to put the Early Childhood Education Coalition presentation on a future agenda once they have their

Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously is going on future agenda. All right. Thanks, Joe. Oh, sorry. Counselor Peck. Thank you. All right. Um I just like you guys first name basis. I’m sorry. All right, the let’s go on now to let’s take it a little bit out of order and do a proclamation recognizing January 5 2021. Is Nino Gallo day, or Nino guy Eau de in Longmont Colorado. Does it mean or does Nino right you know Don you’re supposed to me heads up if that was correct.

guide you

are neat Nino okay Nino, Nino,


Nino Gallo is how we’re pronouncing that is alright, just making sure all right. So I’m going to read this both in Spanish and in English at the request of people asking that I that I issued a proclamation. So let’s go ahead and do we’re going to do English first and then we’ll do Spanish or did I did I say it the other way around?

Mary I think we have the Spanish ready for Oh, Susan switched whichever you like to do.

Let’s let’s do English first so we know what I’m reading. All right. So it says proclamation recognizing January 5 2021. As Nino Gallo day in Longmont, Colorado, whereas Nino Gallo sir Longmont the Boulder County community for 25 years will be remembered for making those who crossed his path feel welcomed, included and cared for and for his work with community programs, agencies and local governments serving people with low incomes, immigrants and vulnerable at risk community members. And whereas Nino began his work supporting immigrant farmworkers and families that housing as a housing manager for Casa VISTA and Casa de la esperanza, both located in Longmont and continued his immigrant work with community action programs in 2000 by creating the immigrant advocacy, Latino parent leadership and you know your rights campaign. And whereas Nino created the personal individual enterprise program after attending a national Individual Development account conference and partnering with the den named foothills United Way to support education, small business and homeownership goals, with maps savings accounts to which the city has annually contributed funding to benefit Longmont residents. And whereas Nina was a founding partner of the immigrant integration program that provided coordination of immigrants services and advocacy with el comida de Loma and other partner agencies. And whereas Nina was involved in multiple community initiatives including the Longmont housing opportunities team Latino Task Force Latino chamber, and whereas Nino was a member of the Longmont delegation that brought home long lunch first all America city award in 2006, and whereas Nino mentor generations that would follow him by modeling good character, compassion and optimism, and leading with authenticity, kindness and love for humanity. Now, therefore, I bribed you badly Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me in the City Council, the city of Longmont do hereby recognize today January 5 2021, which is Nino’s birthday as Nino gala day in Longmont, encourage friends and residents at Walmart to engage engage in appropriate celebrations and reflections Nino’s life and legacy. So and then Lovelock lava Seon direct Manasa Cinco de enero they don’t even know como dia de Nino Gallo in Longmont, Colorado. considerando Kino Gala. servio allama Jalla Jalla comunidad de Condado de boulder productivity colonials solarek word our por ser synthetic chaos kisi cruzada su camino Bienvenidos incluidos Yes, the needles can continue to record our pursuit of our hockomock ncac gobiernos vocalists and programs comunitarios pero la personas de barcos ingresos immigrant This enables will Mirabilis de la comunidad II consider on bocchino common salsa Tabasco ye mandorla labradorians agricolas immigrant days yes as soon as possible to su ro como administradores de vv MS and Casa de esta casa de la esperanza armas will be cannabis and long one, you know, Banting meal continuous Tabasco con los programas. De ACCION comunitaria creando programmers can get up immigrant advocacy, Latino parent leadership be companion Konopka or Latino parent leadership. compania conosce gases that I chose you concerned about consider unblocking Nino cradle programmer personnel in the middle while enterprise displays the state I want to competency and as you know, the SOC RC cola cola enhances your mother foothills United Way, but I see up Leon ocasiones us methods that we can use negocios appropriate propietarios viviendas cuentas de oro alaskey la ciudad config we’ll confirm those unromantic benefits are or Ben fecr ellos residente is a llama you consider he consider I’m okay Nino for sociol fundador del programa de Internacional para me gratis, okay, proportional coordinates yone de servicios de defensa immigrant is photoscan are committed the long the autonomous or healthiest associates you consider I’m okay Nino participle in loopy place iniciativas communitarians in Toledo el equipo de oportunidad de vivienda de Loma a group of Tabasco Latino illa kamada they commercial Latina you consider I’m okay Nina for me I’m gonna do a delicacy on the long Casey Chabot, a casa a premier premier all American city they long in DOS will say you consider I’m okay you know for him and for the handleless Jonas kilo Segura, kilo si si Geeta Nino Whitman Torah the Himalayas Eunice kilo, Sega Ron, more Rolando pursue one cutter cutter karakter compostion you up to me small unique Lee that um, those

are like my eyes are going he’ll either leave the Rondo Khan out 10 out of 10 out of 10 PC that

mobberley that you’re more Parliament Amanita por lo tanto yo Brian j Bagley of Kobe in Vertu de la hora de Kissimmee VA, el consejo municipality, the Suba de la Mora presenting the conozco a single day and metal they don’t know better, you know, boy, a company is de Nino como el dia de Nino gala in LA LA LA Anto amigos president is the law participant and celebra psionics evil refill Xers are probably Alice de la vida in the Lego Mini. He della gobbled illenium sign the mayor back here. All right,

that was probably the most difficult proclamation I’ve ever read. But thank you Nina Gallo and Norma will just get us this book imparted to us posaconazole to us those which are calling us up to familiar

marriage. family has would like to say a few words.


mitsuwa see me to Paragon eternals members la familia Cebu Stan printers who sews cameras

when I started this, when a service to oppose gracias gracias are called a big lake, which has grasses. A Winner Parramatta familia mo do they must perform or would you consider the reconocimiento post to mow again MB in reverse when it here suta lindo, su compromisso is from patea ickiness necesita Ando on servicio professonal sin contraction complainant Raghava Messiah see I can amass Lunas leprosy salon in mahina Mo’s por cada moitra Corinne euro Syria. Kill say you’re the Nino Gallo in SWAMI de Laval era the singular exito no podemos concebido throbbing neon Audra perception Sindhu the lunar key support the Sarah Carvalho convallaria Palacio de ke diggin in trigo por tanto sanyes su waka Seon the cellular pubblico era estaba cm para para las de masse for Sierra Nevada de tipo de sa cinco Rita is a phoenix in Tonia called lucky represent tava the mass Nino como persona Yaga nos encontramos con una nueva number botheration plan uniwell lo que uno para dnrc lavida tan were known Breda keefer. For Hello internet era killer video porters neck Central, the enormous sacrifices he silencioso Dolores equimat there one more eluga lodo console era so fuutarou avera swosu Nina, Claudia, you haven’t so simple are seen that the nurse is injured. So Viva la vida de familia de Akira borisova number a Canada halon seniors so you can blow the surface Elise Sarah fatherly said para todos por si gracias por donde se Paseo either the aka accompanied in silencio estelar Kino sobre esta no political party is the lower they start remain the party that solamente la come back soon they killed reconocimiento de su hente as yet and Lagos no permita no karma Savita mooch aggressive

No thank

thank you, you guys for for having such a wonderful father, a member of your family and for all the many things that he did for our community. One of the one of the best proclamations I’ve done. So thank you. We were very grateful. Thank you. So anything else? Norma,

do you want to say anything?

Just want to say thank you, I would really appreciate it. Appreciate it

everything to have. I’m Courtney Noy. We looking forward to celebrate his legacy. And today in every single day, thank you on behalf of entire families and community members. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, which will continue as you said, it’s got one min

it I suppose. Okay.

All right. Let’s move on now to the code met city manager’s report specifically the update on COVID-19. Might be a little lengthy tonight. So we’ll be patient.

Yeah, Mayor. So we’ve had a couple of weeks. still a lot of work going on, in terms of issues related to COVID-19. So we’re gonna have a couple of presentations. The first is going to be with Jessica Erickson and lldp in terms of the Five Star program that we’ve been working on, preparing and to work on with the county. Jessica, are you there?


susan, do you have a presentation?

You want to pull that up? Great.

One moment, I got lost in all my screens.

All right, there you are.

Okay, thank you. And Good evening, Mayor Bagley and council members. Thank you for your time this evening. I wanted to provide an update on progress towards Boulder County application. For a five star certification program. We’ll talk a little bit about what that is understanding there might be varying levels of familiarity with what a five star certification program is. And then we’ll talk about where we’re at in the process with Boulder County. And I’m happy to answer any questions as they go along or at the end of the presentation. Susan, if you want to go to the next slide, just briefly talk about what is five star certification. And so back in mid December, I believe it was December 14 or 18th. But right before the Christmas holiday at the governor’s office and cdphp announced they were going to provide an opportunity for counties to set up programs through an administrative committee responsible for developing implementing and overseen five star certification programs, which would offer businesses within those counties that have programs the ability to operate at restrictions at a lower level on the dial. So if the county is in orange, those businesses that receive certification would be able to operate basically under an individual business variance allowing them to operate at level yellow. Part of the purpose of the program other than the benefits provided to businesses is to encourage businesses to implement safety measures that are beyond what is required by public health orders in order to help slow the spread of COVID-19. The program is voluntary. Businesses are not required to participate counties are not required to apply for or stand up five star certification program. I will note however, that every Metro Denver county with the exception of Boulder County has now submitted an application for a program and many have been approved. The program per cdphp guidelines cannot be led by public health. However, public health does have to participate on the administrative committee. I know the slide says should but is requirement of the program that a public health official participate on the administrative Committee for the program. Next slide.

So just going into a little bit more detail about the benefits to businesses and eligibility. Counties currently in level blue, yellow orange are eligible to pursue by certification program if the following metrics are met, and the thresholds of their respective levels for seven days including incidence rate, percent positivity and hospitalizations, any county that’s currently in red has to meet the additional criteria of a two week sustained decline in incidence. A percent positivity rate under 10% are demonstrably improving over the past two weeks, and under 90% of ICU beds. If we were to ever go into level purple, which is the relatively new level that would include kind of a complete shutdown again, of businesses, there would be no more five star certification programs, there would be no more variance for certified businesses.

Next slide.

If accounting does see, after implementing their five star certification program at the county sees a significant rise in cases or hospitalizations. The program may be suspended either by the administrative committee or by cdphp. suspension of a five star program automatically occurs if the region the county reaches more than 90% of their counties or the retech ICU hospital capacity. So that would result in an automatic suspension of the program. Next slide. So the steps for us to pursue as a county or for Boulder County to pursue a five star certification program are to form an administrative committee. I’ll go into more details about that, in a later slide, determine the financial resources to implement the program that do not come from public health cdph. He has been very clear that resources should not be taken away from the important work of public health in distributing vaccines and the other work that they’re doing relative to COVID-19. In order to stand up these programs must develop a plan for compliance and enforcement that includes a live inspection at we can use a third party vendor which will be important later in the presentation. We have to develop a plan for applications training inspections tracking, tailored for our county and submit a variance application to CDP. He was supportive letters from commissioners, law enforcement and all of the hospitals within the county. Our proposal to Boulder County and our hopeful application, by the end of this week will be a proposal and an application that includes contracting with a third party vendor h two manufacturing solutions, a local manufacturing consulting firm for the administration of a program and the train the trainer inspector program. Again, I’ll go into more detail on a later slide.

Next slide.

So as you mentioned, the first step is to form an administrative committee. So the administrative committee and this has come out of kind of a subgroup that has been working on this from across the county, and over several weeks. The proposed administrative committee that will include it in our application to cdphp would include Corrine Waldo and myself as co chairs. It’s primarily primarily because we’ve been leading the charge to get to the application and doing a lot of work the work that’s been required to to create the program and develop the program application. And all of the elements of that will also include a Boulder County Public Health rep who believe will be Layne Drager, of Boulder County Commissioners rep light so summer laws we found out today it will actually be Michelle Prozac representative from the Latino Chamber of Commerce to support our ability to create equitable opportunities across our entire community to access the Five Star program should we get it up and running a representative from our third party vendor HQ manufacturing solutions likely their founder Heidi hostetter. Then we have a number of open seats. We’ll have five additional municipal representatives, two representatives from industry or the community at large one representative from one of the hospitals in the county and a law enforcement representative. We’re currently taking applications for those open seats on the administrative Committee. The administrative committee will be formed and will meet for the first time on Thursday afternoon, and with the intention to meet weekly for the first three weeks after hopeful application approval, and then every other week once the programs up and running.

Next slide.

So this chart provides just a little bit more detail on the potential benefits for businesses that go through a certification program in Boulder County or anywhere that has a five star certification program. So if we use the example of a county that’s currently at level orange, certified businesses would be able to operate at a yellow capacity. So they would go from 25% occupancy allowed to 50% occupancy allowed that would be for restaurants 4% All services would be the same 25 to 50% occupancy as well as indoor event venues. You’ll see the note at the bottom that says that businesses can only operate at a higher level if the county’s metrics fall within the level for two weeks. For example, even though the government moved, Governor moved counties to orange, the certified businesses cannot operate at yellow until the county’s metrics are at the orange level for two weeks. So as of today, if we had a program stood up, we wouldn’t certify businesses would not yet be able to operate in yellow until we meet those orange metrics for two weeks as a county. Next slide. Alright, so we’ll talk about our proposed solution to standing up a Boulder County FIVE STAR program, which includes contracting much of the work out to a third party vendor h2 manufacturing solutions. Again, they are a long lat based manufacturing consulting firm with expertise in operational improvement consulting services, as well as engineering and technical consulting expertise. So why are we considering using them as a third party vendor for our FIVE STAR program, each to lead the charge to form a Colorado manufacturers COVID taskforce that was established way back in March. So at the very beginning of the pandemic, initially to help identify and fill holes in PvP and testing supply chains for manufacturers across the state and ultimately evolved or pivoted, as we hear a lot lately to helping businesses secure resources to comply with federal, state and local public health guidelines. As a result, they created a product that they call safety systems and certification. And they’ve been implementing that across the state. Again, I’ll provide some more detail in a later slide. And actually, let’s go to the next slide. I think that detail is there. It’s not I’ll have some more detail on their experience to date in safety certification with the product that we’ll be using that they’ll provide. So the solution with h2 is that the administrative committee would outsource administration of a certification program to h2, including development of business applications, recruiting and training auditors and inspectors overseeing shadowing, administrating quality assurance and control for trained auditors deploying the inspectors issuing certifications reporting to the administrative committee and to cdphp and monitoring and following up on complaints. The anticipated cost for municipalities and accounting is that the administration would be covered by an application fee a nominal what we consider a nominal application fee by businesses, and that the inspectors and would be volunteers donated by municipalities and businesses. So two sources for those inspectors, volunteer inspectors that would be trained one would be underutilized employees or employees that are currently on paid leave either in the public or private sectors that could be repurposed as inspectors volunteer inspectors and auditors for the safety certification program. Next slide.

So here’s where it has some more detail about each choose experience and their COVID safety system and certification to train the trainer model. So we will be identifying 40 to 75 volunteers, as I mentioned, and our repurpose paid employees from the public and private sector that he will train, deploy and oversee as trained safety certification auditors as part of our step five Start Program. they’ll provide 90 minutes of classroom virtual classroom, we’re not going to have a bunch of people in a room virtual classroom instruction followed by virtual shadowing of inspectors when they go out into the field. They’ll be responsible for scheduling and deploying trained auditors at business facilities across Boulder County. They also monitor and oversee a command central which is managed by h2 staff. They’ll also compile test and process findings and data to ensure acceptable input data and variances. So what we mean when we talk about variance is is across multiple inspectors in a similar environment. What’s the variance in the overall rating of a business and h2 currently operates their safety system and certification model at less than a half a percent variance and ratings across again, multiple auditors in the same environment. They also produce a scorecard and an action plan for a business to correct any infractions, and then redeploy the auditor to facility to the facility to ensure infractions have been corrected. They then certify the business and issue a certificate that can be displayed at a facility for eight weeks of another slide that has a chart that compares different programs including the original Mesa county model cdph requirements and e h two programs. And one of the primary differences and, and one of the things that we like about the h2 solution is that it’s not in any way a self certification program. So h2 is actually going out to or sending their trained auditors out to a business, providing that business with an action plan to get them from where they’re at today to where they need to be to receive certification. The business is then responsible for implementing that action plan. And then each two and their volunteer auditors will go back out and share that that has happened before certification and supply to the business. Okay, here’s where I was talking about. Apologies, this was a presentation put together by committee so I’m a little unfamiliar with some of the order of it. But the h2 inspection system is again, a product that was developed by h2 as part of the COVID manufacturing Task Force has been tested in the field for over six months in a variety of facility types including schools, manufacturing facilities, small businesses, etc. Throughout Colorado. The inspection criteria was developed by public health and is built upon federal CDC, state and local public health regulations, and additional Colorado five start requirements and incorporates 75 inspection criteria in the following categories, disinfecting and cleaning signage, furniture, structure and objects occupant behavior and screens. A business must get a five out of five reading on the inspection for certification and follow through with the action plan for correcting any infractions and re inspection before any certification is issued. So far more rigor than what is required by cdphp sending up a five star program.

Next slide.

An additional element of the h2 safety certification program would be to recertify each facility every eight weeks to ensure continued safety compliance with the new service certificate dated certificate issued each time so it’s not a one and done and then you can go you know, change all of your habits and behaviors back to prior to certification. There’s ongoing monitoring incorporated into the program. html provide weekly reporting to the administrative committee containing the scorecards of each business. The action plans for each business, you originally issued certificate and any subsequently issued certificate so those every eight weeks certificates, they’ll additionally provide support and are currently providing support on the development of the Boulder County application to CPAP supporting the development of business application for certification and supporting development of application to solicit volunteers and displaced workers to serve as auditors. I’ll also mention that Denver county recently submitted their application and also announced that they’ve selected to use h2 as their vendor for third party vendor for their certification program as well.

Next slide.

That’s just an image of the scorecard and action plan and a page of the action plan that will be provided to businesses as part of the program. Next slide. So why do we think h2 provides the right solution for a Boulder County FIVE STAR program and want to reiterate that they have six months of testing for their COVID safety system and certification program across Colorado, they’ve conducted over 30 safety systems audits since June of this year, not 2019. Sorry about that. And the safety systems have been conducted in seven different counties in both rural and urban environments, and across multiple sectors, schools, large and small manufacturers, small businesses, places of worship and a variety of others. The system was developed with the help of public health and specifically Boulder County Public Health Lane was on that COVID manufacturing task force as was I and they have endorsed the system and model including having helped determine the appropriate weighting of any infractions within the model. There is minimal out of pocket expense. For businesses, the cost of implementation, and administration of the program would self fund by charging businesses a 75 to $100. application fee for businesses will also have programs in place to mitigate those expenses for businesses that truly can’t afford a 75 to $100 application fee will also have programs in place to help mitigate the costs of addressing any infractions that are identified in order for businesses to get certification. So where businesses have the ability to support the funding of the program through an application fee, and they will we will expect them to do that. So but we have will have systems in place to allow for businesses that don’t have that ability to still be able to receive their certification. We really see this as an off the shelf proven and affordable model that is rooted in public health and data science at a level of rigor that we don’t see in other five star programs that have been stood up thus far.

Next slide.

So he’s specifically compared the original Mesa county five star system that the cdph program was based on, as well as the cdphp, FIVE STAR program requirements and the h2 solution. And generally speaking, that’s the number of elements of inspection for the certification as well as the rigor with which they provide ongoing support for ensuring ongoing information to businesses about different cdphp CDC and Boulder County Public Health guidelines have also been very impressed by again, that variance number of less than half percent across multiple auditors in the same environment, and also the reissuing of new certificates every eight weeks.


the weekly reporting that’s very rooted in data and again, public health, rigor that goes above and beyond, certainly the mesa county five star system, but also above and beyond what is actually required by cdphp from a public health perspective.

Next slide.

So the next step for us, as I mentioned, forming that administrative committee will fill those open positions over the next couple of days between now and Thursday afternoon when we’ll first convene that committee. And then that committee will review the variants application that we’ve developed, again, in partnership with h2, in working with the county and working with county public health as well as chambers, other economic development organizations and municipalities across the country. And once that application is signed off on by the administrative committee at we will submit that application to cdphp, but only with support from municipalities, chambers, and iOS, to the county commissioners. And so letters of support are being submitted to the county commissioners, we also are required to have letters of support from all five of the hospitals in the county as well as the the Boulder County Sheriff. Well, almost simultaneously. But certainly immediately, upon submitting that application, we’ll start recruitment of volunteers, to be inspectors and to staff the command central working with HQ. We don’t know for sure how long application approval would take. But what we’ve seen so far is that cdph is turning around approval of those applications within a couple of days in most cases. And then providing general support for businesses to apply for five star certification and show public health and safety protocols are in place. So it’ll be part of our role to communicate to our business community that this program is available, why they should pursue it and how they can pursue it as well as resources that are available financial resources that are available to support their ability to do so. Excellent.


so that’s where we’re at as far as the Boulder County application for five star certification program. With that, I’m happy to answer any questions.

I’ve got some concerns, but let’s go ahead and go with Councilmember Christiansen.


Jessica, I think this is terrific. We’ve got to do everything we can to get businesses back in, back in the running. But um, so here’s a very tiny point. But on, I think number four of what Mesa county provides. They provide certification and a plaque and a window clean, meaning somebody can stick on the window that says we’re certified. And none of neither of the other two programs say they provide that. But to me, one of the most useful things for the public is to say, to be able to see right on somebody’s front door, that they’ve gone through certification. So I think that’s something you know, at a very minimal cost we could provide so that you know, they could just slap this on the window and then people can be walking down the street and see that they are certified and be assured that they can go in there. So just consider it please.

Mayor Bailey and Councilman Christiansen that is part of certification. A posted certification at the business facility is part of the Boulder County or will be part of the Boulder County FIVE STAR program. One of the things that we were trying to show with that with that chart is that that was kind of the primary thing for the mesa county program. So it was more of a PR program than it was a program that also had or was intended to have the additional benefit of creating improved public health environment related to COVID-19. There will be a certification, there will also be a required posting of how somebody entering that business can file a complaint with cdphp. If they notice something that’s happening within the business that doesn’t meet certification guidelines.

My point is, though, that just being able to give, give them in return for all their hard work, something they can put on the window that’s decorative and not punitive. would be just nice for their, you know, a nice return of Yes, PR, but that’s what they need his free PR. So yeah, that will be a part of that.

Thanks, Jessica. I know you put a lot we spoke on the phone a couple days ago. And I sorry. I’ll always defer to council before I have might say Go ahead. Councilmember waters. Two quick questions. Jessica. I’m in the in the presentation, you made a reference to kind of there’s a bunch of thresholds in here in terms of what we can do. We can’t do it. By the way. I want to say, I’ll echo Councilmember Christian’s comments, I think you’ve done a lot of there’s a lot of work, and it’s good work. And and I’m very supportive of what of moving this forward. But the two questions are these one, you made reference to the 90% of ICU beds? being you know, that’s a threshold if 90, if you hit the 90% level, then you’ve got to take a step backwards. But it did it did spark for me some curiosity about how we’re doing that calculus. Is that beds within a county? Or is it beds counted the way? Well, county commissioners count beds throughout multiple counties?

in the county as we count them,

all right, very good within this county, and then more generally, my guess is that this is an assumption that there’s been some discussion, given the minds that have come together with this and the experience and, and how deeply you’ve all been involved in this for now, almost 10 months? There’s got to be some speculation about the duration, how long do we anticipate needing to take these kinds of work through these kinds of protocols? With this kind of rigor?

Is this something you’re imagining throughout all of 2021? Just as a mindset, or is there something short of that or longer than a year? I’ll listen,

based on what I’m seeing, I guess, and you look at where we are with the vaccines, and we’ll touch on some of that. Probably, my gut tells me late summer fall, in terms of how long we’re going to the to still be to be in this mode based on where we’re seeing the vaccines could be shorter if we get more out, or be longer if there’s less coming in. And, and so, our mind, we’re sort of I’m starting to look at that. August, September ish horizon.

So I said, I’d be quiet, I’m gonna make an account. That sounds kind of like we’re imagining this as a, like 40 weeks, think of this as giving birth to it to that whatever comes after, after COVID. That’s about the timeframe, you’re thinking about about nine months of eight week cycles?

Likely, potentially,

it can be shorter, it can definitely be shorter based on how many people get vaccinated in that world.

And also add, we’ve absolutely the conversation around is it worth the resource for a potentially short period of time, if everybody gets vaccinated, or if things just start to go, really in the right direction really quickly, as far as the different metrics for the different levels on the dial, and we get all the way to green or whatever the best level is. But one of the conversations that we’ve had is that if we’re going to build this infrastructure and invest in something like this, both from a human and financial resource perspective, let’s put our minds together and figure out how else it might be put to use in the future. Certainly, in the situation of God forbid a future pandemic, we would have this infrastructure available and ready to stand up such that it would have more of a public health IT from earlier on, than what we hope that it will have now. But then also, are there other I don’t know what they are. We haven’t gotten that far into that conversation. But are there other implications for building infrastructure like this? All right, so

first of all, Jessica. Yeah, I guess third of all considering that Councilmember Christian city councilor waters had an intelligent comments to say, thanks. And I spoke with you. And in general, I’m in favor of a five star program. And not that anyone cares about my opinion. But let’s say it anyway, the I was against the lockdown, you know, adamantly, vehemently, because I didn’t think it was gonna do any good. But what triggered my then anger and was, was certain Metro mayors including Mayor Hancock trying to go beyond the governor’s leadership meeting, they wanted a more strict and stringent lockdown than what the governor was doing longer, harder. And my point was, you know, in general lockdown is going to hurt people. And it’s not going to take care of the Coronavirus. And we’re going to be stuck at the end of the eight weeks or whatever it is, with small businesses out of business and no capital, no powder dry, so to speak. And the governor is the person calling the shots, right? Recently, I got upset again with weld County, because you know, I didn’t flip flop, I’ll just say let’s follow the governor don’t go rogue, just like you shouldn’t walk down, you also shouldn’t ignore social distancing, we need to follow the governor, the concern I have with what I heard, if you if you don’t need to throw it back up. But Mesa county has a five star program that was very simple. The Colorado Department of Public Health then has some recommendations, what I heard was yet another instance, you know, I told you I’m supportive of this, the Five Star Program, when I’m not supportive of is what appears to be yet another race of let’s get the businesses to do even more things to shut them down. The h2 select solutions list. Seems First of all, as a small business owner, I was getting exhausted just reading the list to get a concealed carry permit. You need a letter from the sheriff. They’re busy. You know, I mean, it’s getting letters from everybody. And going through all I mean, I just I just think it’s prohibitive.

No, I don’t do letters.

The letters of support are for our APA counties application to cdphp to stand up a program. That’s not a requirement of businesses.

Okay, what would so my concern so so when you say that the h2 solution? So I guess, it seems like they’re a little a little muddled, if I’m a small business owner to once we get approval of the Five Star program? What do I need to do? Because what I heard was apply every eight weeks pay 75 to $100 every time I apply? So help me understand that. Because what do I need to do as a small business owner in order to go from orange to yellow, red to orange, etc.

So you once the program is stood up, you as an owner would apply one time to so you’d make one application pay one application fee that includes the every eight week recertification for the duration of the program for as long as the program is needed. Certainly, if we’re having this conversation a year now there will probably be a retracement of that if that’s the suitable on the ongoing basis.

So yeah, I don’t care about the 75 to $100. Right. I care about classes, applications, it just seems very burdensome,

you, you complete your application, you pay your application fee. And h2 sends out an inspector, they actually create for you the action plan, which is different than other programs that require you to determine for yourself how to meet the public health requirements that would qualify you for certification. So h2 auditors are actually providing that scorecard an action plan for you, you as a business implement Action Plan, which could be things like, or are likely to be things like EPA approved cleaners versus the ones that you bought at the grocery store. And social distancing and training. everybody wears masks. So for the most part, I’m not very onerous. from a financial perspective things to implement, though, again, we’ll have some resources available for businesses that have greater needs to implement in order to meet those certification requirements. Once you’ve done all of the things that you need to do to get to a level that makes you eligible for certification based on that action plan that’s provided for you. You receive your certification, an auditor comes back out every eight weeks and re certifies you assuming that you are continuing to do all the same things that Add, your certification was approved, based on if you’re not, you get a new action plan, you implement that action plan, you get your new

certification. So

your answer is, hey, for all you lazy people, he will do it for you invite them out, they come up with an action plan create a scorecard, you do what they say. They send off the application, and they do all that stuff to make sure that everything’s kosher. Yes, I’m cool with that,

that the higher level of rigor I will say is in the number of things that they’re inspecting, and I’ll be quite candid in saying that cdph, he is pretty insistent that an application come from a county, if a county were to choose not to do it than an individual municipality, could make application on their own. But it also requires that a member of the local public health authority and be a part of your administrative committees, ultimately, that local public health authority has to support your program. And anything with any less rigor than what we’re presenting with the HQ solution would not have passed muster with Boulder County or Boulder, County Public Health, and we would not be moving forward with so so.

So when you say used when you say it’s, it’s it’s goes above and beyond Mason County, or the Colorado Department of Public Health, what you’re talking about is your administrative team and making the initial application right, that traditional stringent, you know, government bureaucracy, wrench that you have to jump through if you’re struggling restaurant tour. Right, right.

And in fact, my point before we trapped, we’re trying to make it as easy as possible for the business by providing them an action plan to pursue versus, you know, figure it out. And let us know, when you’re done, we’ll come and check. If you’re not there, we’ll tell you you’re not there. But we’re not going to give you an action plan to get there.

Perfect. My concern has been resolved.

A couple of issues on this that I wanted to talk about. So part of it is in terms of how this is staffed. We’re looking and you’re going to hear repurposing a couple of times tonight, but in this case, staff members, because of the number of people we can have in facilities or some of the folks that we had, when we talked about the 25% reduction in hours at the Rec Center, we’re looking at potentially working with those individuals to bring them on and give them the opportunity to be the inspectors in this and we can use cares funding for that. So that helps us deal with some of those issues we have internally. And we’re going to be meeting to discuss that issue. There’s also other private companies that are willing to repurpose some of their staff. So cities are going to be coming in with some of the folks to be in those inspector positions. And it helps us solve another issue that’s in play in this one. To the point we’re going to be doing that work. The other piece based on that that I wanted to clarify with counsel is, at least my recommendation is to have Joanie sit on this committee, because it’s going to be a pretty in depth working committee. And she’s already working on with the economic group on some other things. And so that that’s been my recommendation, in terms of one application for at least from a staff perspective, is I’m asked Gemini to apply.

Alright, well, thank

you very much, Jessica. That was That was good. So what do we need to do? Just that would just sit back and wait anxiously? Yeah, I

mean, there’s any heartburn? Let us know now because we’re moving. Move on.

Get it done. Thank you very much.

Goodbye, or is that Councilmember Peck wanting to say something?

Cuz we’re back. Not leaving yet.

So Jessica, I just wanted to voice when everyone else has about what an incredible job you’ve done. And the frustrating part for me of all of this is that if everybody would just comply with you to begin with,

we wouldn’t have to jump, you know, have this circus. So thank you for helping us work it

out. And I agree with you that it does set the stage for what we do the next time This. This happens, because this won’t be the last pandemic I’m sure. So thank you again.

Yeah, all of us to that point. All of us that have been working on this over the last number of weeks, agree that we don’t want to be in this position. And but here we are, and so we’re trying to figure it out.


Amen to that one.

All right.

Thank you very much. Well done. Thanks, Jessica. Thank you.

Our next presentation is are Berto on the wastewater information you all requested it was posted publicly. And so Roberta is going to come on again about 10 slides there. And then I’ll take it after Berto and a number of issues I need to update you on so Roberto. Susan, can you bring that up?

Good evening Mayor Bagley members of council I’m Roberto Luna water quality laboratory supervisor with public works and Natural Resources Environmental Services Department. I’ll be providing an update on the city’s SARS COVID two wastewater monitoring program, specifically on the state health department’s public dashboard and on the graphical representation of SARS COVID monitoring data that is provided to city manager Harold Domingo’s and Deputy city manager, Dale Rademacher Next slide, please. I want to start with a brief history of the program. In March 2020, we initiated wiki sampling with bio bot in August of 2020. Through an IGA with the state health department, we transition to our participation with a Front Range collaborative, and increase sampling to twice a week with CSU performing the analysis for the virus. In November 2020, we moved to increasing sampling to seven days a week, with the extra samples analyzed by gt molecular as recommended in the IGA. And in 2018, December 2020. The CDP he released a public dashboard. A goal of the collaborative was communication and data sharing with policymakers, local public health agencies and the public through the use of a public dashboard. The first step in this goal was to develop a collaborative dashboard to be used by the partner utilities. Next slide, please. This is the collaborative private dashboard. It was the first step in the creation of a public dashboard. It’s a private dashboard for the partner utilities, so that we can review analytical results and supporting data prior to its release to the public dashboard. The dashboard is interactive, it provides census tract data or county data for new cases, and provides analytical results in various units, including copies per leader and loading per day. Once a collaborative dashboard was essentially complete, the state moved to finalize its public facing dashboard. Next slide please. This is a state health department’s public facing dashboard. Once the analysis of the sample is complete, that is released to the private dashboard. utilities have two days to review the data before it’s released to the public dashboard. The public dashboard shows a graph of the viral concentration in copies per liter. And it has a separate graph with a three day average of COVID-19 cases by onset date, calculated using census tract data. There is an FAQ on the website that provides information regarding the COVID-19 wastewater monitoring project. There is a link provided at the bottom of this slide. That takes you to the public dashboard. Next slide please. So next, I would like to discuss our data evaluation. But before I begin, I would like to state that I’m not an epidemiologist, nor am I a medical expert. As a scientist and a laboratory supervisor I have experienced in reviewing analytical data and providing data analysis on laboratory results. Casey combo and I have performed detailed data analysis on our SARS COVID results, but I want to keep this presentation as simple and as non technical as possible. So what have we done? First, due to compatibility issues, the bio bought data was dropped from any further data analysis. Second, we initiated a collaboration with Boulder County Health Department, they provide the city allama with Longmont specific data and Longmont shares results a data analysis with Boulder County Health Department. Third, we perform statistical analysis of our data and Longmont having and having lamang specific data, and our larger data set helped us with our evaluation process would also want to point out that the collaborative has performed similar statistical analysis of our data and of data from partner utilities. Finally, we provide our data analysis and graphical representation to city manager Harold Domingues, and Deputy city manager Dale Ryder maker and to the Boulder County Health Department. Next slide please. The data that we provide is different from that which is presented in the stat state’s public dashboard. There is no doubt that the state’s public dashboard provides great information on the Front Range monitoring efforts. But our data is more reflective of the cities

of the city. There are two major differences. We have long one specific case data, and we use the additional gt molecular data. The other differences are the use of a five day averaging of new cases instead of the state’s three day average of new cases by onset date. Our statistical analysis indicated that five day averaging work better with Longmont specific data. We also initially began using copies per liter but found that the loading data provided better information. The state statistical evaluation indicates that there really is no difference when using viral copies or viral viral copies per liter or viral copies per day. Next slide please. So, demographic data and biological data is complex and very noisy. But epidemiologists and scientists have statistical methods for dealing with this kind of complexity. This is the up to date graph of the city alarma data for new cases and for viral loading. The square points are gt molecular data, the circular points are CSU data points. The blue lines are the five day running averages of new cases. Boulder County provides the daily count and the five day running average of new cases. And as you can see, the data is indeed complex and noisy. Next slide. But when you apply standard statistical methods, it smooths the data out and it allows you to clearly see patterns in the data and to obtain more information. Next slide. You can then take this data and visually smooth it to make it easier to see trends. Next slide. With this smoothing technique, we can show that viral loading tracks well with a five day average of new cases. Next slide please. Many studies have indicated that results from testing can be used as a leading indicator of new cases. using statistical methods, we looked at last month’s data. We looked at whether llamas was indeed a leading indicator. The findings did indicate a very strong correlation as a leading indicator anywhere from three to eight days. Initially, we saw the strongest correlation at seven days. But this has slowly been moving toward less days. The graph above displays this information. But what does it mean? Simply put, it means that today’s results are a window of what may happen in about three to seven days. Next slide, please. Finally, this is the latest graphic that contains all the information that we have been sharing with city manager Harold Domingo is deputy city manager Dale rata maker and the Boulder County Health Department. The graphic is a combination of five day averages of new cases, the viral loading, concentrations, and the level of restrictions that have been put in place. Next slide. In this slide, we mark the dates for Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas. So what have we learned from this project? First, we can say that viral concentrations do trend with five day averages of new cases, trends are important. Second, we can say that the data can be used as a leading indicator of new cases. And finally, this is an investigation is a study that is ongoing. And as we get more data, and as we add more data, we will refine our findings. And we will have new findings. Next slide. Thank you. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer.

Thank you just the one question. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Thank you very badly. I’m just wondering if there’s any conversation at all, because there’s been speculation about the new strain of COVID. And when it hit the United States, whether it was not a function of Halloween versus a function of whether it was the new strain that caused the surge in the cases. I’m just curious if there’s conversation about that, or how there are reconciling that within the data, considering it’s supposed to be much more transmissible.

I have not heard any conversation with regard to going back to Halloween and looking at whether it was caused by the new strain Other Coronavirus?

Yeah, I don’t think I think it’s hard to say. I think the other thing is part of a lot of the conversations as we all know, virus continually mutate anyway. And so there’s a mutation that’s occurring with this to your point, at least what you’re starting to hear from a luminary perspective is the new strain. They’re thinking may be actually more transmissible at a younger age, because of what it looks like. But again, everybody’s still saying we need to wait and see, what they are saying is, is that they still do predict that the vaccine will still work on this based on the virology that you’re seeing on this. And so it very well could have tested in this because you’re using the same RNA components, correct? Roberta?

Yeah, it’s the same RNA components, it doesn’t change from one mutation to the other. We’re still looking at the same at the same genetic code.

I understand. I was wondering if there’s conversations looking at whether the surge was actually based off a person to person transmission of the standard strain that we’ve known about for a while, versus a, an influx of a new strain? That was my question, because as we know, it is new. And so the date has always changed.

so badly, Councilmember Rodriguez, I this is an ongoing study. And I think the more data we collect, this study is going to be important because we’re going to look backwards, and then we’re going to understand what we were seeing. And that will help with future pandemics, or a future outbreak of this COVID-19. So I think right now we need to look at and maintain this data, continue to collect the data. And then hopefully, the experts will be able to look back and really tell us what we were really truly seeing. And right now, the only two conclusions that we can have really are that it’s a leading indicator, and that trends are important. Councilmember water waters,

yep. The waters. Thanks.

Roberto into Dale, and in here. Oh, thanks for bringing this to us. I’ve been curious kind of where we are. And this is a good update. Um,

I am I am I have a couple of questions. One is, you’re going to start to make some inferences based on the data, I understand your look back. But the more the more data, the more evidence there is of this as a reliable leading indicator, you’re also going to look forward.

So what are the explanations? Or what are you speculating about possible explanations for a decrease in the number of days between leading indicator and manifestation? Right? or evidence of an outbreak? Or have the implication of infection number one? And number two? What are the Can you give us an example of a decision or two, that you’re in real time that you can make or you are making, based on what you’ve concluded now as a leading indicator? Because of that, we can say X, Y, or Z about what’s going to show up? And how do we get in front of that? How do we inform hospitals or healthcare providers? Or, you know, who gets that information? And

what do we do with it?

Is there any relationship between these data and what we heard a bit ago from, from Jessica, and and what our business community should be advised of or looking for? and get ready, right? If they’re in the Five Star Program, and to anticipate what might be coming, based on data that shows up tomorrow?

So I’m going to take the decision making process on this and kind of talk about it. So a, we’ve obviously been through valleys with the date with the copies that we’ve seen peaks. And we can understand what kind of cases are related to those peaks, to all the information Roberto was going over. So for us, as we talked with the health department, it’s here’s what we’re seeing hospitals, you may need to get ready if if it’s something that we see that, you know, if we start seeing something above what we’ve seen, we’re going to start having conversations about it. I think for us, the practical application is when you start seeing this to really inform your public information campaigns in terms of how we need to communicate with businesses, individuals, and really let them know that I mean, it’s a point of like have we have had this data ready early on, we could have probably intervene and messaged much differently in October, hopefully then limiting the extent that we saw the peak and and so for me, it’s really going to be about that public information piece and messaging based on what we think we’re seeing, it’s kind of hard to get much more specific. Again, because it’s this is an evolving process and Roberto keeps beating me on the head with that. So it’s thinking high level on this and going in form hospitals and formed public media strategy. And then have a sense of what we need to get ready for just in terms of our responses in various areas.

Fantastic question Dale. And, Roberto. If I could just just add to that real quickly, Mayor Bagley and Councilmember waters, and then Carol’s right that the first and best use is to convey information to the public. We’re really starting that tonight with you all. And what I would anticipate is that in the event, we see a significant spike in the loadings that would, I believe, cause us to want to

share that information. And so I think we should have this information available to the public, and certainly to

entity entities, such as the school district or the hospitals or others. What I wouldn’t recommend doing is trying to get to fine with it. Because the data is still pretty raw. It’s pretty basic. And so

it I do think, though, information is always good for for all people. But I would look at it in the sense of if it is a significant spike, similar to what we were seeing back in the middle of November, if we start to see that continue to climb, for instance, after the New Year’s holidays and those kinds of things. It’s good information for the people to know because it will eventually impact whether it be the hospitals or potential impact on our businesses to remain open. All right,

thank you very much, Mr. Luna, we really appreciate that. Thank you. Okay,

thank you. All right. Hello.

What’s the next one report, right?

I’ve got I’ve got a few more. So

let’s keep going.

I’m gonna go fast. So the one thing I wanted to talk about is one of the things we’re seeing is an organization. And employers are starting to see this more and more, it’s fraud alerts related to unemployment claims. And so we’ve been communicating that with our staff, I was actually one of them. So this Saturday, I got a letter about my unemployment claim. And I got the reply card, in the mail at the same point. And so basically, someone also filed an unemployment claim with me how I got to my address, because they probably put a different one on there. It did. And so what we’re seeing as an organization is it’s creating a lot of work for us within our human resources department. Because as all of these claims are coming in, we’re having to verify them, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of you all have not been hit on this. And then one person was I didn’t know who, because they come into us. And so then we have to track it down. And so what I wanted to do is to alert everyone, I know that the school district has put information out on this, but basically any employers having to deal with this right now. We’re actually now having to go back, because when this first started coming in, we knew that there were temporary staff members. So we know our temporary staff have different positions. And we know some of them were no longer able to work. And we then have realized that they’ve come back to us and said, No, I didn’t file. And so now we’re having to go look at all of this at a much deeper level. And so from from the community perspective, what I wanted to do is to make everyone aware that this is going and there are some things that we can do as a community when this happens. And this is what we’re telling our staff members. So when this occurs, and we’re going to put some information out of this, you can report the incident as a fraud. To you go into the Colorado Department of Labor fraud prevention area, you also go to the Federal Trade Commission, I had to go there and fill it out you then if you get the rely cards, you have to go to US bank on that one. And then many of those require you to file a report with local law enforcement to verify this and then you need to call one of the credit monitoring agencies and let them know that this has occurred. Jason gates, who’s our security person is fabulous, by the way on this is really sad that this is not a long one thing. It’s not a Colorado thing. It’s a national thing that’s going on. And what they’re starting to see is that in one month period in Colorado, he’s estimating that somewhere around I think four 38,000 of the 62,000 claims are fraudulent. And that what they’re hearing on the computer side is that criminal organizations are working with hackers. And then they’re coming in and filing these complaints. And so a what I wanted to let the community know and let you all know, it’s happened to me. As you saw, it’s happened to the mayor, you need to be aware of this. And we’re going to put this information out so people can do what they need to do to protect themselves. Any questions on that?

Nobody just want to point out who resigned to get paid?

All right.

I’ve got a lot of people that I’ll ask about that later that are on the other end of that stick. But I want people to understand what the possible consequences of ignoring this are. And I’m thinking it probably is that if some time later you need to apply for unemployment, they’ll think that you’re not doing as much.

Well, it’s that it’s also chances are they have your social security number so that you know it can impact they can be taking credit out in other ways on you. So that’s why you need to let the credit agencies know about this. There’s any number of pieces to this that can be problematic for the individual.

But you’re not gonna get in trouble if you report the fraud.

No, not at all.

You have yet to happen. I got I got fired from the city and the law firm at the same time. So they’re going nuts. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you very badly. This is just a question more for folks that are probably or could possibly be dealing with this. What would be the easiest way to find out if you’ve been a victim of fraud.

So typically, there’s two ways that this is coming forward. One, you receive a letter or two, it hits your employer and your employers tracking it down. So we’re seeing both of those. We’re seeing it from the standpoint of In my case, I got the letter before HR was notified, because it has to go through your employer may have to deal with it. In some cases, HR has seen it before individuals received the letter. Other than that, I guess you would have to look at the Colorado Department of Labor to figure out how you can check this out.


sorry, I’ve got

that, that’s pretty clear. Can we go on to the next one?

Yep, I’m trying to get my screen out. So I can go over this. And so I can. And I want to talk a little bit about the economic relief update. So a number of changes happened late in the year, as we were hitting the end of the year, and they were getting the the the second stimulus package passed. And they did it the believe the second the last day of the year, what it also did was extend the timeframe on the carrier’s funding. So well, everyone’s screaming to try to spend the money and time. They then extended it at the last minute and so gave us some options. But I wanted to update you on some information that’s going to go out, hopefully tomorrow The day after. So in terms of the business boost grants, we received about 182 applications. And we had about 100 we had 165 eligible applications. Thus far, we’ve awarded 97 grants, and I say thus far, because we’re still looking at some other opportunities in terms of funding on this. Based on what we were trying to spend in the movement of money that I talked about with you all in December, we have put out 1,327,000 and change into our local businesses. The total amount requested was 2.6 million. The grant amounts ranged from 5000 to $15,000. The majority received the maximum. We also have a map that they’re going to release that shows the locations because we wanted to make sure that it was really equitably spread throughout the community as we were doing this. Of those that were funded six are personal care service six nonprofits that couldn’t fit in other nonprofit categories. We have nine others which includes community centers and childcare, arts and entertainment construction events, and transportation 11 Health and Wellness 11 manufacturing 12 professional services 18 retail and 24 that were in the restaurant bark classification. We also were working on the childcare we have the 700,000 that we were we were moving through a national And what we did in that process, and I’m going to stop here, and because it really started coming into play in childcare, one of the things that we had to do both in the business side and in the childcare side was go through all of the requirements that exist in the federal government. And one of those was duplication of benefits. And that became a pretty significant issue for us because the PPP loan, actually was one of the triggers for the duplication of benefits. So if you receive the forgivable PPP loan, that we couldn’t give you money out of the cares funds, because that would have been considered a duplication of benefits. Now what we figured out that what Peter figured out that we could do is actually then take and work with the business to say, give us what your total loss was. And if there was money left over after the PPP loan, then you can allocate that to the grant process. And so there was a lot of work that we had to do with the businesses and with the childcare on the childcare side. But we also started seeing to a little bit on the businesses, this also had a tax implication to it, because they had to claim it as income. And so certain people then were making other decisions based on the tax side of it, obviously, because it was federal dollars. Individuals had to be documented. So that was another piece of the review criteria, criteria on this was significant. They moved through it. In the childcare side, we knew that we probably weren’t seeing all of the childcare in it. And so I asked our staff to go back out, and personally call those childcare agencies so that we could reaffirm whether or not they wanted to apply, some did and we came back into the process, we were able to provide grants to 20 childcare providers, in Longmont. And to utilize that 700,000, it’s different. I mean, there’s more significant differences there based on the size of the childcare providers and their, the losses that they incurred and looking at the duplication of benefits. We’re going to send you more specific information on that. But I wanted to give you an update in terms of where we are where we are today. Obviously, as additional stimulus packages continue to come out, hopefully there’ll be more money in the future, if that’s where we sit today in terms of the boost grants and the childcare grants.

Alright, and my internet, my internet connection reset. So I missed about two minutes, we had to save it. Okay. Anybody have any comments, questions?

All right, great.

Let’s keep going.

Um, I don’t want to take up, I’ll just show you all some slides real quick on the numbers. Because the numbers are continuing to change, Susan, let me share my screen.

We see it. Okay.

So when we look at where we are in the dial, and you look at the to a cumulative incident, right. And this was, as of yesterday, I believe.


it was sim as of one it was similar to last week, I did check it and it looks like we went back into red. And so we’re right at that CUSP as we’re moving back and forth. But one of the things that changed this week was that the governor obviously moved everyone to level orange. And that was something that happened late last week. That was a bit of a surprise to us, as well as some of the changes to the vaccine piece that I’ll cover after I go through this. When you look at the cumulative incident rate 4.3. I think it did go up again today. And then when you look at the older county status, seven days of decreasing or stable admissions. We’re actually in the red now and I want to pay you want to bring some attention to this. When we look and I asked Dan today, how many people did we have in the hospital, the number was 50. Remember that number was 80. And above when we were in the peak of this and so part of this number that we’re talking about, and I’m going to have a conversation with the other administrators is that if you’re at 80, and you go to 50, but then you go to 50, up to 60. That counts against you even though you’re still below the peak. And so what I want people to know is, yes, we’ve had more people go into the hospital, but we’re still lower than we were at the peak of this based on the information that that we received from Dan today and so we need to really, this is how cdph cdphp captures it. But there’s more behind this information. When you look at this and you remember the information, I just provided this, this shows you what’s happening in the other counties. So you can see that outside of Gilpin Broomfield and in Boulder tend to be lower Jefferson’s close. Lammers now closer, well does it 567 grands at 547. When you look at the two week average and positivity, in terms of the numbers we were seeing on this chart based on when the data was presented, you know, we’re still lower there, you can see the hospitalization information here. And so this is where we need to spend some time working on it. But again, Boulder County and Broomfield are still doing better than most of the counties. When we talk about level purple and some of the pieces on the data that you all were discussing in the Five Star Program. Or hospitals are saying they’re not approaching crisis standards. No one’s using alternative care sides. We have one of the five hospitals, reporting anticipated staff shortages, and regionally 17% of the hospitals are reporting anticipated staff shortages, five of 30, approaching 90% boulder counties and 78% of med surge and 78% of ICU beds. No hospitals are reporting an anticipated ICU beds shortage transfer capability to or per reporting type ICU capability. Again, that’s broader ICU. And then none of our regional hospitals report greater than 10% ICU are less than 10%. ICU Bed Availability. So again, that looks pretty good. When we look at the caseload, you can see in this information we have and we continue to decline from the 28th. Through the third, we had six days under 100 cases, one day had over 100, we just added another one on this one as well. 28 with 130, just before the 28th and then 106. So obviously, if you remember, we’re doing much better than we were earlier on in the peak. When you look at this, you can also see how it’s related to long term care facilities. And the impact there that’s gonna I’m gonna touch on that when I talk about vaccines here in a little bit. And then this is what our five day average number of new cases looks like within Boulder County. It’s about 83. And it’s increased since last Tuesday when we were about 79. So, um, but again, better than than where we were prior to the New Year. Again, what you can see here as you can see boulder Broomfield in the light blue. Some of the other counties are starting to get closer but still as a metro region region, we’re doing well. Adams but you’re seeing this slight tail here where it’s starting to move up. And so those are all things that we’re watching.

When we look at Boulder County, I think the big piece is since November one, Longmont has had the highest case rate per 100,000 out of but the other municipalities Lafayette boulder lions, they’ve also had high case rates since that time frame. In the past seven days 33% of the new cases have been in Boulder and 39 have have resided in Longmont. Again, when you see this just as just more of that information. When you look at the weekly cases boulder had 172 Longmont had 233, Lewisville, Lafayette and superior we have 74 cases and then the other unincorporated area municipality has 80. Again, this shows it by age range. And then when we look at our children zero to 17. The case rates have decreased for every age group over the past few weeks compared to the previous two weeks. And this is showing you by age group here, we did see cases among 25 to 34 year olds increased by 3%. While cases among our oldest and highest risk age groups have increased. And again, this is a percentage on small number 53% in the 65 to 74 year olds, and 12% and 75 plus and if you remember we saw a big increase in assisted living facilities in that data. 75 when we look at the race and ethnicity on this, we can sink continue to see persistent, large disparities among our Hispanic population. One of the things that we are seeing in this when you look at this chart Well, the disparities continue the case numbers and the proportion of cases among Hispanic community members has decreased over the past several weeks. Up until last week, we saw a slight increase in the number of cases, but not in the proportion of it. And then when you look at testing, you can see this is an update based on the other slides. 5.4% is the five day average. A month ago, it was 7.6. This looks at the number of tests that were performing. And the number of positives. The Rolling percentage, you can see where we move down, that also may be a product that we back up, we’ve had fewer tests being performed, compared to what we’ve seen earlier. When you look at the hospital, this is also a cumulative data. But when we look at this, I think the big difference is, these are slides provided by Boulder County Health, you see a lot more in green, med search beds are in red, but remember that also can can contains elective procedures. And then the ICU beds are there too. And that may have other people with other medical issues beyond COVID. And this is what the hospitalization for Boulder County looks like. Again, what we’re looking at is the trend here. And I think that’s part of when you then look at what’s happening in the state was the impetus for the governor moving everyone to orange, it’s we’re in a much different position. Everyone’s still, though, cautiously optimistic. And then unfortunately, when you look at the deaths, you can see that we’ve had some pretty high numbers recently in Boulder County, and I think what you’re also seeing is associated with long term care facilities. And you saw that increase that we saw in the number of cases in or long term care facilities. And then when we look at social distancing, statewide were at 48%, compared to 40%. Lastly, 50%. Before that, when we look at Boulder County, we’re at 48%. It was 53%. But we’re still at a higher social distancing rate than we were in October when we saw the peak occur. So this is all the data that we’re starting to to look at. And we’re also comparing that to the bile bot information.

We’re not doing by a bot anymore.

Well, that’s the wastewater testing with the other agent. Just show

I was just showing you that I was paying attention.

All right. Hi, customer, Martin.

Thank you, mira Bagley. I am wondering, since we look pretty good on the dials, except for hospitalization utilization. Is is are these numbers corrected at all for the fact that the hospitals in densely populated areas like us draw from a wider area than just our locality? Both for elective procedures and for very serious COVID cases potentially?

That’s the question that I asked today. And we’re gonna have to start tracking it down, because that’s when I talked about the the anomaly in this and, and so I want to get some more information on that.

Thank you.

So yeah, thank you, Harold.

Thank you very badly. Just a question. I know that I have expressed this via email to Harold at this point. But with the governor’s decision to move red to orange, and also seeing some of the data we’ve just now seen. That seems to be a very good possibility. Not that it’s it’s guaranteed by any standards that there could be a surge based off of holiday activities. how likely are we to see the governor’s decision rescinded and pushing these restaurants for instance, back into outdoor dining only? And as such? Are we as the council and this is to my greater council members here? Are we as a council willing to continue to allow? I know we said we’re going to be consistent with the governor. But how much do we want him dictating it seems to be somewhat whimsically at this point. least with this most recent decision, because I just did not see the data, most the time I could defend the data that he was looking at, too. I don’t I didn’t understand this move. As far as it could be really catastrophic to some of these restaurants to open up, closed down, open up, close down, open up, close down, and flip flop if we could keep looking at this data at a very narrow level. So that’s just my question on that I posed to Harold as well as to now my colleagues on Council is, I almost am ready to defend our restaurant tours. Considering what could be a somewhat tumultuous decision making process over the next week or month or so, especially considering the holidays as well as the winter season.

Viking jump in a little bit on the data piece. So I think one of the things and again, this was a bit of a surprise to a lot of us. But I think if you if you look at the data, everybody was anticipating a spike or related to Thanksgiving. And we really didn’t see that in terms of the state, we actually were continuing to decline in December. When we look at the wastewater data, and we start seeing what’s happening in that three to seven day window, it looks like there may have been a little bump in Christmas. But it didn’t Bob to where we were before that, the big thing that I think they were looking at, and I’ve got to go back to the beginning of this pandemic, where everyone was really talking about it was really the impact on the medical systems in the hospitals. And I think the biggest change that we’ve seen is the number of hospitalizations, if you remember that graph where we were moving down. So I think that was part of the impetus. And then I think also there was a recognition at the state level. And I think they said this, the press from businesses coming to them where they were literally at a breaking point of not being able to survive. That being said, I think it also corresponds with the Five Star Program. Because the Five Star Program, if you go in and do this in you, and it’s moved into red, it still allows them to stay open, which helps with that vacillation of open clothes because we did have a number of restaurants locally that said, we’re just going to close until we can ensure that we can stay open because of the amount of money they lose in product and everything they can’t use because they’re closed in a day. My gut tells me, it was the business pressure in the Dire Straits that summer in it was the Five Star Program. And it was the hospital that led to that decision. And obviously not in the room. I’m just banking on what I’ve seen in the data. But I think the Five Star Program is going to be the key piece in this. The beginning. That’s my thought you all can jump in.

I just want to say real quickly that I am a proponent of the five star system. I have some similar, I guess concerns to the mayor as far as how we’re implementing that as well as the way the Boulder County is citing implement that. But regardless of that, I do agree with getting the five stars five star system into place as fast as is humanly possible. So we can at certain points, I guess. And it wouldn’t be us anyway, obviously, because we’re not the county health. But implementing these kind of variances for the really good actors in the community. And I don’t think they should be penalized in any way for people that are not taking it as seriously by any standard. My point is that it’s very easy to defend the governor when it’s very consistent and data driven. When he starts to make decisions that don’t make as much sense based on the data, it becomes much more difficult to toe the line, if you will. And so that’s my question is I’ve also heard, obviously, some rumors about the depletion of certain funding at the state level. And that has also driven some some decisions at the state level. That’s hearsay, that’s anecdotal. And I’ll get out of that now. But I’ve heard these things. And so I’m just curious as if the metrics change for this decisions at the state level. Can we still as confidently back those same decisions? And that’s, again, a hypothetical question to my colleagues on Council. It’s not based on what we’re hearing right now, because we don’t know. We simply don’t know at this point.

Alright guys, we’re back.

I actually,


Mayor Pro Tem, I agree with you but to Harold and possibly to Jessica with a five star program is Boulder County looking at as vaccines increase the ability to possibly go beyond the 50% capacity if someone has proof that they have taken the vaccine? And are we looking in, excuse me, in Boulder County, at some kind of a card or a phone app, to show that we have gone above and beyond we’ve got the vaccine,

still wear a mask. But I would think that the capacity would probably be skewed or change a little bit with that. It is something I think that needs to be addressed.

So at least what we’re hearing on the vaccine side right now. And I’m going to talk about this women’s council overpack Oh, oh, I think part of it, what we’re hearing in terms of the vaccine is even if you get it, you still the masking requirements are still going to be in play. Because what they don’t know. And this is the hard part. It’s not those that are vaccinated, it’s those that are vaccinated. That become the concern because what they don’t know right now is whether or not if you’re vaccinated, you may still shed the virus and potentially infect other people. So until there’s more back, I think that may be something they look at further once they get more people vaccinated in the state. But there’s those concert conversations in the mix. But they’re still pretty adamant about if you’re vaccinated, you still need to wear your mask, because we’re not sure that you’re you can’t potentially infect someone else. Speaking of vaccines, there was another change that occurred late last week. Oh, sorry. There’s another question, man.

mute your bandwidth. I said, I

mean, I’ve been working at the computer all day in my eyes are having a hard time seeing the screen the water, and it’s stinking pretty bad. But I saw a bright red movement in Dr. waters that Mayor Pro Tem asked a question I just wanted to respond. Like a lot of people, you and I and others have wondered about the basis for some of the decisions the governor made last week, because the data didn’t seem to square with the data. I agree with it. I have to say though, I have two concerns, I share that the aspirations that we do all we can support our local businesses, especially our hospitality industry. However, once once we pull the pin, that we’ve decided we’re going to selectively comply with the mayor, Mayor with the governor, then I think it’s a free for all. And we’re going to spend a lot of time on Tuesday nights, arguing whose data is going to be the data or the data?

I think that’s dangerous. Number one,

I think we made a good decision. When we made the decision. Like it or not, we’re gonna we’re gonna follow the governor that was that we made together. Once we once we take a step back, I think it’s a free for all in the UK has that, you know, makes the best point I guess on a Tuesday night, or we simply don’t comply with anything the governor has to say. I think that becomes a concern. The other the other is is we did that? I would I would want to, I would want to be in really close touch with our healthcare providers. Because what I wouldn’t want to do is do do to our healthcare, private health care providers or hospitals and others. What I think the well county commissioners have done to theirs, or that other municipalities have done. I mean, if you look at our hospital rates, and I think Hallelujah, we still have capacity. But I just I look at the news reports and the what what is happening to the healthcare system that’s about to collapse and the people in it. And we just can’t ask much more of them. So, you know, and I don’t want to trade off hospital, or I don’t want to trade off hospitality industry for health care workers. We’re gonna think Had a we got to figure out how to do this in a way that doesn’t put those people who are on the front lines of keeping people healthy, to put them over the edge in the interest of trying to keep restaurants open. Even as much as I want to keep restaurants open, I just think we have to take, take a real thoughtful approach if we’re gonna not comply with what the governor’s orders are. Okay, thank you. Anybody else?

All right. So the last piece is what’s going on there. So the vaccine information changed also last week, and we’re trying to work with with that. And understand it. So to let you all know what we were doing. Here it is, I’m going to show you the screen. This is from CDP AG, he will see the vaccine screen. Yes, on phase two. So this changed a little bit. And so what you’re seeing him in one Bs, the one that changed the most, and so coloradoans, age 70 plus moderate risk health care workers, first responders, frontline essential workers in Kenyan continuity of state government. And so what they’re looking at right now, in what they’re talking about is one be above the line in terms of those that can be vaccinated. So we are running our firefighters and police through the system. health care workers have been running through that COVID-19 patients home health, hospice pharmacy. Ms is in that, as part of that. There’s also other positions that are related to law enforcement, that in some cases are in public safety, but may not be in other organizations that they’re including that Rangers is an example of that piece. The interesting thing that we’ve had to really look at is this COVID-19 response personnel. And so that’s really looking at emergency operations, folks, in terms of how we’ve talked about it. So we’re having a lot of conversations, and then people age 70 and older. And that’s going to be important, because until they can really tackle that group, what we’re hearing today is they’re not going to move to the group below the line. And what we’re also hearing is that when a provider signs a contract with the state, they’re also saying they’re going to hit the state guidelines. So there’s a lot of conversations regarding this as we continue to move forward. The President put it in perspective for you all, what we’re hearing is the state receives about 60,000 doses a week, of which 20,000 is going to healthcare and long term care facilities. So then when you look at the remaining 40,000, and they’re really focusing on that 70 above, and some of these other one be above the line. When you said How long does it take, you know, what we’re hearing is it could be March before we start moving into one be below the line. And so then obviously, late spring as you’re moving into phase two, which is why when we talk about phase three, that’s why we’re kind of saying in the summer, early fall is what’s in at least our mind, as we’re starting to consider this. We’re we are working with Kaiser, they are a provider. And we are providing you know, we’re in conversations now with them on this issue. But what we’re all trying to be really focused on is making sure that the individuals that we include are in those categories, so we don’t have any issues. We did make a run and saying critical infrastructure workers. Obviously you see some of them below the line and one be potentially most of its going to be probably in two. And we were trying to say we needed him above the line and but they’re not there. So what we’re doing today is there’s a committee working in Boulder County, Dan evens are representative with Shannon McBain, and they’re working with a broader group in the county. And they’re working through these issues. They had to retool their plan last week because they were going down this road of change and they had to adjust it again. And one thing is that is very clear that I heard on my admin call today. And I said you’re going to hear this again about repurposing is we know that the county health department’s are going to need assistance when this comes into play. Some of the providers the large providers like Safeway, and Walgreens and CVS may need locations. And so what was made very clear to me in the admin meeting is that cities are going to have to step up to assist and facilitate this as we start moving forward. And we may not have a lot of time. So I wanted to tell you this as these things come up, I may very well have to make a decision that says I need to use Lastly, Street Station to help someone or we may need to use a senior center to help these groups. And but they are saying cities need to be part of that. Just wanted to let you know we’re going to be responding to that real time. And Mayor Council, I know this is a long update. It’s been a couple of weeks and things have changed dramatically on us. I’m happy to answer any questions. You get


Hold on the screens frozen. I don’t see it if he gets here. Yep.

There we are.

Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I probably should have asked about this earlier when you were talking about PPP and unemployment. But we do have the new federal law out. And I am hearing a lot of confusion about availability of the different benefits from that law, especially landlord and tenant assistance. And the date of the the end date of the eviction moratorium, which that law extends for at the federal level to January 31.

And that was captured. The state did extend it did

get that okay, I missed that. Okay, so good. Because I’ve been telling people it would happen, but I wasn’t sure.

I found out today, this afternoon. Okay.

All right. So I’m not behind the times, that always makes me feel better. So the Colorado eviction moratorium also goes through January 31. A lot of people are still really nervous about that, because less than 30 days isn’t a lot of time to react to that. And what I am hearing, which is going to be exasperate exacerbated by the news about unemployment fraud is that a lot of people aren’t applying for assistance, because they are afraid to they’re afraid that if that they’re committing a crime, or they’re going to get in trouble somehow, if they apply for benefits from two different sources. And they’re not sure where to go or what the priorities are. And unfortunately, the result of that is that too many people are doing nothing, when in fact? Well, my understanding is that the the federal benefits want you to have sought help locally first. So they’re doing it backwards. And so what I want to understand is, is and get out in front of the public is where people go. And I also want, I think, some assurance that if people tell the truth, they’re not going to get in trouble.


I don’t know what

I guess, Harold, I’d like you to say, what people should do and what we’re going to do to make it easier for them. So a couple of things to think a if you need assistance he poured into us, and we will find a way to connect you to the appropriate agency. And we have some contact numbers. And actually, Councilmember Martin called me Friday, Thursday from one day, one of those days are about our website. And one of the things that we realized is we have a lot of that information on the COVID piece. But we think what we realized is the further we get away from it, folks aren’t going there. And they need to type in housing assistance or rental assistance. And what we work in what we found and what I found based on that question from Councilmember Martin is some of those pages don’t have the same information. So we’re talking to marayke. And we’re gonna work to retool that to make sure that’s all over the place. So depending on how you search you get there, because I found some of those dead ends where it said we provide the service. So we’re going to clean that up a little bit. The key piece, what I would say is if you think you need help connect to us via those numbers that we have on our website. And the information we put out. It is our job. And when I say our job, it is the program administrators responsibility to work individuals through that process to ensure that there’s not a duplication of benefits and and that we are applying the appropriate standards and procedures. If the individual is being honest with us and they’re not committing fraud, and we don’t do it correctly, then the cities and the state the cities the county and the state are responsible And that’s what you hear us say in terms of the clawback provisions actually clawed back from us, not the individual, if we didn’t do it, right. And so when we talk about what we were seeing in the business and the childcare piece, it actually was in those conversations where we were having those discussions that Peter and Molly O’Donnell would pour out of it, and then go to the state and ask the questions, and then come back and work with the applicant and, and really we’re getting clarity in terms of, Okay, if they receive PPP, PPP, it’s not an automatic disqualifier. Do they still have needs beyond that, and that’s the work

we have to do.

So I would say come in, and those folks administering it will work them through the process.

Thank you. That’s very helpful. I’m writing down the time that you sit with this. Okay, so

that we’re now at 915. And we have and we haven’t hit public invited to be heard. So I’m going to ask that if there’s unless there’s something extremely pressing to say that we move on anybody. Okay, so let’s go ahead let’s move on to first call public invited to be heard. But let’s take a five minute break the restroom etc, while we open up blinds, let people queue it. All right, back in five.

Okay, folks, for those that are watching our live stream, now is the time to call in for public invited to be heard, you can do so by calling our toll free number 1-888-788-0099. Again, that’s 1888788099. And when prompted, enter the meeting id 87590832677. Again, that meeting ID is 87590832677. You will enter our waiting room and then you will be admitted to our meeting. And when the meeting resumes, we will call on you one at a time by the last three digits of your phone number. So please mute the live stream because there is a delay and listen to us on your telephone. For instructions. Thank you

Hello for all those that have joined the meeting now on your phone, please make sure that you mute the live stream and that you listen for instructions through your phone. I will ask you to unmute by the last three digits of your phone number and you’ll be able to state your name and address and you’ll have three minutes. We will return to the meeting shortly.


URL: https://otter.ai/u/EFuDg-33tZJZW8_ujpnJ_YHhy1Y

Mayor Are you ready to return?

Yeah, we’re ready to return. I’m seeing Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmember Christiansen back.

Oh, boom,


there they are. Like waters he back. There he is. Alright, let’s go ahead and start with first call public advisory heard.

Mayor, we currently have 10 callers. I’m just gonna wait a second for it to clear the livestream before I begin, and it looks like it’s just doing that.

Alright, and then let’s go ahead and close the close the room. So we don’t go from 10 to 20. All right,

I will begin with the first caller, your phone number ends in 035035. I’m going to ask you to unmute

Hello. Hello. Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes. And I can hear myself in the background. Is it possible for you to mute the live stream?

I will do that entirely. Thank you. There we go.

All right, you may begin by stating your name and address for the record.

Okay, thanks. I am Jenny black. I live at 2609 Elmhurst circle in Longmont. Good evening there vaguely in council members, Christiansen Hill, doggo fairing, Martin, Peck, Rodriguez and waters. The comments I’m going to make are about the road bike park constructed in the riparian corridor along left hand Creek with item 12 C on the agenda. I emailed a longer version of these comments to council back in May but did not speak to the council at that time. Just as background. I am the mother of two boys now grown with a voice of their own and concerned about what happened to the riparian way and seeking expert advice on boys and bike. I sent the Times called article of may 20 to my son’s for review and comment. Both expressed empathy for the riders while recognizing that they must bear some responsibility for their actions. Their suggestions are incorporated in the following comments, I hope they will be helpful. Well, the creativity of these boys in building the course and then calling attention to a personal need, or a perceived need for bicycle or bicycles course in this neighborhood is admirable. It is unfortunately in the wrong place. This is public land that has been set aside as a riparian way to protect both the river and the wildlife that use this corridor. This mistake however, can serve as a teaching moment for the whole community to honor their petition request and or leave the course in place. Allowing de facto continued use would not be the appropriate lesson to remove the skills course and repair the area as soon as possible would, particularly if those involved in the destruction were to help working with the city and perhaps with the aid of concerned community members and wildlife restoration volunteers with whom the city has partnered on other projects. In addition and equally important after or while the repairs are being done. Those interested in a bike skills park in this neighborhood could work with the city to plan and obtained funds for building one in a more appropriate place. In the meantime, Dickens Park was safe Although more distant access could be used, Taken together, these actions which are consistent with option to being considered this evening, would serve as a lesson in environmental conservation and the necessity for compromise in civic planning and political action. Thank you very much for your consideration of these suggestions.

Thank you. All right.

And the next caller, your phone number ends in 347347. I’m going to ask you to unmute


  1. Try hitting the star six on your phone. If you hear me There you go.

Oh, I thought I was already muted. This is Mary Lynn. I live at 744 Atwood Street. And I’m recalling, I’m calling with our two actually two issues. The first is I’m very, very concerned about the very, very weak scientific justification for the restrictions that Governor polis is continuing to put forth and that the city is unfortunately still complying with, which are devastating our local economic community, especially our restaurants. Every week, I look at the statistics that the city is using, and I think if someone with a scientific training, how can they possibly justify this? How can they possibly justify the numbers of quote unquote, cases, when the international community is now working rapidly to make sure that PCR tests are never used, ever used to actually make a case diagnoses? We don’t know how many people who are sick at this time or or dying are dying from flus A and B, because the CDC does not track this is not tracking the flu this year. I urge the city to to recognize that the information that’s coming to you while you’re trying to be safe is is very weak. And you are restricting the rights of businesses their natural light, right to their constitutional rights to make a living, and it has to be stopped. We have got to get the city back on track and people loving walking around in downtown Longmont in and loving our city again. And we we have to recognize that whether the governor says it or not whether the department the Health Department says it or not. It is the responsibility of the people who are carrying out these restrictions to make sure that they are actually correct in terms of doing legal right to restrict people’s businesses. And I know that’s being questioned. I heard about another lawsuit today against the local business. I don’t want to hear this. They don’t want to be in this position. Please do the right thing and open them up. Thank you.

All right, next caller.

next caller your phone number ends in 452452. I’m going to ask you to unmute There you are.

Can you hear me? Yep,

you may begin.

Sherry Malloy 2113 rangeview Lane. Thank you for recognizing the beautiful life and life legacy of Nino gala tonight in May 2020. The issue about the creation of a BMX bike course by air used along the creek by lefthand Park was discovered and created without approval by the city. This course was not only very damaging to this section of the riparian corridor, it was also illegal. Obviously, the kids didn’t intend to cause harm or break the law. But that’s what happened. At that time due to COVID restrictions with kids not attending school combined with pressure from parents and online petition. The youth created an a boulder bike group’s involvement. This council directed natural staff, natural resources staff to monitor the situation. David Bell told me the parents in the bike group folks all realized what the kids had done was wrong. They just asked for leeway and time in hopes that the COVID impacts would be short lived and the parents and by group understood the bike trail would be shut down in the fall. That approach and rationale seem to make sense at that time. Well, it’s now January 2021. And while we all know COVID impacts continue To be significant, the kids have used this area for eight months, and it’s time to get real and fix this unfortunate situation. Option two is how council should direct staff tonight. This means spending the money required to remove and restore all impacts to the disturbed riparian corridor, including the removal of the by course, Council has a contingency fund that can and should be used to fund this project. option three is out of the question. And option one reinforces improper behavior. But the kids did so unintentional, was misguided and unacceptable. No one wants them to be held responsible for the $35 $35,000 price tag to repair the damage they cause. We look the other way long enough and it’s time to make it right. As a parent of a dirt biking and mail enthusiast I get it, kids will be kids, but that includes being held responsible for their mistakes. There is a bike skill area Dickens farm, which is only two and a half Greenway miles away with no street crossings. 2.5 miles is not far on a bike, especially when one realizes the entire argument for letting this continue eight months ago was to give the kids some exercise and enjoyment. Option one reinforces irresponsible behavior and teaches a dangerous civic lesson. As a retired teacher for 35 years, we should be using this as an opportunity to teach you about the value of repairing areas, and why it’s necessary to respect and protect this space and other natural areas where 95% of all wildlife depend on healthy riparian areas for their survival. I would love to see a restorative justice approach where the youth involved might take responsibility for the harm caused and be involved in the repair project. That would be a win win full scenario, full circle scenario. As a volunteer with natural resources, I’m concerned about the previous efforts to plant natural vegetation in this area, which has not been successful due to the unintended abuse. I look forward to help with the restoration efforts. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

The next caller, your phone number ends in 488. I’m going to ask you to unmute.


can you hear me?

Yes, we can you may begin.

Alright. Yeah, my name is Scott Cunningham. I live at 3771 South Narcissus in Denver and practice integrative internal medicine. My comments this evening are in reference to the climate action recommendation report published in June of 2020. I want to begin by congratulating the council for embracing the very ambitious goal of 100% renewable, clean and safe energy by the year 2030. At the risk of stating the obvious, I want to I want to bring to mind that in order to reach this worthy and audacious goal by 2030. You can’t afford to waste any time spent in distraction along the way. As an example, I’d like to draw your attention to initiative three, marches, ri three and the recommendation

rd three suggests that in conjunction with local utilities, by 2023 options and incentives will be provided for electric utility customers to participate in a demand response program that manages electricity use in the home to reduce peak demand, shift the peak load or absorb excess production, I would suggest that if all you have is a demand response program by 2023, you won’t be even close to meeting your goal of 100% renewable by 2030. Now, in contrast, I’d like to focus on an aspect of the recommendation that I believe is right on target are referring Of course to re five which suggests that by 2021, a pilot renewable energy grid would be a huge step in the right direction. I agree with you that our renewable grid to include residential rooftop solar, and a beneficial sustainable and above all safe electrification plan is absolutely critical to meeting your 2030 goal. So in conclusion, I recommend an aggressive state of the art 100% renewable pilot to be implemented immediately to demonstrate to all observers that Longmont has acquired the technical expertise and possesses the collective will to create a fully functional 100% renewable, smart, fully wired utility grid in 2021. Effectively bringing long months bright future into the present, and positioning the city for first mover status and gaining recognition, even nationally. Thank you very much.

All right, thank you very much. By the way, I love it when people like it three minutes exactly like Exactly. So that last caller was like, on anyway,

next caller. Yes.

The next caller, your your phone number ends in 579579. I’m going to ask you to unmute 579.

There you are.

Do you hear us either?


I do. Thank you City Council for taking my call. My name is Greg Swart. I live at 2023 Sundance Dr. Benton Longmont resident for over 40 years and I’m calling regarding the proposed Rex maintenance facility at the ute Creek Golf Course. First of all, I’m an avid golfer, and I voted in favor of the maintenance facilities at the you Creek Golf Course. I feel I was misled because I believe I believe what I was signing up for was a remodel or revamping the existing facility, not a relocation. Since then, I’ve learned that the facilities are planned to be relocated to the parking lot in the clubhouse by the clubhouse. And, and I’m I’m outraged that it wasn’t disclosed at the time of the vote. That would have absolutely changed my vote along with many of my friends at U Creek. I have had the privilege to play hundreds of golf courses, nice golf courses all over the world. Never have I seen a nice golf course with the maintenance facility by the clubhouse by where all the clients and patrons park the nicest golf courses on the planet have done a fantastic job of hiding their maintenance facilities away from the participants. You Creek as our as long months premier golf course. And I just hate to see it degraded by the exposure of the maintenance facility. After talking to several of my golfing friends who also voted for it, they were disgusted that the plan proposal was that we were going to custom have a custom architectural building as a maintenance facility instead of a standard efficiency building that could be provided at its current location. I’m asking the city to please be financially responsible and please don’t degrade the nicest golf course we have. Please keep the facility in its original location. Thank you for your consideration.

Our next caller is 681 those are the last three digits 681 There you are.

Can you hear us? Yes we can. Wonderful.

Yes Scott Pierce 2017 Sundance drive in Longmont. Good evening, everyone and Happy New Year. I too am addressing the city council regarding the proposed relocation of the youth Creek Golf Course maintenance buildings. The current maintenance facilities been located along the highway 66 area for 25 years for the original you Creek Golf Course layout that was designed by the Robert Trent Jones the second golf architects. As you know the city of Longmont staff, which also happens to be the applicant here is proposing to build a new facility right next to the existing clubhouse. This decision is opposed by several 100 of the homeowners who live all around you Creek Golf Course and also many of your pain golf customers. Many of us have spoken with members of city council and city staff regarding our issues and the disapproval to move the facility. But we have not been provided any feedback to our concerns, and the project continues to keep moving along behind closed staff tours. Our request is that the current facility off highway 66 must be upgraded and upgraded at its current location and not relocated The city applicant is justifying holding itself to a lesser design standard by citing development cost savings, we strongly disagree with this position. In addition to centrally relocating the maintenance in a waste yard, the city applicant is requesting variances to install a chain link fence and buildings with non conforming sheet metal exterior designs. These variances exempt the city applicant for meeting building standards for design and compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Simply put, city staff is holding itself to a lower design standard than the surrounding homeowners and their Hoa is required to meet in 2002, a non non public administrative approval to move the maintenance yard was never acted upon and technically expired one year after the project inactivity. There have been no public discussion regarding the relocation issues since that time. Did you know that there are over 240 public and private golf courses in Colorado, and our research shows that none zero of these courses have built a maintenance facility next to or even within 1000 yards of their clubhouse. Even though Robert Trent Jones golf course designers and two other golf course architects indicated to us that they would never design a golf course with these two facilities in such close proximity to each other. Why should Longmont do this? Who does it benefit? Come on? We request that the current maintenance facility be upgraded at its current location and not relocated. The city must hold itself accountable to its own standards and abandon this preposterous preposterous proposal that will devalue the premier golf course in Longmont.

All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 696. I’m going to ask you to unmute. There you are. Can you hear us?

Yes, I can. Can you hear me? We sure can. You may begin. Thank you. My name is Chris hammerschmidt. I live at 2619 Fernwood place in Broomfield, Colorado, and I am calling in response to the businesses that are currently shut down in your city. I have looked at all the data on the Colorado website. I am a data analyst I deal with a lot of data. And I pulled the data for the outbreaks both the result inactive cases for both boulder and weld counties. Most of the results cases were found in healthcare facilities in schools. In weld County. A lot of cases came from meat processing facilities and the only cases in restaurants were due to staff testing positive. There are no members of the community that tested positive from restaurants and no deaths have resulted from the restaurant. The largest source of active community outbreak of about 2000 was at the University of Colorado and resulted in zero deaths. The whole food store on Pearl Street had 20 people test positive and no death. And the only grocery store in weld County was King soopers number 117 with 28 confirmed lab staff cases. The other retailers in weld county who had lab confirmed cases was nature’s urban Wellness Center. And the target in Greeley was six and 11 cases respectively. The only deaths have been in health care facilities and jails. I i’ve been reading this book called the transmission of epidemic influenza by Dr. Edgar hope Simpson. He states that viruses are seasonal, which is what we are seeing now we’re seeing the rise and seasonal cases of a virus. influenza in the north hemisphere appears from September to April exactly this timeframe with a peak in January. And in the southern latitudes influence appears from April to January this is all well known. I am asking you to open these businesses instead of punishing them for something they have no control over. And this is the data that you guys should be looking at. And I will just state a Facebook page from a restaurant here in Broomfield County. I’ll make it short. This is a restaurant owner. And this is what some of the excerpts of what he put in here. As I take a card that has just had this handle sanitized. I think about my restaurant which invested 1000s of dollars so far on ink and paper to print disposable menus to ensure no touch. No two guests touched the same menu. As I watched the woman next to me pick up apples with her hand check them over closely and then put them back on the open pile and repeat this until she finds the perfect apples, the same thing that all the other people that day who want an Apple will then do and then put those apples in their mouth. I think about the two step sanitation process in place at my restaurant for all cutlery, and dishes and glassware and between every single guest and the sanitation of every skin, every surface guest touch tables, Chair salt and pepper shakers, et cetera. I just want to leave you with this. I don’t think your five stars your your h2 solution, your five star mandate is, is what businesses need. They need to open. They are in despair. They are in desperation, and they need your help to open right now. And none of the data that is on the Colorado website says that they are at fault for what is happening in this community of virus goes viral. That’s what a virus does. And so I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mayor and for city council members for listening to me. All right, thank


That’s three. For one more.

Mayor, there’s three left the next caller. Your phone number ends in 949949. I’m going to ask you to unmute.

Hi, my name is Ruby Bowman 1512 left and Dr. Mayer Bagley and city council members city council should spend the funds necessary to restore riparian habitat on left hand creek that was damaged by the illegal BMX track. habitat restoration should be done as soon as possible. As you know from previous council discussions, the city stream corridors are highly valued habitat in terms of species richness, and they serve as well I movement corridors. Environmental sense sensitive areas like left hand Creek should be protected. If residents want to buy course in their neighborhood, there is a proper way to advocate for their project, like attending a private meeting and asking prab members to include a bike course as a park ci p project, it will probably have to be a CI p project because of the high price tag to build it. The illegal excavation of left hand Creek bank was not the way to do things. I also asked council to consider requiring a restorative justice measure and dealing with the BMX course. Those who damaged city property should be required to participate in repairing the damage. Thank you so much.

All right, our next caller your phone number ends and 789789 I’m going to ask you to unmute.

Thank you Good evening. My name is Shannon carbine. And my address is 6469 pulpit rock drive Colorado Springs, Colorado. And I represent a group here called make Americans free again, their city council thank you for staying up late with all of us tonight. We have reviewed the following information and have concluded the following concerning the covid 19 pandemic. During the year of 2020. We witnessed the unlawful incarceration of millions of Coloradans without due process. Our right to travel freely was severely restricted. We watched our children’s spirits dampen as their schools were closed and they were forced into online learning depriving them of knowledge in social interaction. Our elderly grandparents were jailed inside nursing homes deprived of fresh air, sunlight and visits with loved ones. We were kept out of our religious and spiritual centers and told we could no longer have fellowship with others. Our businesses were forced to shut their doors, forcing many of us into poverty under bankruptcy. Our fundamental rights granted to us under the US Constitution were stripped away at breathtaking speed. This was all decided for us by Governor polis and the unelected health officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This was done to us by force, all under the guise of a health emergency. Well, we have examined the evidence for the so called pandemic and assert the following. The death count is misleading and substantially overstated. testing for COVID-19 has huge flaws. The cure is worse than the disease. The public has been severely misled and masking social distancing will not stop the spread of the virus. Furthermore, COVID-19 is no worse than a seasonal flu. Our conclusion, there is no emergency. Therefore, we the citizens of Colorado have decided for ourselves, we do not comply. We do not comply with unconstitutional orders that are not even laws. We do not comply with unscientific emergency orders using manipulated data to target our livelihoods. We do not comply with the use of fear tactics and manipulation to coerce us into our homes. We do not comply with the wearing of face coverings that do not stop the spread of infection in Hyder faces and blocker voices from being heard. Instead, we declare we are citizens in charge. We declare ourselves free, free to educate our children as we see fit. Free to see our friends and family members at the time of our choosing.

cut her off. Thank you. All right, next caller. By the way, just to just reiterate, like everyone gets three minutes, you know, sorry.

And our last caller, your phone number ends in 926926.

There you are.

Can you hear me?

Hello. Good evening. Thank you Mayor Bagley and council members. I am calling today to mention the fact that the Wall Street Journal was just published about how

to me Please state your name for the record and address. Thank you.

Okay, sorry. It’s been Sergeant and I lived on what street in a side?

Thank you.

Okay, so Wall Street Journal article. The big tech giant Cisco Systems, is now dropping out of the Smart City technology market after investing heavily in initiative over the last decade or so. So why did that happen? Because they recognize that people don’t want it. cities don’t want to be smart, city surveilled. They, because of the all of the publicity around surveillance technology. Basically, Google also shut down this model project in Toronto for the same reason, no one in the community wanted it. It was bad for their brand. So I I’m calling because I understand that the city is trying to move ahead with putting smart meters on all of the houses and apartments here. And I suspect that the real reason that it’s being rolled out is again for surveillance. Because if the only intention really was the balancing and regulating of power needs across the city, if that was the only goal long lat could achieve that with approximately 406 smart meters, maybe a few more, maybe a few less, depending on how you how evenly distributed they are. But it’s completely unnecessary to put smart meters on every house. So the only justification for imposing smart cities, meters on all of the homeowners and all of the rental property owners is that that data collection has monetary value. And that’s why, you know, the the the cities want it, obviously, they can monetize it. But that’s why the people don’t want it. And so the cities that are listening to their people are actually stepping back from the holes, smart technology, smart city push and I hope that Longmont will wake up before it’s too late. It’s a gross misuse of public funds. To do this entire project, it’s completely unnecessary. There’s no justification for it. And

if you want to regulate the usage of power in the city, you are sampling. I hate

to cut you off, but that’s three minutes. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

mare that was the last caller.

All right, I heard a cat meow somebody But anyway, let’s go ahead and move on to the consent agenda and reading or the consent agenda and an introduction and reading by the title of first reading of ordinances.

Dawn you’re muted. It

sounds like

Thank you. Mayor. item nine is resolution 2021 dash o one a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Regional Transportation district for ecopath contract. Nine V is resolution 20 2102. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for parent education services. Nine C is resolution 2021 dash o three a resolution of the Longmont city council modifying the method of appointment of the commissioners of the Longmont Housing Authority. And nine D is designate the city’s website as the official posting location for city council meeting notices for 2021 meetings.

Move the consent agenda.

All right. The consent agenda has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, consent agenda passes unanimously. Let’s move on to items from or actually just general business. I’m gonna move that we recess the last council can be as the Board of Commissioners the Longmont Housing Authority. Again. It’s been moved by me and seconded by Councilmember Christiansen All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed say nay.

All right. The motion passes unanimously. We have a motion to adopt the revised eha bylaws that are consistent with the Longmont City Council. As the LA Board of Commissioners established the one my Housing Authority advisory board and take specific actions called for the bylaws.

So moved. Second Second.

All right. It’s been moved by Councilmember Martin and seconded by Councilmember Peck.

Anybody have any

questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, let’s vote All in favor say? Oh, I’m sorry. Sorry, as I say at the bottom. All right, Dr. Waters.

Thank you, Mayor Bagley. My question really is not as much about this motion. I’m going to vote for this motion. But we didn’t see in the right time to weigh in as we were approving the consent agenda. And I didn’t want to put up a poll and I am off. Is there a provision on tonight’s agenda to appoint the the the immediate past I guess, now lhsaa board members minus me to the advisory board a week? Is that on the agenda? Are we doing that tonight, if not, at some point, we should just I’ll just say that and be quiet and go for this motion.

So there’s some pieces in this. So point one, adopt the revised bylaws that recognizes the city council as a ellijay Board of Commissioners, and it establishes in Longmont Housing Authority advisory board. second piece is appoint the former members of the lhsaa board as members of the newly created housing advisory board. The other piece is council chooses to appoint me as the Interim Executive Director of the housing authority. So that’s the adoption piece.

So I’ll just let me interrupt if so if we, if we pass the bylaws, then we taken care of the appointment issue. For advisory board.

Thank you, across the board and for the executive director to

all right. Anybody else have any questions? All right, it’s been moved and seconded that we adopt the revised ha bylaws and and the rest of 12 a. The motion is on the table has been seconded. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Opposed say nay.

All right, the eyes carry unanimously. Do we have a motion to adjourn as the Board of Commissioners Aloma housing authority and reconvene as the last city council

Councilman So moved.

Second. Oh, Councillor Peck. You got sniped? Oh man. Oh god. That

was brutal. Councilmember Christiansen made the motion. It was seconded by Dr. Waters.

swooped in.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed say nay.

All right, the Motion carries unanimously let’s move on to 12 be possible changes to inclusionary housing code for review and direction.

That’s actually going to be Kathy

Good evening mayor and council Kathy Felder Housing and Community Investment division manager. And tonight I would also like to ask Molly and Heidi to turn on their video and unmute themselves in case there are things that they need to answer. Heidi Peterson is our inclusionary housing program specialist. And she and then Molly McElroy is our housing program specialist. And Heidi takes the development side of the inclusionary housing program, through the provision of units working with the developers attends to DRC meetings, tracks the projects, collects the fee and Lu when we get that and approves middle tier housing when we get that, and then Molly works on the homebuyer side, once we have housing units, gets downpayment assistance as needed processes, fee waivers, and other financial support through the CDBG. And affordable housing, fun. So both of those folks are integral parts of this, and have been involved in inclusionary housing since the beginning in the case of Molly, and as soon as she was hired in the case of Heidi, and work together to make sure that we always have somebody who’s knowledgeable about the inclusionary housing program as we as we move forward. So what we’re bringing forth to you tonight is some updates that we have observed over the course of the two years of the program has been in operation all of 2019 and all of 2020 since the ordinance was passed and approved, effective December 24 of 2018. You remember, it’s a city wide and a county wide goal of 12% of the housing deed restricted discriminate portable is our goal. There’s so many options for compliance with the ordinance, and accessory dwelling units, individual single family homes are exempted. You want to bring up the PowerPoint, please go to the third page. All right there. Okay. So like I said, in the two years following the adoption, we’ve identified some areas, some of these were identified by planning staff in some by as just going through the processes. So this is a review of some specific areas where there’s either been conflicts between the language in the code and possible intent. Sometimes counsel has actually brought up issues as we have, as you have reviewed some of the voluntary agreements, etc. So we’re providing options for resolving these scenarios, that has have arisen for your input. Items one through nine are possible potential amendments to the code. And then we have two areas at the end items number 10, and 11. That we just want to bring forward and get your initial thoughts on them any further input from the community how you want us to get that kind of thing. So those will be coming back for further discussion for sure. Next slide, please. So the first one is an exemption for existing housing units. So the current code does not provide for an exemption for existing housing units that would remain as part of a new project. If you remember, the Martin street family multifamily project council did approve a motion to give the developer an exemption for the pre existing unit that was going to remain and be included as part of the project on site. It was a original house, and they were going to rehab it and rent it as part of the project. There was also another home on the site that they demolished so they did not get an exemption for that. So based on Council’s previous direction, the question is should the codie language be amended to reflect an exemption from the inclusionary housing calculation for existing housing units that would remain on site. So option one is to change the code to provide the exemption for existing and remaining part of the project housing units or to leave the code as is and deal with those on a case by case basis. And if you want to provide direction. As we go through this, that might be the easiest. And I can answer questions about each one as well.

I suggest that if we we do take motions will have to exit in and out of the presentation for the mayor to be able to accurately see.

You rock up real quick you said one more time.

I was just saying if we’re going to take motions after each bullet point or item that we should probably exit in and out of the presentation so you can accurately see who wants to ask questions and stuff.

That’s true. I just noticed that Heidi Peterson, Kathy fetlar. And Polly Christiansen and yourself, currently do not have any hands raised. I don’t see anybody else. But what I would like to do is how many, how many? How many slides? Do we have? Is it possible to go through it and then return? And then do that all at once? Yeah, there’s,

there’s 20 total. Or we could stop at the nine and go back and do those and then have the discussion on 910 and 11.

What do you think is best? You know, what’s coming? Kathy, what would you recommend we do?

I think get would probably be most quickest and most helpful probably to just take each one as it is it take the questions on each one. And

on each one. Let’s do that. Now,

I can see everybody right now. So he put up the slide. Real quick.


So we’re looking at option one, the change change the code to provide an exemption for existing and remaining housing units or to leave the code as is and deal with it on a case by case basis. Okay, Councilmember Christiansen?


We’re making a decision on inclusionary housing at a time that is kind of a financial meltdown. So I first of all, Kathy, thank you for all the hard work you’ve done on these, these are things that we need to deal with. So and I think we can go through them pretty quickly and get it out of the way. This particular one has to do with already built housing that will have stuff added on, I think each one of these cases will be very different. I would rather not try to do a one size fits all. And I would like to see us leave this as it is on a case by case basis for a while and maybe we examine it after the economy picks up a little bit. I think that because these are going to be odd cases, we should look at them on a case by case basis. So I would recommend that we I would move that we suggest you’re not looking for motions, right? Yeah, we

need to we need to pass. Okay. Okay,

I would I would move that we go for option two and leave it as is for now.

All right. It’s been moved and seconded. Anyone disagree with that? All right. All in favor of the motion, which is just leave it as is say aye.

Aye. Opposed say nay.

Thank you, john, pack.

diving in.

I make a statement here for a minute. Sure. Go ahead. Um, I don’t. Are we voting on each one of these? Or are we just going to tell each one of us what option we prefer?

We’re going to we’re going well, if there’s a motion, okay, there’s a second, we will vote on it. All right. If I mean, just,

I just missed. I just missed the strategy here. So thank you. Okay, that’s all

right. So to be clear, it was a six to one with six eyes in one day with Councilmember Peck dissenting, right.


Let’s keep going. Kathy,

can you put up this slide again, then, please?

Go to the next one.

All right, so on group homes. Right now there’s the code does not provide for an exemption for additional units added within the current existing building footprint and or conversion of non living space to living areas or bedrooms. So in this example, we did have a group care home conversion provided application was submitted and then later withdrawn. But the what happened was the proposal was converting a single family home of three bedrooms into a group care home and converting the garage area and some former non living and living areas into five additional bedrooms for a total of eight. The code currently requires all the square footage to be considered in the inclusionary housing calculation. So similar to the one before this option one is to amend the code for group home conversions to exclude existing bedroom spaces from the inclusionary housing square footage calculation and only new bedroom spaces would be applicable. or two. We could exclude group homes from the inclusionary housing code requirement altogether. I guess a third one would be just to leave it as is

Councilmember Martin.

Thank you Mayor Bagley cafe, our group homes typically not for profit organizations, or can they be for profit?

It could be either one. This particular one I believe is for profit.


That makes it more complicated in my mind, but I want to listen to other people first before making any motion.

Councilmember waters,

but just to get it on the floor, I’m not gonna I won’t argue one side of this. The other I’m gonna, I’m gonna move that we we approve option

number one, which is to exclude existing bedrooms, but any additional a new bedrooms are subject to the code.

Second, all right. It’s

been moved and seconded. Councilmember Christiansen, okay. All in favor say Aye.

All right, sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

I thought I think I Councilmember Christiansen you wanted to talk and then you move it like Go

on, go on.

And then you wait that again? Do you want to say something?

Okay, I’ll briefly say something I’m in support of what comes from waters suggested. Does the language specifically say group care home? It needs to say group care home. Because a group just a group living together would be a totally different thing. Well,

we’ll make sure that it matches the planning definition.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, I do think we should. I don’t think we should exclude them. Because as Councilman Martin pointed out, there’s a big difference between a for profit and not not for profit, sometimes not. But anyway, I would support option one. Okay,

there’s a motion on the table to adopt or instruct staff to adopt. Number one, option one. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.


All right, the motion. The motion carries six to one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez in the dissent.

Thank you. All right.

And just for future reference, we don’t we’re not going to do it now. But anytime, can make Mayor Pro Tem anytime you’ve got a an opinion. I’d love to hear the reason behind it. And I don’t mean that to argue I mean that with all sincerity.

I did raise my hand just didn’t catch it.

Oh, that lets you know what then point of order. That’s my fault. Let’s go back. And actually, we’ll revote. And if you don’t mind, I’m sorry.

I think the vote is fine to stand. But I’d be happy to explain real quick Go Go ahead, please, is that I feel that the affordable housing program, at least in this case, is going more by the letter of the law than the spirit of the law, in my opinion, because when I think of trying to provide said housing for the the community at large, group homes don’t necessarily come into my mind as something of working class folks trying to find a place to live, much less anybody trying to look for ownership of a property or rental of a full property. This is seems to be seems to me to be a completely separate issue, in the sense that these are these are folks who are needing some sort of assisted living in concept. And so I don’t think it really is a detriment to our housing stock. Just an opinion, but that’s why I voted Nay, I would have preferred option two to exclude all group homes from the affordable housing program.

Councillor Martin?

Oh, but just just to be clear, before we start talking the motion, the motions passed,

like, you know,

yeah, yes, it’s past. So I just didn’t call Mayor Pro Tem. And if you wanted to take the vote again, I would have asked us to go ahead and do that, because I did not use them on my screen. He’s at the very, very bottom. And so for some reason, I’m not I’m not saying Dr. Waters. Now. I missed one from Dr. Waters. Miss welcome,


I’ll just start voting next.

Yeah, exact just if you move, I catch it. So I apologize. So all right. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So that motion is passed and carried six to one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez in the sec. All right.

I had a hand up and was called on it.

Go ahead, Counselor Martin.

It will I wanted to comment because I’m not sure we shouldn’t vote again. That was the reason I asked the profit nonprofit question was because these are institutions. These are not housing.

We don’t we don’t we don’t need to vote again. You know, Mayor Pro Tem was the only dissenting vote and he did not object. So Councilmember Christiansen

I see what both points that you’re making. However, this specifically talks about when you’re converting a home into a group home, so it is actually affecting our housing stock. And it particularly if it’s a for profit, very high income stuff.

Anyway. So again, again, we’ve taken the vote. So all this is, is, is politely you know, all all obsolete. So let’s go ahead and move on with the presentation and go on to the next

hotly debated topic.

And can you go to the next slide, please? Number six. So single family home conversion to a duplex we’ve had several residents have brought proposals to the DRC to convert existing homes into duplex homes were allowed by existing zoning proposals have not included a change to the existing footprint of the residents of what we’ve seen so far. Option one is to keep the existing language in the code, which is a conversion from a single family home into a duplex is subject to inclusionary housing requirements, and one of the two units would need to meet the inclusionary housing requirement. Option two would be to exclude single family conversion to a duplex from the inclusionary housing code similar to the exemption for ad use, or option three would be to apply the inclusionary housing only when adding more than one unit. So converting it to a triplex or a multiplex. Those are the three options that we have are proposing. And two and three kind of go together by exempting a duplex. But if it was more than one unit added.

Let’s go with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez the bottom of the screen

but hand it up.

Thank you, Mary Bagley. This is just a question about the difference between option two and three in the sense that let’s say you had a triplex and you wanted to convert it to a four Plex or a four Plex to a five Plex or say just adding one unit. Does does that then apply an option three to any size complex that just wants to have one unit per se. Just curious.

I guess you you provide direction to me, what would what would make sense in that situation? If you’re just adding one matter what the size that should it apply? Or does it have to be more than one?

Okay, well, I mean, there’s obviously certain limitations based on square footage, as well as the zoning of such things. I would be okay, personally, and I’ll move option two. Specifically for single family conversion to duplexes.

I will second that, which would make it exempt, Correct.

Correct. Councilmember counselor

waters Hands up. But I noticed Councillor pack you had a hand up and you have not said as much as others. So do you want to say something?

Yes. Thank you, Mayor badly. So um, my confusion comes in. If someone wants to have a triplex or a four Plex, then are they excluded as well? Or is it only the duplex excluded? And then I’m not sure that is clear to me. If we go with option two, does option three stand as being included in the inclusionary? housing? I guess this is for Kathy. Yeah.

I mean, I would say yes. Unless you’re telling me that if you’re only adding one unit, one additional unit that it doesn’t apply. Otherwise, I would say if you vote on number two, number three is assumed.

See that I was going to move option three because that automatically took out the duplex. But if we just vote for option two, and I’m not sure if we have a solid reason for option three to include inclusionary housing. That’s a gray area for me.

Councilmember Martin because your fingers move faster than Councilmember Christiansen

Oh, border

Councilmember Christina just kidding Council.

So I actually have, I think a solution. That first of all we can use we could have two motions. We have more than one option that could be implemented independently. So I would like to I’ll tell you in advance what my two motions are. I think I would move or I guess we should vote on Councilmember Rodriguez is motion which is to exclude duplexes, right exclude a single family home being split into a duplex, and it’s exempt. So we should vote on that. And then after that, I would like to vote on the the adding one unit to an end Plex and exempt that as well. So I’ll move that after we’ve done voting on the first time. And the reason that I am and the anything that’s different from that would have to be handled as a separate case, you know, as a special case, but that would be seems seems like it’d be pretty rare. And the reason that I think of it this way, is because these exclusive, these are adding density, which is what we want. So let’s be lenient about it and encourage attic density, then go down in in price anyway because they’re smaller.

So mayor, Mayor Pro Tem Would you accept the friendly amendment from the second that basically just says that we will exempt? Anyone adding a plus one, meaning if you have a single home going to a duplex or duplex to a triplex or triplex to add on one more would be exempt?

Yeah, just to make it a little bit more complicated. I would accept the amendment as long as it doesn’t exceed zoning limits. Yeah, absolutely. So

the motion is that any any one adding on one more one more unit to an existing unit, as long as it’s one more and does not extend or go beyond the zoning? What is permitted by the zoning limits? That is that is the motion in a second. But we have plenty of questions, comments, concerns and debate left Councilmember Christiansen and Councilmember waters. Okay, I

I’m all for adding density in the right places, the right places are downtown and some of the other areas where we already have apartments and things like that. When you start adding more and more and more density to a neighborhood, what you take away is your neighbors right to any kind of sunshine in their backyard, your neighbors right to any kind of privacy, your hips, your spread to any kind of peace and quiet and having the neighborhood that they moved into. I think we can do that in a smart way by just limiting things as we did with ad use and SDRs to not that many per neighborhood. But once we start just saying, Do what you want, you know. And it doesn’t have to be affordable, you can just keep adding and keep adding and keep adding because I have lived in big cities. And this is what happens. It creeps along until everybody’s filled up every available piece of space. And that kind of undermines our carbon sequestration and the ability for the gram to absorb things that messes up drainage. It messes up. It stresses out sewer systems, it stresses out parking, it stresses out everything. So I really think we need to be careful about doing this. I think it’s fine for people to to do this, but I want them to be making it affordable instead of just doubling their income and monetizing their neighborhood turning their neighborhood basically into a commercial district. So I would I’m not going to vote for this unless it’s option one.

Okay, Dr. Waters.

Thanks. I see here wanting to get in. I

come in behind here. Yeah, I don’t know. Harold, you’re at the bottom of my screen. Sorry, buddy. I have a sign for some reason. My just these are bifocals. And they’re there. For whatever it’s worth their their progressive lenses. And so if I’m like this, I see the top three rows, but I don’t see miracle Tam or Harold. So unless there’s movement, like a dinosaur a T Rex,

there’s no movements.

All right. Sorry, Harold. Let’s go with you then. Dr. Waters.

Yeah, the only thing I want to clarify. So you get two different issues here you have one allowing the one additional and then you have a zoning issue. And so even if you can allow the one additional that doesn’t override the zoning if you can’t have that many units in that area. So the zoning is always going to regulate how many units you can have. This is simply saying if you could have have additional units by zoning. How do you want to do this? So I wanted to kind of pull those two things apart for each from each other.

Do I have the floor? Yes, you do. Yeah. Thanks. So I just

would like some clarification on exactly what

the motion is, I think of what I heard is that if you are going to build an edu, that’s not subject to the, to the ordinance, but if you’re going to build a duplex it is or expand. We’re talking about

going from one dwelling unit

to two

meaning taking a single family home to a duplex or a duplex or triplex and

so you’re I’m accurate the motion is, if you’re going to go from a single family home to a duplex if the motion is that it’s subject to the ordinance.

No, it’s exempt.


so let’s just clarify an edu or a single home to a duplex would be exempt a triplex the third unit would be subject to the ordinance



That’s all you need to know. I’m gonna vote against the motion.

Councilmember fairing I see your hand Marsha. But Councilmember Lago fairing hasn’t said anything tonight. So i’m john, you’re up first. But I’m just trying to give everybody voice?

Um, yeah, I’m trying to wrap my head around this one. Because it Okay, so if you had an existing home? Is it talking about expanding it? So using up yard space? Or is it just converting the existing space into two parts? Or like so right? Where we used to live on Bowen Street, people had converted their houses, like the top part was the house and then the the basement or was the additional duplex? So it was an expanding space? And would this differentiate that

so this The motion is only pertaining to whether or not the expansion is exempt? To for to the to the What do we call this the getting late? What’s the words that we use? inclusionary? housing?

Yeah, code?

It does not. It does not change zoning, it doesn’t change zoning, it doesn’t say they can do it automatically. It just says if they do get permission, if there is if there is a they want to do it, do they have to pay into the inclusionary zoning fund? Or are they exempt? But as far as whether or not they’re permitted, the size, the variances at all still stays the same? The motion does not touch on?

that that would kind of change my mind, though, because if they’re you utilizing the space in their yard to add another an additional unit? I would go with option one. If it’s just taking your same house and not expanding?

i? Yes, you’re saying

you’re saying that you say you’re viewing a difference between going from one house contained to two units versus one house to an ad you?

Yes, you difference? Yes, I did.

And you’re already exempted under the code. And we’re not proposing that that be changed. Okay, a couple of examples that we’ve had. So one homeowner came to us and they wanted to put two units in the basement in one unit upstairs. So they’re going from a single family home to 234, a quad Plex, basically. So in that instance, they didn’t change the footprint. So this could be either adding units within the existing footprint, or they could have ad added on and used up yard space. So either one could apply on this ad use would be exempt. And my understanding is what that amendment was that one additional unit could be added and be exempt. But if it was two or more existing footprint or new add on that would be subject to the inclusionary housing and ad use stay exempt. Clear definitely around what’s an ad you

Okay, so if we pass the option to then that is only the addition of one more unit. So if we go for two to three, then it is subject to the inclusionary housing.

If they weren’t already had two units and went to three that would just be adding one so that would be the amendment. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, is my understanding mark. Yep. counsel, you might have a better explanation says what was your amendment?


it’s sort of

Councilmember Martin.

Thank you. The mayor changed my proposal, I was proposing to handle it as two motions. And I think we’d be done by now if we done it that way, because all these complexities are putting it in. So let’s return to the mayor pro tems original mode of motion, and vote just on whether you can divide an existing single family unit into a duplex and have it be exempt. And then what I would suggest, instead of my, my preview of coming attractions was, let’s let Kathy move the two to three in the three to the four into number nine and 10. So that we can think about it more and not be here all night.

Right. There’s a motion on the floor that belongs to the mayor Pro Tem Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

So it to a certain extent, it does sound like Councilmember Barnes asked me or is retracting an amendment or I can not accept a friendly amendment that wasn’t technically offered, maybe

it was offered,

it was going to be a second amendment.

Yeah, I

understand that point. And, you know, in that case, I will reject the friendly amendment at this time. And I just would also like to say that, in the concept of folks worrying a lot about this, when I said zoning requirements, I also am very well cognizant of that each zoning district within our city has a density cap. Okay. And so when we were talking about at us, we were talking about density caps. And I was suggesting, at that time that we count at us towards said density cap, which would be essentially the same issue with converting single family to duplex or triplex or quad Plex, it doesn’t really matter. It adds density units to whatever that acreage unit is of, say, eight units per acre, which I believe is our current single family, residential single family requirement. And then so on and so forth, as we go up from to residential, multi neighborhood, or mixed neighborhood to residential. High Density is as we go along, or multifamily. I mean, used to be high density as multifamily. Now, anyway, the point being is that there are density caps, and you’re not going to drastically change the character of a neighborhood because of these density caps. And so I don’t want there to be some sort of huge fear out there that all of a sudden, you’re in a single family neighborhood, and there’s an additional 16 units, it’s just not going to happen on your block. That’s my point. So but I’m happy to go with the motion I

originally made.

All right, so Councilmember waters. Yeah, just I should have asked the question when I before I signed out.

What what’s your what’s the rationale for you are the mayor Pro Tem, in exempting an Edu from the ordinance, but requiring a duplex adding a second unit as a duplex to be subject to the ordinance? It’s

in both cases? It’s the exact opposite. The ad unit is exempt already.

I know what

emotion exemption is saying this is exempt? Well, that’s the question I asked. I have a heads going Oh, and I and the motion is that if you’ve got a unit and you’re fit, you’re adding one to two or one to two, two to three, three to four, four to five. That new unit will be exempt just like an edu, then I’m gonna

vote for the monkey. That’s that’s what, that’s what I want to clarify. I guess as long as we’re not treating the duplex one way and add another way. We’re treating an additional

unit in the same one unit no matter what. One additional unit is exempt. Thank correct. Yes. All both emotion. All right. Councilmember Christiansen Councilmember

Beck’s loving this.

Counselor Christiansen floors yours.

In the example that Kathy gave. That same homeowner could create one unit a year. And all of them would eventually be exempt because he’d be creating one after another after another after another? Or would that how would that play

out your house we’d be very small.

Also density caps.

So in my opinion on that question, we would be tracking and we would know if they were adding one a year and One exemption would be that I we’d have to add that into the language.

So that would be one in total per property. Yeah. Okay.

All right. So Harold, sorry, you’re at the bottom.

Yeah, I just want to just want to reiterate again in case people are watching and, and so so here’s the point somebody can come into Kathy and go, I want to convert this house into a duplex. Kathy,

it or Molly,

I want to convert this into a duplex. At the end of the day, they may be able to do it via the affordable housing ordinance. But if zoning says they can’t, they can’t do it. So I want to just make that clear. So to your point, there’s two checks to this is what Councilmember Rodriguez or Mayor Pro Tem said, there’s actually two checks, a Kathy B zoning, because you can’t allow that group to go. And so zonings always going to overrule on the affordable housing ordinance.

Yeah, it’s the first check, we just come in afterwards and apply it as affordable housing not we’re not approving plans. It’s just how the inclusionary housing is, is applied.

Correct, not changing any variance codes etc. Other than Are we going to make him pay into the inclusionary zoning fund? Councilmember Lago fairing

so this is just I just want a clarification for people who are listening as well. So if we pass the option to to exclude the single family conversion to a duplex from an inclusionary housing, it’s not going to create a system of development gone out of control, um, where our neighborhoods are going to have this influx of because of the zoning component that’s going to put a cap on that. So I just, you know, I just wanted to have that clarification as we move forward, so primarily for people listening.


so I asked a point of clarification. So as I’ve heard this discussion, are we really talking about option three as opposed to option two,


you’re applying inclusionary housing only when more than one unit is added? Not specifically, just single family to a duplex. I thought I heard discussion around if it was a triplex to a quad Plex or a duplex to a triplex adding one more unit is allowed. But anything above that, regardless of where you started out,

would be

exempt or would not be exempt. So just that’s just a point of clarification. Are we really is it really number three?

I withdraw my motion and subsequently move option three.

Can you put Sup? Can you pack it?


Can you put option three backup. So that is option three? Yeah. All right. Okay, well, so

who was the

who was the person who said we should take down the slides while we’re discussing this

in your bag? We

can see all the hands me, bro. Tam. Well done. Well, well, well played my friend. That was funny. We just got punked by the mayor Pro Tem. I’ll second that. So it’s been moved and seconded that we go with option three. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Opposed say nay. Hey, all right. Motion carries six to one with Councilmember Christiansen and the descent. newly discovered a new way to count to three people. I think that’s that’s that’s great. Typical government inaction.


let’s keep going. Next slide.

Okay, one of the situations that came up was a property line adjustment, this proposal was to move the property line between two lots so that an existing driveway would be located completely on the lot of the homeowner. Typically a lot line would not have triggered affordable housing or any kind of a review. But because this was complicated due to the driveway location, or replat was required, which does trigger the process to go through inclusionary housing. So the question is, do we want to maintain the language in the inclusionary housing code and continue to have minor lot line adjustments subject to iih if there’s a replat that’s needed in Japan, With those issues on a case by case basis, or do we want to amend the code to exclude this specific type of replat?

Take the slide down, please.

All right. So that said, got it.

So if it truly is that specific, I okay with the exemption on that, I mean, but that’s extremely specific. And so I’m just curious what you would consider other examples of that beside that specific example. Otherwise, I’d be more than happy to move. Option two, I


that emotion?

I just want to answer the question first, before I make that motion.

So Heidi, do you have any background on this? This was a very specific one. And I don’t know. And Joanie, I don’t know if she’s still on or not, if she has anything to, to jump into as well on what other kind of anomalies we might see. But this was a very specific one that that did come up. And I don’t know that we’ve seen any other weird ones like this yet. Not that it couldn’t come up.

Mayor Paglia Mayor Pro Tem. So yeah, I think what land adjustments in my professional opinion certainly wouldn’t meet the threshold of

necessitating an inclusionary housing add. However, I think the way the original ordinance was written, there wasn’t a clear cut way for someone to exclude them. So I think this is certainly an anomaly.

Well, I think if there recladding in order to or changing a lot line in order to have a developable lot that’s quite different. And then this particular instance, as well, right, I

see how changing a lot lines could necessitate falling into the eye. Ah, one thing I also had a question on, but this could be answered later, possibly. But I’m gonna throw it out there now, is that it seems like a lot of the communication in our council con was that specific things were hitting a certain level of review in the development process, that we’re throwing them into the category. And so that becomes some of my question, because the specific example cited obviously, doesn’t make an exemption, or it does make exemption status to me. But as somebody pointed out, hypothetically, you could totally re redraw a lot line that would add enough space to build an additional unit as we were just talking about, and so So, I guess, because of what assistant city manager, Marsh just said, I’d rather do this one on a case by case as far as redrawing lot lines. So I guess I move option one, based on hypothetical alone. The specific the specificity of the example given that I would have advocated for an exemption. So I think this one seems a little up in the air.

I’ll second that. Councilmember Martin, your

fingers. Again, we’re

moving fast. And we’ll go with Councilmember Christiansen. Well,

I I don’t have a comment because of the direction that the mayor Pro Tem went. So

hold your fingers. We’re still moving fast. Councilmember Christians?

Yeah, I would support with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez said I think that this is it is very weird. I mean, we don’t want to make development and renovation impossible we but we also don’t want I just think it’s better to review this on a case by case basis, since it’s this kind of a strange little anomaly.

Like waters, near Bagley. Kathy,

is it? Is this like

the is just like the one exception that’s come along. It’s a case I’m uncomfortable with with the motion. But I do have a question, how often how much staff time is spent reviewing the exceptions that you can you could reduce staff time, if you just change the ordinance to exclude the kinds of the kinds of replanting you’re talking about? Well,

I don’t remember exactly how much time we spent on this. We did have discussed multiple discussions with planning staff and with the city attorney’s office around this one and what to do about it. Some might be easier than others to move forward on. I don’t think it’s an inordinate amount of time. And I think we resolved it. If I remember right, internally, Heidi, correct me if I’m wrong and it just Come to Council for a resolution that we all fairly agreed that this really wouldn’t trigger inclusionary housing because of what happened. So I think delaying or leaving it on a case by case basis until we get more data would be perfectly fine.

We need a second got

a motion for number. Noise second today. So we have a we have a motion on the table by Mayor Pro Tem, which I seconded for option one, which basically is taken on a case by case basis. On Harold, you look like you’re confused. Okay, all right. All in favors. All right,


Yep, go ahead. Again. mayor and council there, there is really no case by case basis, it either does or doesn’t trigger inclusionary housing. And so if you leave it as it is, it will trigger. I think staff, if I recall correctly said we would let this one go and fix it in the code. So

if you leave it in, it does trigger inclusionary housing, then you get into an e6 circumstance where it has to meet the criteria that creates more affordable housing, and we get kind of stuck. So the case by case basis, I think is not an accurate representation. reclass trigger inclusionary housing and a property line adjustment is a reply.

All right, so Marsha, I see a hold on one second. It’s gonna be Marcia, then Paul, as soon as we finish Mayor Pro Tem.

Hearing that,

what do you want to do with your motion?

Well, now I have a question. In the concept of leaving it as is versus completely exempting, if we completely exempt? Will we have some sort of recourse in the concept that somebody does adjust lat line or replied, to add additional units without triggering the code, the affordable housing?

I think, if we so basically, it’s not a case by case basis, what we’re saying is that we’re going to keep it in the code, we’re going to include them in the inclusionary housing fund. And if we choose later on to make an exemption,

then we’ll do that.

Well, that was my question. Is there is there recourse for the specific example cited as far as just moving a lot line for a driveway? So we can allow an exemption to happen, even though there’s no case by case basis to make set exemption? That’s my question.

It’s happened once. Right.


we’ll go, Harold. No, Joanie first and then I’ll go after Joanie,


Mayor Bagley, members of council, it might be important to

understand that the code for a lot line adjustment limits that white line adjustment to no more than 10 feet. So it’s a pretty succinct.

And basically, you can only affect two adjacent lots. So the zoning code is really specific about a lot line adjustment. And

so I would say in the 20 years, I’ve been working in the planning department, I’ve probably done at least one of those a year, and they have always been for something where perhaps a neighbor is, you know, giving someone five feet or they’re moving something after the fact to accommodate utilities. So that’s the typical standard for a lot line adjustment, if that helps.

Mr. Patel? Does that help?

Sure. Is there the ability as was pointed out earlier, also by the assistant city manager to or maybe it was by Housing and Community Investment director to say buy into a neighboring lot to get the lot line adjusted to add more space for your development.

Certainly, if 10 feet provides that that would be a workaround, I guess, as you’re indicating.

Okay. I guess I just worry about dinging people for wanting to get their own driveway or, or what have you. But at the same time, I have an issue knowing that there’s very creative Have people out there, which I’m not going to fault him for. But there’s very creative people out there that can figure out some infill projects that could probably bypass us. And, you know, I guess at the end of the day, nothing’s perfect. So I’m gonna I’m gonna go with, I guess, keeping the code as is.

Okay, I’m gonna second that, because we just one way or another, we need a motion by Councilmember. Yeah, that was a motion. I’ll second it, Councilmember Martin.

So it seems to me that in the example, given it would was impossible for the number of units total on the two pieces of property to change. And and so isn’t there some criterion that if the number of allowed units or existing units on after a replan shaped plat doesn’t change, then it shouldn’t be? retroactively subjected to inclusionary? housing? I mean, that would be a really terrible result. You know, if I’m sitting there with a triplex and I give a, you know, move my lot lines so that my neighbor’s driveway is in his own yard. And suddenly, I have to make an affordable unit out of my existing triplex. I mean, that’s not a good result.


Yeah. I was just wondering why. Why is it true, if you’re not going to build anything, why a lot line would trigger an inclusionary housing thing, that if somebody eventually decides to build something, then yeah, I just don’t I don’t understand why that triggers a replat. I think it’s a Yes, I’m sure that Harold will tell me.

So I think the issue is the letter of the law versus a practical application in this case, and that’s what the struggle is. So under the zoning code, if you have to adjust the lot lines, you have to do require, even if that’s adjusting it, so you can build a driveway. So the practical application of this is they’re adjusting the last line to build a driveway. But because the way it’s written is connected to the replan it’s what putting that in the iih piece. And so that’s at times, I think this is where Mayor Pro Tem was going at. You’re telling you’re giving us direction today, and we can think about this. But there’s a point to where we give the admitted planning some discretion in maybe we look at it from the standpoint of if the replat is not going to create a condition for additional units to be developed. They have the ability and again, we got to work the legal piece of this where it’s not beholden to the iih piece, because it really is a practical application versus the letter of the law. And that’s what’s catching this thing in this situation.

So one solution may be it’s give staff discretion. One solution may be to give staff discretion if if it’s not going to create the scenario for additional housing units. That can be a staff level decision. Right. Then we’ll figure out how to wordsmith it.

No. So basically, I am to restate the motion. Mayor Pro Tem, why am I hearing the motion to mean that it will be exempt so long as it does not create new housing units.

My original motion was to leave the code as is knowing that we can’t do a case by case basis. So I’m not sure what the wordsmithing would be because in concept to me, that sounds like case by case. But I’m not putting the words into obviously legal or staffs mouth on this one. That’s just what it sounds like to me. I’d be happy to change the motion if they can figure out how to thread that needle. But right now where I’m sitting at, there’s not a needle to thread without any sort of wording for us to review. So that’s why I’m sitting at leaving the code as is on this particular item.

All right, so we have a motion to leave the code as is Dr. Waters, when would you ever say, hey, so I’m gonna vote against leaving the code as is because it sounds to

me like Harold just laid out option three, which is to come back with with language that rather than trying to work that something at whatever time it is on tonight with another item on this agenda that option three would be to come back with language that is more specific about the kinds of things that would be in would not be subjected to the code, which is where I think we ought to end up but i but i but based on what I’ve heard, I’m not gonna vote to leave it as is.

Alright, so

I in any other night, any other night, I would let us go to 11 and not tell you guys and just end the meeting. But Sherry Malloy, I know is really concerned about left hand Creek Park and she was extremely nice to me and said some very nice things to me when I got divorced when I was really needing some, some, some some support. So this is payback for just being a good citizen and treating your elected leaders just like humans, so I’m going to move that we extend the meeting

beyond the 11 o’clock limit. Okay.

All right. It’s been moved by myself and seconded by Councilmember Pac All in favor say aye. I’m sorry, Counselor Christiansen.

I think we’re gonna have a lot of discussion at the rest of this, I would move that we vote on this, the property line adjustment, and then move on to the other the riparian area, because we have a lot of people who’ve spoken on it, and finish up number five to nine. Next week, if possible, or have a special meeting with us, when can

we push it off till next week Harold can be a problem. Or what we could do, what we can also do is let’s we could also vote on this. Let’s go ahead and address the left hand Creek Park riparian restoration, then we can actually move to suspend the meeting and then just pick up finish this then go into our next week’s meeting. You don’t want us to do that. Harold,

I’m sorry. Your mute Harold,

you look beautiful talking. But we want to hear you.

You’re still Yep,

you can do this. Harold,

the mute button

hit the spacebar, buddy.

There you go. It’s

my it’s my mouse. It’s my mouse. We don’t have anything on general business next week. And we have the items we need to add for you all. So that’ll let us move it so that we so we can move. We’ll just move this on. You don’t need to continue. It says just a study session. I

there’s a motion on the table. Aaron. Since it’s coming back. Theoretically, it’s coming back next week. May your

vote on the motion to extend the meeting first.

in favor of extend I’d say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. Thank

you, Don.

It’s your motion Aaron, or Mayor Pro Tem you can do whatever you want. But do we want Tim whole new gene made and maybe provide some language that would provide some clarification.

Hey, this one. Obviously, it’s been slightly more tricky than some of the other questions, I think. And as a real estate guy, I’m always happy to continue talking about real estate. So I’m more than happy to continue the conversation. Alright, so I’m going to say I guess I’ll withdraw my motion.

Cool. But I’m going to move that we table this conversation to the next week.


all in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.

Okay, Harold, Harold and Tim, could you guys just put together some language that would address this that we can just vote on and you get to like, look smart and save the day and stuff. Okay, thank you. All right. Let’s go on to somebody else say something. I didn’t see movement. Okay, but let’s go on to the left hand Creek Park riparian restoration.


Hey, good evening, Mayor, council members, they’ve developed Metro parks natural resources. appreciate you taking this forward because I do notice is important members of the community as well as Council. I have a quick PowerPoint presentation to kind of set the stage for this. And with that being said, I think some of the stuff that I heard this evening, I can add some clarification that might make this easier for counsel make this fairly quick as well. So again, this is really kind of a restoration of the Creek area where we had the BMX track and a bike area made along the creek. Next slide please.

Again, just kind of putting in perspective where this, this park sits over their long left hand Creek left hand Park. Next slide.

Really hard to see john fire had written a story about this one, go and take a look at it with a tree canopy. It’s difficult to see from above. But as you get into trees, these next slides will kind of show kinda the impact that was created down along the creek. Next slide.

This area was always intended to be more of an unnatural area, it did have one access area, so people could walk down to the creek that there was fencing, there was signage in place to try to make sure people understood that. And we definitely want to look at throughout at options, we look at how we enhance that signage. So next slide. This I’m going to use this as a point to talk about some of the damage caused by the individual kids that I know were contacted by the paper. And really, we’re kind of focused into the event. If you look this area, this is more than one or two kids working this area. And when we found out about this, as a teacher, I think the city needs to look at our process to that not having a range of controllers out there looking all the time, this probably should not have gotten to this level of impact. Had we had the the trolls out there, I think we need to be monitoring these areas. This was the result of Dan Wolfers, natural resources, rebel, they’re doing some restoration work where we really came upon this. So the idea of taking a certain group of kids that were out there at that time, and to take credit for doing some of the work, I think there’s significant work here that was done by multiple kids over many, many years, as I talked to people in that area to that they had kids that were out in the metro area as well. So if you want to pursue that line of restorative justice, we would be happy to take those individual kids at that point in time, issuing them a summons or a ticket, and then using restorative justice as an alternative to do that. So I think we’re kind of passed away. And, David,

I’m gonna, I’m gonna actually I mean, just just say, just to be clear, city, county media, just somebody else wants to debate it. I don’t think we should. But there’s we don’t, there was a lot of talk about restorative justice, pricing and fines fees. City Council has zero input on the enforcement of our laws, that that should be up to code enforcement and the police. So appreciate that. So let’s don’t even talk about that.

Right. I want to make sure that we knew we did something that Okay, I think the same place that same staff in this position was now that dispatch really, for superstar judgment, those that those individually as well. So what do the next slide about points? Again, I think this is just as you can tell, lots of use over time. Next slide.

Next slide.

Again, that continue to impact again, I just trying to reinforce the idea that this was long term used by probably lots of different individuals. Next slide. So I think one thing that can maybe help counsel as they look at these different options, we heard the public that wrote in and also recommended option two, the real reason the staff recommended option one, and it should be piece that I could make clearer when we said we’re using $9,000. To leave the BMS area in place, it wants still to use fencing and sinese to close it down. So there wasn’t really rewarding of individual to doing that, it really was saying that we recognize there’s a bigger cost here. And we can work that into our work schedule and our budget, we would need $9,000 to go ahead and enforce reinforce, rebuild and put some additional fencing and read enforce our signage to close that area down would also bring in the community ragers this summer, and have them out helping to pull that area. Again with our always our ultimate goal is to get voluntary compliance is using education enforcement people being out there to try to remind people so option one and option two really are the same other than the time because staff was really looking at not asking council to give additional funds this point to speed the process up. We could speed that process up if we had those additional funds it would send it we would be willing to do. I also heard from the community about volunteer work and we have worked with wild land restoration. They’ve been a great partner over the years, especially riparian areas they have moved from long from Boulder to Longmont, so they’re not right here in our community. And we know we can work with them to do some work there too. So I think as you look at options one and two, it really is does council want to use their discretionary funds? staff would encourage reorg reprioritize our projects and we could try address sooner but wanting to really do the same thing we would be closing down. Under number one, we would just be trying to work it into our budgeting and our existing CIPS timeline. Next slide. And that’s as simple as I can make it here. So you can

they’re badly.

airbag Lee, we’re looking at you,

Councilmember. Can you hear me? Yes. Can

you hear me?

We can hear you now. But you we were waving at you. And you were ignoring us?

Oh, well, that was because you guys were obviously not waving strong enough. All right, council member pack. Were you screaming? Or were you waving? Because when everybody came back on my screen was still on. And

now you’re all moving. So

Councillor pack? Did you?

Thank you. I went on mute, I move option to


It’s been moved and seconded for option two. Councilmember waters.

And then, like everybody else, I think we need to restore this area.

I’m just if we’re going to go to option two. We just heard David say that. Basically,

the effects of option one and two are the same. And I’m puzzling. David or Harold.

We delayed dealing with this for for a number of reasons that we all understand. I guess I’m a little puzzled why we didn’t make some provision. As we were building a budget, we’re in the first meeting of a new year. And now we’re talking about spending $35,000, for which we didn’t budget. And I understand, we would take it out of a contingency fund on, you know, $35,000 on day one, or meeting one of a new year, as opposed to 9000.

Is there a reason why we didn’t budget for this? Knowing that we were going to deal with this early in the year?

I think the reason we wanted we we came with the option one and two is really that we feel we would have the budget at $9,000 really would be staff using our internal budgets to manage this. To get it on a faster track, though, is where we really want to say it Council’s priorities. Whereas this fall, it may not follow as quickly as council would like to see it or some other members of our community like to see it happen. If we work it into our budget and into our timeline, by coming back to council to give me an update, to say here’s where we’re at. And if you hear from the public, we know what their priorities still, but it may not be our top priority. If council would like to get some additional funds, we will then make sure that we are meeting those priority timeline. All right, I

it’ll be interesting to see what kind of demands occur or needs materialized for which we would spend contingency funds as the year unfolds.

just seems that seems a little out of sequence. Because this isn’t a surprise. What is it gonna cost? We knew that before we finished building a budget.

So I’m gonna jump in here again.

All right, guys. Okay, so just so you know, you have the floor of Casper pick after this. We’re going to go Harold, then then Marcia, then Callie. Okay. And Polly, then you’re going to be first the next couple times because I realized that. But let’s let’s do that.

So David, I understand the need to go to X swiftly on re building this riparian area. So my question is, if we use contingency funds, in the next budgeting process, is there a chance for us to get those funds back so that we can use them for other important issues that are going to be coming along? And that and that would be an amendment to my motion? Actually.

I would have no problem looking at our budget and see how that fits in again, I think if we’re really trying to do this a week, we can probably find these dollars over time within our budget. So if we had a fronted budget, we could use those same dollars that I would be finding later to return dollars to the council budget. I’m gonna say that probably looking unable to look at Harold or Jim, if I can do that. I’m sure there’s a process in place where we could actually take dollars that we would have used it in a further out timeframe to make this happen and make it happen. You know,

any deal the dragon

abrupt, just real quick, guys. I’m sorry. And I see Councilmember Martin, you’ve got your hand up.

Don’t fire me. But I wanted to respond to Councilmember bloggers. This issue did come up in your budget process.

We did bring it up at towards the end of the budget process. And I don’t know if you recall, but Jim golden did set aside funding,

as opposed to allocating it at the

time in your contingency funds, or you to be able to respond to this issue. And so we knew it. You’re correct. We knew it going into the budget. Our budget to get prepared back in May, though, but by the time we got into the September, October, we knew the cost. We knew where we were. And Jim mentioned that to y’all. And I think and I think Jim still on the line, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but that we did try to make some provision to set additional funding aside in your contingency to address this particular issue if you so chose to do that.

Thanks, Dale, for the for the quick refresh. jonesborough barn. Thank you, Mayor



I will not vote for option two if the phones have to come out of the council contingency fund. I have been speaking to Mr. Domingo’s and Mr. Bill both about other priorities for restoring the depredations on our park system that I think are in fact a higher priority than the restoration of this area. Um, and so I would like to see the area closed off and protected, which is what the staff recommendation is. And then consider separately what our priorities are. The reason for this is that is because I have been hearing from constituents who are saying that we’ve got a conflict between our homeless populations use of our parks, when we don’t have restroom facilities are in them. And they that because those aren’t there during the wintertime. There is the the parks are rendered uninhabitable. You know, things like that. I think that’s a higher priority. I do. And so I would rather see those things that cause health issues and and conflict in the neighborhoods be addressed. First, you know, this basic human decency issues. And we can work in the riparian restoration over the course of the warm months, and come up with funding however we see fit. But I don’t see any reason to go against the staff recommendation and rush to restoring this particular little piece of the riparian area with the understanding that yes, it’s going to get restored. And having been burned throughout this discussion with complex motions. I don’t want to do it now. But I have a proposal that I could talk to the staff about, and maybe get on a future agenda about controlling the time and get and getting volunteer workers to work on the this this piece of restoration. And and maybe the amount of volunteers that come from the community could be a measure of how much we really want to accelerate this. Which also introduces a an aspect of restorative justice into the matter without actually going through the legal system to do it because we could never identify all the perpetrators, but we would like to be able to let the guilty come forward and bend their backs a little bit to do this work. So for now, I’m just saying I would prefer item number one and I won’t vote vote for option number two myself.

We have a motion on the table number two is on the table. Correct? You made that motion john was in it. So I said Councilmember Christiansen then we’re gonna go with Mayor Pro Tem.

So in the last few days, we’ve gotten many letters from people who are have a great deal of respect for Ruby Bowman, Paula Fitzgerald, who is the queen of parks JD Cherie Malloy, JD glades, Paige Lewis Anna reverse. Nadine Lester’s Susan summers, Hazel Gordon, Kathy Clark, Karen de Kathy Partridge,

Jenny bark.

Whoops. Anyway, all of them are advocating that we do that we do number two. And I thought about that for a long time, I really originally thought that number one would be sufficient for now. But it doesn’t really, you know, things will start growing in March. It’s now January. And if we’re going to restore this, we’ll have to wait another whole year. If we make this, if we find the funds to do it this spring, then we will have more. It’s just the right time in terms of what grows and in terms of flooding. And in terms of spring runoff. I just think we should actually fix this. But I, I would caution people to not think in terms of these young people as being somehow terrible or anything, we were all young, we all did dumb things. But there are now twice as many people in Longmont, as when I moved here 30 years ago, there was very little free land. And so I don’t blame them for what they did. I understand wanting to have fun on your bicycle, it’s like other things you can do. But they there needs to be some education component here to the idea that just because something is open, but piers open, it appears abandoned, it isn’t. It’s somebody else’s property. Somebody else has to pay for liability insurance, somebody else to pay for maintenance, you can’t just build on a piece of land, and their parents should have told them that. And, you know, it’s just it’s too bad. Because it’s a great idea. I admire their their hard work, I admire the fact that they got 2000 people to sign a petition. So let’s see if they’ll get 2000 people to come help restore. Okay. This is what Marsha suggested. And we could make this a really good positive thing for our community.

Although technically, it’s called adverse possession, you can technically steal the land. If these kids actually have been doing it long enough. I think Colorado changed the law. But anyway, we won’t get into that.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you very badly. So I’m just going to start out with the fact that I support option one because to me foremost, we need to protect from further degradation. That’s a one on my list of things. The other thing is, I don’t think has really been spoken about too much is that I always felt that as a council with the way we use contingency funds, there seems to be to me in a way a precedent, either with helping people helping nonprofits or helping businesses generally speaking, versus what to me, appears to be something that wow also has not necessarily been outlined for us the difference in timelines between the expedited use of contingency funds and how long that process could take versus the $9,000. Protecting of it, regardless of option one, option two, and option two being or I mean, and option one being the gradual restoration of it through normal budgeting process, or reallocation process that director bill was was somewhat speaking of in relation to the staff recommendation. So I haven’t heard yet the difference in timeline. But I think that based on the fact that it’s only January 5, we have a lot of unknowns facing our community, not knowing exactly what the rest of the economy is going to look like throughout the rest of the year, not knowing exactly what the pandemic is going to look like as throughout the vaccination rollout, which as we just heard, looks like actually late summer, early fall at this point before a good amount of people are vaccinated. And so I’d really prefer to keep the contingency fund as much in place as possible to continue ideally helping with housing assistance, if needed, or small business assistance if needed, because all things considered the continuous See phones not that big. And a $30,000 hit to the contingency fund is rather significant to that fund specifically, that’s why I prefer it option one, because it’s still the promise that the city is going to restore the Greenway. It’s just maybe not as expedient as some folks would like. And again, I’m only okay with it. Because it’s already been expressed that we are going to attempt or make all attempts to protect from further degradation of the Greenway. And just an anecdote I did grew up in this specific area of town. And as a young boy, we had a bike, an illegal bike course, on city land, that was at one point taken out by the city to make the underpass to go into Left, left hand Creek Park. And while there was not as many people living in Longmont at the time, it was still a big blow to me as a child, but I had no no concept that that land was mine to do with, as I pleased, you know. And so just as an anecdote for those people say, you don’t have kids, you don’t understand what kids are going through. Actually, the city tore down my bike course right in that exact same area 25 years ago, or 23 years ago, just as an anecdote. This is not a new thing. So

anyway, I’m going to insist that you recuse yourself. The conflict of interest here as a parent.

I’m calling you out publicly. Kidding, by the way. All right, Councilmember Peck.

Thank you, I’ll withdraw my motion. But I also think it because it’s extremely late, and we’re not making much sense as I listened to us.

Amen. Here, here, motion is withdrawn. Somebody’s gonna make a motion.

though. I do want to say something, though. And, um, we do have enough money in our community fund. And we also, I agree with Councilwoman Martin, but but I haven’t heard any proposals as to what to do with that money. Come forward yet. So, Harold, can you expound on what what’s going on here?

Yeah, thanks. I’ve been trying to. So and so a couple of questions. A as this was coming in, obviously, the requests in the budget are pushed early in the process. That wasn’t part of what was submitted and what I can do to the best to my recollection, going through the budget process, it came in much later. So that’s the question. You Councilmember waters on this. When we look at council contingency, what I wanted to let you all know, is, if you remember, we carried there are two pieces to this that we talked about. There was a there’s other components that we looked at within the budget, but this one, we carried money over from this contingency, bus, if you remember, on the cares funding, we replenished the money that council put in for the meal program. So there was another 40,000 or so 40,000 of that was from care. So we’re carrying over next year 102,000, into the council contingency, and you’ve allocated another 60,000 into the council contingency, or 2021. So you’ll have about 162 ish 1000 on that. And Jim’s working on some of the numbers on this. And then we had some other pieces that we need to look at. So I wanted to clarify that too. In terms of the number something.

So can I can I simplify this? What let’s just quickly one, what do you want to do? And then two, how are we going to pay for? So are we going to so are we going to somebody make a motion to leave it alone or fix it? And then the next question is, how are we going to pay for it? And lastly, when are we going to do it? So council members?

I you know, I would like to make a motion to select to stay with 35,000 to fix it, however.


use council contingency funds minus the 9000. So, the 9000 the city, the parks budget would cover that. And then the 26,000 would come from the council contingency funds. Currently we’re at 67,000 is that correct? around that, but you said you said you know by the year then we’re gonna be at 162,000.

So you’re at 67 you’re at 67,000. Now because that’s what was budgeted? Yes. Before the new year I got the direction from council to carry over those additional funds and remember that has to come in through the carryover appropriation.


so So, before I second this, the motion you just made was you said 26 but you meant 36,000 from contingency to fix it immediately. Is that what you’re saying? So,

the 35,000 was the month the amount they gave us, I want to subtract 9000.

So it was 45.

Or was it 3535 35?

Okay. 30. So, yeah, and

when would you want to fix it? When as soon as possible? Okay, so the motion is to fix the riparian area, do away with the bike track as possible using 26 or $26,000 of council contingency money. I will second that because it’s late and just want to get on. So, council member, Christiansen

just one clarification, we were going to send $5,000 to the Northern Arapaho, correct. That was

done that was done right arrow gym, right.

Where my numbers correct. When I said the council. Okay,

stay with her. Okay.

Yeah. All right. Dr. Waters. Yeah, I’m gonna I’m we’re counselor Martin is I I would like to see this area restored. But I’m going to support the staff recommendation, they know what they’re doing. Not that I’m going to do that in every case, but they felt like they didn’t think about this. And in and we’ve got, we do have a lot of unknowns going into the year. So I’m gonna be happy to see the area restored. But I’m not going to vote for option two. Obviously, there are four votes. That’s the African.

David bill. Just real quick, Mayor, Mike respond to customer christison. And Mayor Pro Tem. those letters I read those two are from people I definitely respect as well. As we started looking at planting seeds in Fall is definitely a good planting season for grasses and stuff along with wrestling. So we wetland area, so we do have another windows, we start looking at how we can look at kind of spacing that budget out. So that it goes goes back to Mexico towns question about what is that next timeline. So I would say we’d definitely try be shooting for a fall maybe restoration, planting and seeding. If we missed that window, it would be the spring the following year. So I would see this being done with within a year either way with that commitment to the area. And that expedited means of getting it closed down. So we do protect it in the interim.

So what you’re saying is if we vote on this motion, you’d close it off, not let anybody use it, and then receipt it and fix it next fall. Yeah. So we got a motion that would basically take $26,000 out of council consistent tendency to fix the red parent area as soon as possible. And we’re hearing that it’s just what Mr. Bell said. And,


yeah, that’s a motion. It’s been seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

Okay. Opposed say me. Hey, hey.

All right. Wait, so I voted nay.

Who votes voted? Did

we have four votes? Interesting. All right. votes for what? against the motion. The motion was to apply. I voted against the motion. That’s what I mean. So we so the motion fails when I move option one. Okay. The motion fails with myself, counsel, Mr. Barton, Dr. waters in Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez against option one. Specifically, Dr. Waters, will you instead of just saying option one will you repeat, clarify the motion it’s like I move we leave the disturbing riparian corridor as is keep the area from suffering additional damage. It would need to be a fence repair, additional fencing and new signage would cost approximately $9,000 increase city Ranger patrols and the eventual restoration

of the disturbed riparian corridor would be absorbed by the parks and open space budget. Okay.

It’s been moved and seconded for option one. Would that would also entail that no one would have would be allowed to use that bike bike rack it’s gonna be fenced off posted in patrol. All right, Mr. Bell before we vote, is it possible to come up with money and get this done in the fall anyway? Harold saying yes.

Yes. Yeah.

So it looks like we’re gonna get the same result. So all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries unanimously, and it looks like we’re gonna rope it off. We’re not going to spend council contingency and it’s going to come out of the budget and looks like Carolyn’s gonna try to make us all happy by fall.

All right, thanks, guys. My challenge is I’m gonna challenge I’m gonna challenge him to do it a little bit quicker. Yeah,

I’m just I just think it’s fun. Because tonight’s been interesting it’s run a practice for a couple of weeks. All right, the let’s move on to a final call publican by to be heard. Let’s take two minutes and see if anyone’s still awake watching us. We’ll be back into all right. Is

there anybody in the queue?

No matter we have

no callers at this point.

I didn’t think we’d have any. All right. Let’s go ahead and move on to the mayor and council comments. Anybody want to say anything so pressing that’s willing to keep us up past 1130 Councilmember Christiansen

No pressure.

I just want to say, I was very happy that we had a proclamation for Nina Gallo Gaga. And he was a very strong and kind man who was a mentor to many, many young people and he will be very sorely missed. One of the victims of COVID anyway, All right, thank you. Thank you.

Alright, anybody


jonesborough Ferry

so um, to public school starts tomorrow full time for elementary school. So dry slow. Pray for us. And, and you know, and be careful, be safe, don’t go out if you don’t have to go out I was very angered by the you know, people have the right to their, their beliefs. However, you know, people are dying from this. And you know, there was a teacher in El Paso, who passed away her video she did went viral with the handshakes and just really connecting with her first graders. I’ve met her through our National Education Association so I know who she is. And you know, it’s it’s hitting home for a lot of people and we simple things that everybody can do to be safe and stay alive. Where your mass social distance wash your hands, you know, we can have businesses open and we can function and we can have schools open if people are smart and safe and careful and not acting out of selfishness and irresponsibility. So that’s, that’s all I have to say. Good night.

All right, Counselor pack. You’re just not getting back to us anything. Okay. All right. We’re gonna move on to city manager remarks anything.

Mayor, Council,

city attorney, anything? comments, Mayor.

All right. Can we have a motion to adjourn, please?

I’ll move that.

There’s a second.

Well, motion the second and I believe it was made by

Councilmember pack.

So let’s go ahead and vote All in favor of joining say aye. Aye.

Aye. Opposed say nay.

All right, We’re adjourned unanimously. Thanks, guys. See you later.

Bye. Bye.