Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Legislative Meeting- February 9, 2021
For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:
Meeting Transcription Disclaimer:
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:
https://otter.ai/u/EA8AAi0ZI4rVaBY-_OUSFbTVPV4
0:00
Would you like to lead us tonight?
0:03
Okey dokey.
0:04
All right.
0:05
I pledge allegiance to the flag
0:09
of the United States
0:10
of America
0:11
and to stand with
0:15
one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and
0:20
justice for all
0:21
for All right, great.
0:23
Okay, just a quick reminder,
0:25
oops, hold on a second.
0:26
Just a quick reminder, if you’re anyone wishing to provide public comment during public invited to be heard, you get to watch the live stream of the meeting and then call in only when the meeting becomes open for public comment. callers cannot cannot access the meeting at other times, but you’ll dial that number and wait for us to call out the last few digits of your phone number. All right, can we have a motion to approve the January 26 2020 2021? regular session minutes, please.
0:54
I’ll move approval.
0:57
I’ll second day. Anyone want to talk about it? All right. Seeing none All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. The motion carries six nothing with with Councilmember Peck absent. Do we have any agenda revisions? Councilmember Christiansen?
1:25
Yes, I I’m in the Boulder County consortium of cities as you know. And we had an advocacy request for a letter to the governor polis and while I’m not required to run this by city council, because this is going to Governor polis, I want you to understand what it’s about. And I would like everyone to sign on to it. You received it this afternoon. This is a letter to an as background to this Karen, Roni and Kathy fetlar and the staff of Longmont, Boulder, Lyons, Lafayette superior Lewisville, all the Boulder County cities have all this is generated by staff. And they’ve all worked on it. And it, it proposes three interventions serving local housing stability efforts. So I’m going to read this, just this part, extend or make permanent the executive order requiring landlords to give tenants a 30 day demand for compliance notice, rather than the current statutory 10 day demand for compliance when the compliance breach is non payment of rent, before filing an eviction case in court extend through 1231 21 to augment the emergency Rental Assistance Program era p, established by the consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. notices required to be offered in English and Spanish are the first language of the render if possible. And including information regarding financial assistance, community mediation, legal representation or other resources, supporting housing stability, which, you know, we already have these out, people don’t have to make up their own number to extend moratorium on fees or penalties for late re payment for COVID-19 impact tenants or calculate fees to a reasonable percentage, such as two to 5% of monthly rents. Third, and finally reinstate the eviction moratorium in Colorado to reaffirm alignment with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention extension. And the information enclosed in the PDF that you receive today, gives you some background and next steps and further information about all these things. So, um, I believe we can just sign on as a letter if we need there’s a deadline of signing on February 26. If you want to make this a resolution, it would need to come back next week or the week or the 23rd. If we just want to sign on. I mean Give me your okay tonight. That would be okay. I would defer to Harold as to the right way to handle this. Should I make a resolution? Or can we just sign on to a house eminent advocacy letter?
4:55
I’m going to jump in Okay. Take a Anybody wants to sign a consignment? Maybe you can we can you can make a motion and it can come back as a resolution for next week. Okay or or see, even if nobody wants to sign it. You’re perfectly capable. You can sign it yourself as a member of the city council. There’s nothing wrong with that
5:16
those yeses.
5:18
I know that but I, I would prefer the whole city council sign on because it’s stronger. Um, should I? I’ll make a resolution. If we can bring it back next week.
5:31
I mean, would that be a motion?
5:32
Yes. Do I have a second?
5:35
Your second? Okay.
5:37
Thank good.
5:38
It’s been moved and seconded. Anybody else want to say anything?
5:43
All right. All in favor? Aye.
5:45
Mayor udma. city attorney. Yep. So next week is a study session. It looks like the time frame would still be mad if we did it the following weekend, the 23rd for that regular session, and we could get the resolution to them by their 26th deadline.
6:02
You can do that. What else? Can we change the motion to 23rd?
6:06
Yes, that’s fine. Karen mony is shaking her head. Yes. Sounds great.
6:10
Thank you.
6:12
Great. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.
6:18
All right.
6:20
We can talk about whether we do it or not, then that should come back. All right. Anything else? All right, Harold. City Manager report update on COVID-19. Please.
6:33
Hold on there. There we go. There are a few slides tonight. But I’m going to go through them pretty quick, I’m going to spend a little bit time on the first part. So as you all may have seen on the news, and you’ve heard the they’ve changed the COVID dial to the COVID, dial 2.0. The biggest change in the dial is that the metrics have been are now based on seven days instead of 14 days. So and then counties in yellow with a five star. Let me back up a little bit. So seven instead of 14 days. And in the process, you’ll see the Boulder County move to yellow. The big piece of this that I want to talk about is while it made it easier to improve a category to go from orange to yellow or yellow to blue. This change also made it easier to move down a category. And what we’ve heard, the way they’re going to look at it is that in order to move up, you have to be performing well in all three categories. But to move down they’ll base it just on the seven day incidence of cases being the primary point. counties who are in yellow with the five star business program, you all have heard us talk about that and we’ve been working with Jessica and representatives from Boulder County from all over boulder on this one, they can only move to Blue 170 percent of Coloradans aged 70 plus have received at least one vaccine dose. So while they’ll be going through the process, we’ll have to hit 70% of 70 plus year olds before they can move to blue. And they also want counties to move more swiftly between levels when their numbers change. And then they also said expect a dial 3.0 to come in spring of 2021. And potentially another evolution in the summer as more people are vaccinated. In general, you can see this and what they did is if you look green is unchanged, the incident rate for blue instead of 25 to 75 is 15 to 100. It’s 100 to 300 for yellow versus 75 to 175, three to 500 for orange, and 500 plus for red. And then you can see purple really being based on on the hospitals. This is where we sit today. So we are in yellow in terms of our one week cumulative incidence rate We’re at 133. There’s not a comparison this time because the dial changed our positivity rate were in blue at 3.1%. And then our hospital status We’re at 10 days of decrease in our stable admissions and we’re in yellow. When you look at our surrounding counties, you can see once again that you know Broomfield yellow blue, yellow, and then you can see some in blue on the hospitalization. Boulder County still performing really well compared the compared to the other counties within the state. And then when we look at the hospital search metrics again really good news zero. Hospital hospitals in Boulder County are having shortages of peopIe your staff and none of them are approaching 90% of the reported surge capacity. We are seeing today Regional hospitals there, but we’re still doing really well in Boulder County. When we look at the data, this graph shows the number of new COVID-19 cases. from the first to the seventh that we had one day, under 50 cases, five days had 50 to 99 cases, in one day had over 100 stones, we’re still again, really good really well. And then when we look at this data, we’ve had 22 long term care facilities associated 22 long term care facility associated cases among Boulder County residents in the past week. And then Currently our seven day rolling average, and our daily case count is about 64 cases per day. That’s at the end of the seventh of February. That’s decreased since last Tuesday when we were at about 66 cases per day.
10:57
Once again, you can see how we compare to everyone else. cases have been decreasing across the whole metro area for really about four weeks. We’ve seen small upticks in the data over the past week, boulders the red line is still lower than all the Jefferson County in terms of new cases rates per 100,000. And then when we look at the numbers, since December one, again long mots had the by far the highest case rate per 100,000. When we when we look at this as we move here, this graph shows a weekly number of COVID cases by municipalities. data for last week shows the following case numbers boulder had 130 Longmont had 163, Lewisville, Lafayette superior 63 and then the other municipalities in unincorporated Boulder County had 69 cases in the past seven days. 32% have been from Boulder and 39% have been from Longmont. One of the pieces I want to show is that as you can see long Mart was a big piece, then we sort of fell in line to what it looked like before. And then we had this, this, you know, group of cases come in again. When we look at it by age, the boulder County’s changed the seven day counts and rates to align with the new cdphp dial. There’s been a lot of variability in case rates trans by age group in the past week, compared to the previous week, they have seen increases among residents age 70 plus 25 to 3455 to 64 and 35 to 44 and 10 to 17 decreases, we’re seeing an age group zero to 923 to 2465 to 7445 to 54 and 18 to 22. So it’s a mixed bag in terms of what we’re seeing the cases over the last week. When we look at children over the past week compared to the previous week. They’ve decreased in zero to four and five to nine year olds and they’ve increased for 10 to 14 and 15 to 17 year olds. So that was so we are seeing the cases increase in the older 10 to 17. The seven day total among 18 to 22 year olds and the percentage of cases that we’re seeing with the cu students both rose throughout January. The highest seven day average percent average of cases in this age group that were amongst the students was seen on February 1 at about 69.7. Since February 1 the number of cases among 18 to 22 year olds and the percentage of those cases that were cu students have both decreased. In the past seven days, there have been about 70 cases among this age group and 50% of those cases were associated with see you. When we look at race and ethnicity 74.9% of the cases have unknown race and ethnicity. Only groups of three or more in this graph, persistent large disparities have been seen among our Hispanic population. In the past seven days 28.6% of our cases have been among the half Hispanic community members and 67.7 of cases have been among white non Hispanic community members. The number of proportion of cases have both increased among the Hispanic Latin x population in Boulder County in the last week. And this week, and then I talked about the numbers in the previous slide. When we look at vaccination, over 32,000 Boulder County residents have received at least one COVID-19 dose 13,600 have received the full course and you can see how this is broken out. And you can see what they’re able to do on a daily basis. Again, the big issue we have a lot of capacity to vaccinate people if they’re the key people is getting the VAC getting the vaccine in order to do that, and then you can see how it breaks down by age group. And you can see the 70 plus at 59.8%, with at least one vaccine. And again, this is something that we continue to work on and try to engage in the sense of when you look at the 70 plus population, the Spanish population is about 5.3% of that, but only 2.7 have been vaccinated. And so there’s a lot of work going on in that arena and talking about pop ups and targeted vaccination sites. I can’t say that this week, we were able to get a couple of our facilities for the Housing Authority scheduled and then hopefully next week, we’ll get the remaining facility scheduled for where they actually come in and vaccinate those 70. And over.
15:55
And then this is what it looks like in terms of the the metro area in terms of act vaccinations of those over 70. And then when we look at testing, once again, you can see the 3.3%, you can see that we’re still performing a lot of tests in our community, you can see how we’re moving through and continue to move in a positive direction, and then this breaks it down by age group. And you can see that that 23 to 24 year old population is still the one that’s generating a number of positive cases. And then when we look at hospitalization doing really well, the med surge is now in yellow, and the ICU beds is still in red where it normally has been. You can see that we’re trending right we’ve had a slight uptick in this area, the state’s moving in a good direction. And then when we look at deaths among Boulder County residents who are considered COVID, probably you can see that still associated with long term care facilities as being the most significant issue. So all in all, mayor and council I mean, I think what we’re seeing seen is the numbers continue to move in a positive direction. Everyone’s continuing to work various points of the vaccination process. There’s a lot of capability to vaccinate, but we’re waiting on vaccine. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.
17:21
I don’t see any questions, but Harold Good job is always Councilmember Christiansen.
17:27
Harold,
17:28
do we have any, any positive news about getting more doses?
17:34
So the one thing I’ve heard, and I don’t know what we actually got this week. But I think it’s becoming more predictable in terms of what they are going to get. And so that’s that’s good news. I know two weeks ago, we received about 800. And then last week, I think we received 8000. We didn’t receive that much this week. But we I think we got more than 800. And so we’re continuing to, to watch that number and and hopefully we it can be even more they can be they can predict what they’re really going to get, but it’s still moving around a little bit.
18:12
Suzy
18:15
council members all go fairing No.
18:19
Just kidding.
18:21
listening.
18:22
Okay, so actually, I want to go back to the slide with the vaccinations. I’m looking at it over here. So we have Boulder County population. So there were two sections, and then the percentage percentage vaccinated amongst 70 year old, it was 94%. So that’s kind of stayed the same.
18:47
I’m trying to find the slide.
18:50
Look and see what page
18:53
I’m on.
18:55
Can’t tell Oh, slide and the slide deck. I have it slide 30.
19:06
All right, don’t have that. So
19:10
I thought oh, I
19:11
did. I did. Let me show this again. But it’s 94% percent vaccinated amongst 70 plus year olds in the white non Hispanic to 7% and Hispanic Latin x of the population. So that
19:30
actually went down. Is that correct? from the last time I saw it? Was
19:34
it the same? I think it’s the same roughly the same maybe gone up a little bit. I think it’s the same. I’ll have to double check that with them.
19:42
Okay. And then, you know, I was just wondering if has there been any, just delays or just kind of barriers that you’re aware of or that the county has been experiencing and getting out to our diversity? populations.
20:01
So I think one of the things we’re working on and this is why I mentioned what we’re doing with the Housing Authority is that we were actually able to, and they’re starting to, I guess what I would say, not test, but maybe test this, this concept of going out to locations. And so I know that Boulder County, Boulder housing partners, and the Longmont Housing Authority have been in conversations about them coming to the facilities this week, and think it’s this week, and Karen, if I misspeak jump in on this one. But I think it’s this week, and maybe Thursday, they’re gonna go to Hearthstone lodge for those 70 and above, and then the village, Place Apartments for those 70 above. And then next week, we’re trying to get them to the other facilities. And so this is really the test of getting out into communities in terms of what they’re doing. So that’s been a product of it. The hard part, again, is vaccine. So we’ve, we’ve been talking about this, and we thought they were going to get into these some of these facilities earlier, but they just weren’t able to. And so I think once we can get through this, we’ll have a better sense of of how they’re going to approach getting into neighborhoods. Got it or getting into more targeted populations, I should say.
21:16
Okay, great. That was all I had. Thank you.
21:18
And so you know, we have show it, we have taken them to some of our facilities and really talked about going to trusted locations within communities, where people are comfortable going versus in most cases, interactions are not with the county, it is with us. And there’s more trust, and how we can work with them to to really connect into different communities.
21:40
And so is it. You know, do we have the capacity. So I’m thinking of places like countryside village, or Casa Esperanza, where they have their community rooms in those in those complexes? Where we could have people there? I mean, I don’t know the logistics or the health criteria, that, you know, could that be a possibility?
22:04
So that’s what they’re looking at. And that’s what we’re really kind of testing with our housing authorities. In terms of how we do that I know and we’ve talked about some of our facilities, it’s having enough space to get people in and get vaccinated, but then having them be monitored for 15 minutes, but not being so close together that they violate the social distancing parameters in terms of that process. And so when we look at some of our facilities, they were looking at things like roof height, and how open it is. And so I know they’re continuing to plug away with it. I’m really happy that Shannon, and Kevin from our or from our OEM office are really working and embedded in that process. And so they’re getting us good information. And that’s what’s really helped facilitate what we’ve done in the housing authority.
22:51
Okay, great. Thank you.
22:54
Mayor, if there’s no more questions on this, I do want to talk to you all about another item and get some council feedback, we have been preparing to bring our housing authority items to you all, since you are now sitting in the role of the Housing Authority Board. Late last week, Karen and I had that conversation and we’ve got a lot of stuff to go over. So we were hoping to talk to council about considering just having a Housing Authority Board meeting, definitely this month, and next month, but where we can really focus on it. We need to catch you up to speed on the consolidated action plan that we have with HUD, that’s really some activities that occurred last year that we’ve had to continue moving forward with, we need to go over some budget issues, I need to go over some personnel items with you all. And it’s just too much to load into one council meeting. And we think we can be more focused and really move through the conversation. If we created a housing authority meeting. It’s not something that we think we’ll need to do in perpetuity, but at least as we’re getting you all up to speed, we think we need to do that and not keep you all too late on Tuesday night. We can also do that during the day, the previous Housing Authority Board had their meetings during the day and have people work. So what we’ll do is I’ll have I’ll work with Maria to send something out so we can get some options. If Council is okay with looking at scheduling something.
24:31
Do we have a choice? Nope. So
24:35
let us know.
24:36
You do we just put it on Tuesday night we go longer. I mean, that’s really what we’re saying.
24:40
No, look for something else that okay, but that’s fine.
24:43
Okay. That’s all I have. All right. Great. Let’s
24:47
go ahead. Do we have any other reports or presentations from staff? No, correct.
24:53
No more mayor. All right.
24:54
Okay. All right. Let’s move on to first call public invited to be heard. Let’s take a quick two to three minute break.
25:00
help people get on.
26:01
Alright folks, for those who are watching our live stream, it is now time for public invited to be heard if you would like to call in and give your comments to city council. To do so you’re going to dial 1-888-788-0099 again, that number is 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, you’re going to enter 85881073979. That’s the meeting id 85881073979. When it asks for a participant ID, you’re going to press pound. Please remember to mute your live stream when you call in and listen for instructions through your telephone. If you don’t, there will be a 20 to 32nd delay and you won’t be hearing us ask you to unmute your phone. Once you enter into the meeting, we will be calling you to unmute by the last three digits of the phone number and you will have three minutes
30:45
right how much how many people are in the in the queue? Welcome, john mayer, we
30:51
do have two guests. Let’s give our live stream just a few seconds longer so that the screen catches up with us and we can begin
31:02
is we’re waiting. If you don’t mind we’ll go ahead and do public invited to be heard and then we’ll just just take a few minutes and I’d like to ask Councilmember Peck how that RTD meeting went musters an objection. JOHN, can
31:18
you test your mic for us?
31:19
Yes. Can you hear me?
31:21
We sure can. Thank you.
31:23
Sure. All right. It
31:24
looks like our live stream has caught up. I’ll begin with the first caller. Your phone number ends in 896896. I’m going to ask you to unmute. Are you there? There you are. Yes,
31:41
Rebecca. Hi.
31:43
You may begin.
31:45
Thank you. My name is Rebecca parent and I’m from 1709 at wood Street. Thank you, Mayor and thank you city council and thank you, city staff. What you do is important and I appreciate your willingness to hear. My name is Rebecca parrot. And I speak to you as a concerned citizen to shine a spotlight on a neighborhood that needs your attention. My belief that long run has not done enough for Northern Longmont, specifically for the roads and the sidewalks. North long is rotten to veteran and bicycle safety concerns yet I see little evidence of any projects that address the safety of North Longmont residents. time and resources are needed in North Longmont. The sidewalks in particular are not good enough for the pedestrians. For example, last week, a car driving eastbound on 17th Street cloud over the sidewalk adjacent Janet Pearson’s property between Atwood and Colyer. This is the 12th time that something like this has happened. I’d like to suggest that this isn’t about drunk driving and watching the road This is actually about the fundamental design of the roads and the sidewalks in North Longmont. When walking down seven trains, you cross outward and all of a sudden the eastbound right lane goes from about 20 feet wide to 11 feet wide, so less than your driveways with and the sidewalks right there right next to it. And this funneling of cars to a narrower lane. I believe that’s what contributes to why these drivers keep going up onto the sidewalk and potentially killing any pedestrian who would walk on it. There are no shoulders on most of 17th. And there’s a four lane road in most places. It’s also the location of many families front yards. This is just one example of a dangerous, dangerous road. There’s Ninth Street 19th Collier, they all have instances of road bearing with sidewalks right next to it. I’ve looked at some city data data from what I see is also seems to pick some underlying disparities, public projects in the city. North Longmont is one of the densest and lowest income parts of the city. I’d also suggest that much of the population are renters, who contribute to long months lower than normal 60% ownership rate norlin long line is full of renters and multi generational families who may be unable or unwilling to come to you with their civic duties and bring up these concerns. Because of the density of these areas, these projects would impact most people. We all have things that we think our neighborhoods could improve upon. Some people are upset of our trees being removed. Some people want to sleep peace. I’m not trying to devalue these concerns, I just like to suggest the city prioritize public safety. I asked the city council members take a look at North long lunch roads and some of the back roads. No, there are many places that you trip and fall you’re falling face first into traffic. In some places, you can stick out your hand and touch a vehicle. You may not live in here, but the neighborhood and the people really need your representation. I brought this up to the transportation advisory board. And this will not be the last time I bring it up. I do appreciate you listening and their work that they’ve already started to on this. It’s a really big challenge. But public safety depends on your action and their action. And we may need a creative approach to figure out what to do. But just because something is hard doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do. Thank you.
34:54
Thank you. All right, next caller
35:00
All right, our
35:00
next caller your phone number ends in 438. I’m going to ask you to unmute 438 There you are.
35:17
Welcome.
35:18
Hello. Hi.
35:19
Hi go ahead and state your name and you have an address and you have three minutes.
35:25
I am Kathy Woodville more. My address is 2312 Kelly drive unit a one minute Colorado 80504 near Bagley and city council members. I also appreciate all the time and effort you put into our city. And the reason I’m calling you this evening is to discuss the beautiful red silo on highway 66. just east of pace Street. The silo is owned by the city of Longmont in is directly north of you Creek Golf Course. The silo is enjoyed by many golfers each day is the gateway to Longmont. The silo subject is on your agenda this evening. I’ve been working with Jay Cougar with City Planning and Development to procure a historic designation on the 83 year old silo. I would like to mention that Miss Krueger has been a delight to work with. As you’re well aware, long months historical and current roots are in agriculture. I’ve lived in this area all my life. I remember days when Longmont was surrounded by farms as your state of being swallowed up by development, our state, we can not go back. I plead with you to preserve what we have. We owe this to future generations. Three years ago, over 200 community members expressed their concern by signing a petition to keep a large communication company from placing their visually unappealing equipment on top and at the bottom of the slide though, many people attend to council meetings demonstrating their concern. Council recognize the debacle and this didn’t go any further. We have over 150 signatures on current petitions requesting the historic designation of the silo. A cultural resource survey was conducted by Carl McWilliams. He is a cultural resource historian from Fort Collins. Mr. McWilliams was very impressed with the unique brick and history of the silo. A well written and informative document was submitted to the city planning department. Mrs. On the hill, who lived on the farm for many years with her family wrote the complete history of the farm and the silo, this historic structural designation would be a wonderful gift to her. Unfortunately, Mr. Hale passed away in 2018. Art in public places spends lots of money on well deserved art in our community. I consider this silo a unique art form. I hope you will join me and so many in our community in this positive venture during these difficult times. Let’s keep this treasure standing in Longmont. Thank you for your consideration.
37:51
All right. Did anybody get in or Was that it?
37:54
There we just had to tonight.
37:56
All right. With that said we’ll go ahead and go on to the consent agenda. Would you like to read that for
38:02
us? You bet mayor.
38:05
item nine a is resolution 2021 dash 14. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and the lungs peak water district for the sale and purchase of Southern water supply project capacity. Nine B is resolution 2021 dash 15 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for bridge housing for individuals living in unstable situations. Nine C is resolution 2021 dash 16 a resolution of Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city in the Front Range fire Consortium for recruit Fire Academy participation and leased resources for spring 2021 in Fall 2021 recruit Fire Academy and 90 is resolution 2021 dash 17 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the St. vrain School District r one j for a joint school resource officer program.
39:08
Right counselor Martin and then Councilmember Lago fairing
39:11
I’d like to pull item D resolution 2021 dash 17.
39:19
Right once you make a motion, Marsha, you don’t mind.
39:24
Oh, thank you. Yeah, I move the consent agenda with the exception of item D.
39:29
All Second.
39:30
It’s been moved by Councilmember Martin and the consent agenda was seconded by Councilmember Naugle fairing. Anybody else want to debate anything? Its consent agenda. So I assume not all in favor say aye.
39:41
Aye. Aye. Aye.
39:43
Opposed say nay.
39:45
All right, the consent agenda passes unanimously and it should be noted for the record that Councilmember pack joined us a while back. So now that we’ve passed the before we move on to ordinances on second reading, while we allow so instead of taking a break what I’d like to do is at this point, if you’re a member of the public you’d like to call in, in order to, actually, we get a need to take a break to put up the number, aren’t we? I just want to Councilmember Peck to give us an update. And before we do that, before we break, Councilman Peck, what did you hear at the RTD? meeting? What was that? What
40:15
was the tone? Like?
40:16
Would you hear?
40:17
Thank you very badly. Um, it was very interesting, it I didn’t stay on to listen to all of the board members, of course. But um, the board members that represent us, Eric Davidson, and Lynne Geisinger, really supported us and the peak service and advocated for using feistel funds to pay for the design study and the engineering study from BNSF. What I did learn, build a meter gave a very comprehensive study of from 2004 to present. And what I didn’t realize was that the design study for the Northwest corridor was done in 2011. And it was for the bit full build out if 55 trains a day. So we really can’t discuss this unless we know the cost. So that was the point that was made by our directors is that we don’t really have the cost from BNSF. So how can we have a complete discussion about how to move forward if we don’t know what it’s going to cost? So then Vince bucyk, said that he he agreed that we need to have five to funds, but the big, the big discussion, really from all of them was that we need and RTD needs to be a leader to go out and find partners, that there is a huge amount of money in our society, of people, organizations, etc, looking for places to invest in projects. And RTD needs to be the leader to go out and fund that. But I’m also governor polis made a really interesting statement, basically saying that the trust in RTD, the the lack of trust in RTD kind of filters down to the trust in government in general. And if we can’t do this and build up trust in our citizenship, then how are we going to build up trust to fund things like early childhood education? How are we going to get the public trust on board for things that we need, like homelessness, for streets for transportation, for everything that we need public input for? We don’t have that trust, and a lot of it is because of our state funded transportation system? Well, our so I thought that was an excellent point. And it made me realize that he is he’s thinking beyond just the RTD that he wants. He wants Colorado to trust their government, and so that we can all move forward in all the areas we need to move forward in. I thought he gave a very good speech. And he wants he said that his letter stating that they needed RTD needs to finish the northern Northwest corridor by 2025 was nothing more than a starting date. If it takes to 2026 if it takes to 27. So be it. But we need a hard date at 2042 and 2050 is not acceptable. So next week, they will vote there is no public invited to be heard on these special sessions. So next week, they will vote on whether you to use the Pfizer funds to begin the conversation about what is it going to cost and what can we do but what Eric Davidson is doing, and he just texted me. Phil Greenwald gave him a list of all of the things that Longmont has done to prepare for rail, working with the RTD bridge, that would be part of fast tracks, our private, our quiet zones, etc, etc. So he is compiling that list from all the five municipalities on the northwest corridor to present as shovel ready, we are ready to move forward on this to get funding. So that’s where we are I still have hope that we’re going to get this done because we have more and more of these new board members who understand that this is something we need to do, not just for the Northwest corridor but for the other unfunded corridors as well. So that’s about it. You can watch this if you want on the RTD. website. You can watch the meeting has been videotaped.
45:12
Great. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember pack we appreciate you coming a little tardy the meeting in order to do that. Thank you.
45:18
Welcome.
45:19
Alright, let’s move on to ordinances and read second reading. Actually, let’s don’t let’s before we move on, let’s take a quick three to five minute break. And if you want to speak at the public hearing, for any of the ordinances under items 10 A and on tonight you need to call in now and get in the queue. So back in back in three
50:59
Mirror I’m going to go ahead and drop the slide we’ll give our live stream about 20 to 30 seconds to get caught up. And Mayor we have no one that has called in for the public hearing opportunity.
51:25
Okay, let’s go on then with item 10 A ordinance 2021 11. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of 11 right away and utility easements within the plan Northstar division general located in northern plateau road and east of Mount Audubon drive. There is no there is no questions from Council. Correct. All right, seeing none let’s go ahead and close the public hearing which was opened previously when we asked for callers to call in. So now that the public hearing is closed. Can we have a motion please from counsel? there?
51:58
I’ll move approval of ordinance 2021 dash 11.
52:02
Second. All right.
52:04
It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.
52:07
Aye.
52:08
Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the ordinance passes unanimously. Let’s go back up to item nine D resolution along with City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and St. vrain Valley School District for a joint school resource officer program counselor Martin, you pulled it in Councilmember Iago fairing it looked like you wanted to to so we’ll go Marsha, then you Susie.
52:32
Thank you Mayor Bagley
52:35
school resource officers. I remember when we first started the program, there were a number of people who spoke in opposition to it. And yet, since that time working in the community, I’ve worked with the community justice organization with restorative justice and they are very positive about the SRO program. At the same time, I have heard firsthand accounts from the parents of children of color, who say that they get different treatment from the sorrows. And I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to continue the program without seeing some evidentiary data to see which perception is correct.
53:34
I
53:37
you know, I I do not presume to judge. I don’t have evidentiary data that applies to Longmont. There is data from other cities and other programs that suggest that one should proceed with caution. But I am simply in favor of seeing a presentation of the program’s experience before we vote on it.
54:08
Councilmember Gallardo, fairing and then Councilmember pack.
54:10
So Councilmember Martin, I feel like you read my mind. So I appreciate your your comments. Um, you know, I actually have a few questions. And, you know, in some of the feedback you received, actually, for us in my family, that is a personal experience. I have a son with a disability and I have a daughter with mental health concerns. And both of them have experienced some not so positive interactions with sorrows in our inner their high schools and middle schools. So my question, I actually have a few questions is one, how are the SRO selected? To be a part of the program and I and do we have we do have I saw He’s spent low and others so if they can respond to that, I’d appreciate it.
55:08
So Mayor Bagley, Councilmember to toggle fairing so we do select, we have an internal process that we go through with our, our supervisory staff, and some of our school resource folks to go ahead and when we have an opening in that unit to select new sorrows.
55:25
Okay, and I this Jeff Sater. But our involvement is less as a kind of a mediator, because the oldest school resource officers are interviewed by school staff, and selected by school staff. JOHN can probably talk about the current processes we have. I don’t remember how many officers but mainly it’s school staff that picks those students. Okay,
55:55
before you speak. So the thing is, is that you know, your people, you know, your officers, so if the school staff selects an officer who maybe you feel maybe might not be a good fit, do you vocalize expressed concern? Or say, do you say anything?
56:18
Yes, that’s what we do have members that are participating in those oral boards. JOHN Garcia is on here. Also.
56:27
JOHN, would you jump in?
56:29
Yeah. JOHN Garcia, I’m the supervisor for the SRO unit. So yeah, we do, we have a board, that we run an oral board process that has the school staff, principals, administrator, whoever else they want to invite to it. And then we also have some of our current sorrows that are on the board. We do a a background where we go and we speak with the supervisors, the previous supervisors of the candidates that are putting in for it. And then we provide all that information to the school as well. And so, ultimately, you know, we listen to what they say, but at the end of the day, I have ultimate overriding power with that, if If, for some reason, we have some sort of concern, we can, we can put a hold on that. And then it’s got to run up the chain of command, and ultimately be a proven by the, the cheap, so.
57:30
Okay. And then as I was reading through the packet, I didn’t really see
57:34
anything that said,
57:38
you know, what are the requirements? Are they having to go through training? I mean, yeah, implicit bias is one component. But when you’re working with children, understanding child development, brain development, you’ve got high schoolers that are six feet tall. But mentally, you know, you, they’re your children. And so oftentimes, and this is a personal experience, you know, I have a child who’s very big. He’s also has a disability. He looks like an adult, but he’s not intellectually and age appropriately. He’s not. So do they have an understanding of brain development, Child Development, working with students with disabilities, trauma, mental health, everything that they come to the table that we as educators have to deal with in our classrooms all the time?
58:36
Yeah, that’s a great question. And and we do because because you’re absolutely right. It is, you know, it’s considered a specialized unit within within our department, and there’s reason for that. It’s not for everybody. And so with that, we have a training matrix, that we require our SRO to go through. And there’s a couple of different tiers to that. But yeah, there’s there’s a lot of different trainings with that. Some that you mentioned, you know, just kind of brain development, you know, kind of behavioral development with with juveniles. Some of the other ones is working with students with disabilities, mental health issues and children. And then we also we also work through the National Organization nazre Oh, and then the state organization as well Castro. And they provide a wide variety of special specialized training for the sorrows, working with it within the schools for for those exact issues that you’re speaking about.
59:40
And then also to working with people who want students who speak other languages, a different language. You know, we have a lot of newcomers who have very little concept of English. One of the experiences that I’ve had in the education realm is coming across colleagues who think that it’s student is being defiant because they’re not responding appropriately. Well, they’re not responding appropriately because they don’t know the language. So being able to have, you know, that understanding of language and, and being culturally responsive.
1:00:14
Yeah, absolutely. And then a lot of the other trainings on air is getting that person by implicit bias, we go to provide cultural diversity training that they got to go to. And then again, we work in partnership with the schools with the with the principals with the counselors. And so, you know, it’s it’s a it’s a collaborative effort, for sure. And so, yeah.
1:00:38
And so you had mentioned earlier about a board and, you know, I heard principals admin, I did not hear teachers, counselors, parents, and parent liaisons. Do you know if there or is there anyone from the school district here on this meeting tonight?
1:01:02
So ultimately, we kind of allow it, the district to pick who they want to be on their board, we kind of leave that up to them. I can’t speak to a ton of processes just because I’m new to the unit. As of this year, I’ve been involved in one process. But I know they’ve had, you know, I don’t know for certain, and I can find that out for you if, you know, the different types of individuals that have been in the process before, but we really open it up to the school district and whoever they feel need to be involved in the process on the boards and stuff. So I know, there’s been counselors in the past. As far as parents, I’m not exactly sure. But we’re definitely open to that idea.
1:01:44
And then is there anyone from the school district on this call tonight?
1:01:52
If you know if anyone from the school districts on
1:01:55
I don’t believe so Harold?
1:01:57
Okay. So then I I concur with what Councilmember Martin had suggested to possibly hold off on this. Until we can see a presentation, I would like to look at that training metrics matrix. And, you know, I’d also like to hear from the school district. What is their process for selecting officers? How do they work in collaboration with you? What are some things that they need to be refined from their end,
1:02:27
but the chairs the chair is going to take that as a motion. I’m Councilmember Martin in a second by Councilmember Naugle fairing to table this until city staff can arrange a time for the school district to join us on the same topic in order to answer some questions. In the meantime, is it Kazmir double? Frank, did you have anything else? Sorry?
1:02:50
No. And you know what some of these questions I can actually reserve for when somebody on the school district is here.
1:02:56
Perfect. And then and then. Oops, hold on. And then count. Mayor Pro Tem had his hand up, and then we’re gonna go with Councilmember waters.
1:03:08
All right, thank you, Mayor Bagley. So first of all, I want to point out a couple things that I’m sure my colleagues obviously know, but just for also the sake of the folks at home that as council members, we do not set school district policy. There is a school board that does that. So for us to unilaterally deny an intergovernmental agreement would be a hasty move, in my opinion. And not just the school district administration, but also the school board, I think, need to be involved in this discussion, as far as the policy is concerned, because ultimately, the school board helped set the policy for the school district. And we are the other part of the equation as providing the police officers for only the city of Longmont schools, the school district encompasses more than the city of Longmont. So, you know, that would also include County Sheriff’s and whatnot. And so I just want to make sure that the conversation is encompassing, have the right the right parties in the room, especially when we’re talking about policy setting. And as such, I will support the motion, as long as we include the board as well as the administration for the school district.
1:04:28
I think we can certainly invite them customer waters.
1:04:33
Yeah. I guess maybe I would start with is that is there any timing issue here? JOHN, as far as you know, in terms of the expiration of an IGA what the what the school district needs from the city in terms of action tonight.
1:04:54
So Mayor Bagley and customer waters I’ll address that. So we were we are trying to Get, we are trying to meet a timeline as far as Billings school district by the end of February to go ahead and make these funds, the 2020 funds revenue that we can count towards 2020. I have got no doubt that we can probably figure that out on our end. So I would rather get this right and then try and do something hastily to to take care of an accounting issue.
1:05:24
So calendar is not a huge concern here, or timing.
1:05:28
No, we’re providing the service at this point. I’ve been in touch with with Donna dad, we’re both in agreement that that we like moving forward with this as as we’ve agreed in principle. So really, this is just the formalities and for some accounting on our end.
1:05:45
All right. And I
1:05:46
I appreciate what the mayor Pro Tem said. He said it more more eloquently than I would have the it’s the it’s the we, you know, we’re providing the personnel, the school district decides how people are utilized, how there’s how they’re supervised, how problems are solved. So it feels like if there’s, if there’s a an evaluation, the program ought to be happening under the jurisdiction of those people who develop policy for the school district,
1:06:17
not us.
1:06:19
But, you know, I’m
1:06:20
happy to learn about the SRO program. From my from my own experience in the years I was in the business. And I’m a big fan of the SRO program. I I know the role they’ve played with our restorative justice program. I also know the role they play in terms of the safety and security of campuses and the role they’ve played with students. That said, I understand there are issues there understand the issues that have occurred across the country. But I wouldn’t generalize from what happens across the country to what happens in Longmont. So, if we want to delay it, that’s fine. I personally I’d be I would favor moving forward and letting the school district take on whatever problem solving school district needs to do.
1:07:08
But let’s go ahead with Councilmember Christiansen and Councilmember Martin and let you go again, Councilmember Lago ferry.
1:07:16
Um, I wanted to thank Councilman Martin and also Councilwoman dog offering from their very thin, everybody has had some very thoughtful things to say about this. It’s really an important thing. And I, I too, have heard both sides of the issue as Councilwoman Martin was saying, and you know, it does, it does trouble me, it’s never a very, we’re talking about a lot of people, a lot of kids and young adults, and it’s never very, a very easy issue. It’s in their teenagers, which is its own problem. But, um, so it’s a really important thing that we do as as Mr. Spin lo said, get this right. So I I do think it would be good to have a further discussion with the school board. And I just wanted to be supportive of what Mayor Pro Tem said to
1:08:25
all right, Councilmember Martin.
1:08:28
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, I really did not pull this item with the intention that it would be defeated by the Council, I don’t think there’s very much chance of doing that, because both parties to the proposal agree that it’s useful, and it’s not a new program, I do feel some obligation to hear the real outcomes, you know, some some database outcomes of the program before making a final decision, because there are constituents who with stories, and I think they’re their stories deserve consideration, and there are some fairly delicate questions that should be asked or that should be considered and as, as a parent who, who dragged a student through middle school and high school, you know, anecdotal evidence is is hard to interpret without data. And so I just think that the best thing for us to do would be to review some statistics and understand what kind of a program we’re continuing.
1:09:58
Alright, council member And then Councilmember Peck, and then we’re gonna go with you, Sergeant Garcia.
1:10:05
And then, um, you know, and I also want to clarify, because I’ve also talked to several friends in the Latino community, who’s whose children have had very positive interactions when the right officer is in the position. So, you know, I really want to take a critical look at looking in, who are the people we are putting into these positions in front of our front of our children in front of our babies. And so, you know, that’s something that I feel very passionate about. The other piece, too, is, you know, yes, the district does decide who’s in those positions. However, it is Longmont city, public safety, it is our reputation. And these are our employees as well, who are out there on the line. So if something were to go wrong, who does that reflect on the school district or the city. So we also want to make sure that we when we are partnering with people, that they are in as much invested into the program and looking at all the different components that make up having a quality program put in place that really that really serves as a benefit for our community, especially our marginalized and already disenfranchised students who who might be on their way out, we have the right person in the place, that might be the point to bring them back in. If we have the wrong person in, in those places, we’ve we’ve shut the door. And we’ve played a role in that. So that’s I just, I’m not picking on any particular person or department, but just looking at the system as a whole. So you know, I don’t want to demean or criticize, you know, you’re working really hard. I talked to to spend them all the time. And, you know, I know a little box right there, because I met with him several times. And so you know, I appreciate that piece. But I want to make sure that that we are critical of the program, that we make informed decisions, and that we have the data to back up to make sure that this is something we want to continue on, whether it be us pulling or the district or we decide either party decides to move forward. But we have to put the students the children at the forefront. And so that’s that. That’s where I’m coming from.
1:12:38
Mayor if I can jump in? Yeah, I think, to Rob’s point, we don’t want to rush something to do it. Well, I think you all have given us a good sense of where we need to be. And Robin, I’ll work with john and Jeff on this piece. I’ve gotten to know john, in this process. And I one thing I wanted to hit is if john doesn’t feel like somebody is in the right, if he doesn’t feel like you’re the right person to be in the position for everything we’ve talked about. JOHN wouldn’t hesitate to run it up to go I don’t agree with this. And ultimately, the one thing I wanted to reiterate with you all is if we be in the city, don’t feel like it’s the right person, or if they’re asking us officers to be to do anything that they wouldn’t do if they’re if they were in one of our facilities. And so we’re really focused on that piece. So I did want to let you all know that on the other side. Like anything else, if people have issues about an encounter, we do want people to talk to us about those because it’s important for us to look into it. And and have a conversation with individuals about their encounter. So so we can deal with it. So what I would say is if people do have concerns, let us know. And we have processes that we go through to look at these these situations. But we’ll we’ll work together. I’ll work with john and Rob and Jeff and we can come back to you.
1:14:09
Alright,
1:14:10
Casper pack.
1:14:11
Thank you, Mayor badly. Um, I agree with everybody, including Aaron, I understand the policy part. But I do think it’s always always always a good idea for our organizations as well as our residents to know that city council is listening and paying attention. Because kids hardly ever tell their parents what’s going on, much less coming to the city council. So I think it’s really important that we have these discussions but I do understand the the policymaking side of it to that Aaron, Aaron said so
1:14:54
I would.
1:14:57
I would like to put this out not as that amendment, but maybe it’s just a different point of discussion if we vote for the IGA because we do need SRS in the in the schools, but schedule a meeting then to let the police who are the SRO in the schools about our concerns, as well as maybe the school board as to what it is that that you are hearing, Susie, or Councilman Hidalgo pairing, as well, I think that needs to be brought to the school district and the residents, the parents, they need to hear that we are listening to them. So I don’t know, if you want to change your agreement, or I mean, your motion, or so that’s it.
1:15:50
I saw Sergeant Garcia.
1:15:58
Yeah, um, first off, I share the sentiment of many of you, I have school aged children, for children, myself. And so you know, it’s a big concern of mine, as well. And so I am very confident in the program that we have here and the partnership that we have with the school district. I know the school district has answered a lot of these questions themselves recently, just with the ongoing conversations across the nation, across the state and even locally, as we’ve seen, kind of in in Boulder Valley. And so they’ve answered a lot of these concerns. And so I don’t think they’ll have any issue providing that that data. And I think they have it readily available, because like I said, they’ve already had these conversations with parents, and their school board meetings and with their board. And so they, I think I think you all be happy and satisfied, and the data is going to show that it backs to work that our officers are doing so. So that that shouldn’t be difficult for them to provide that information. they’ve shared some of that with us, but I know they’ve done a lot of research on their own with that and stuff. So but again, you know, the selection process, it is it is a partnership. So we we really listen to them, we really seek their input. But ultimately, at the end of the day, as you said, council member a double fairing is we do know these officers makes it I have children myself in schools. And so I understand that this this role isn’t for every officer. And so we’re very careful in how we select in the process that we go through to select these officers. So
1:17:47
there’s no further discussion. Let’s take the let’s take a vote. Okay, Kazmir Martin.
1:17:54
Um, I think that Councilmember Christensen offered an amendment and I actually, no, I’m sorry, pack. Sorry, sorry. I actually think that that’s a separate motion rather than amendment to
1:18:15
mine.
1:18:18
Councilwoman Martin I, I didn’t make an amendment. I was just suggesting,
1:18:25
yeah. Okay. All right. I’m ready to vote then Mayor Bagley.
1:18:32
All right, let’s go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Sorry, Counselor level fairing. Was that an eye or was that a
1:18:39
yes, it was I
1:18:40
All in All opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. All right, please, Harold, put it on the agenda. And if you can schedule a time for appropriate School District Board members to join us and staff members, that’d be great.
1:18:59
I’m going to set to do it within three to four weeks just because of I think that’ll work. And so we’ll try to get that done. Rob, john, will, Jeff will chat the next day or time. Hey.
1:19:13
Thanks, everyone.
1:19:16
Alright, so now can we move on to 12? a.
1:19:24
Is there a presentation Harold? Yes, there is.
1:19:29
Yes, there is. We have a man coming on board.
1:19:35
Susan, can you cue up the presentation.
1:19:43
Thank you.
1:19:44
Good evening Mayor Bagley and council members Eva chef ski principal planner Planning and Development Services. Tonight we have a referral request for annexation for the West few acres property. Next slide please. I’m going to give you just a little bit of background again, we took this item up to you last year. It was initially scheduled in March. But as you may recall, that was like one of our first meetings when the pandemic started. And we were still trying to get coordinated with the zoom meetings. And so the site and while it was on a march agenda, it ended up getting pushed to the April 14 2020 agenda. So my apologies in the staff report, I forgot that we got pushed out because of the COVID situation. But nevertheless, I’m just going to give you a little background again on the property and then we have the applicant, jack bestel. Here, he also has a presentation for you. So again, this property is at 8757 8791 87th Street, we that’s their legal address. This is what we know is Airport Road is here in the red box. It’s on the west side of Airport Road, and it’s about six and a quarter acres. Oh, there we go. Thank you. This property is currently zoned agricultural in Boulder County. To the north of this property. This is where it has continuity with the city of Longmont. We have the Somerset meadows, single family residential subdivision to the north. And then immediately to the west of it, we have the Summerlin subdivision that’s in unincorporated Boulder County. And in our envision Longmont comprehensive plan that city council approved in 2016. Council designated this particular area as single family neighborhood. And so I will show you the applicants concept plan next, but it’s essentially alliance with what council designated this property to be the properties to the north and to the west. Again, there they are in the city, and they are also zoned single family residential zoning, and then the property just south of it. And to the east. These properties are not annexed yet. And they’re zoned agricultural and Boulder County. Next slide, please. So this is the applicants concept plan. And again, he’s got a presentation, he’ll talk more in depth about it, but essentially what they’ve presented to the city. Again, this is just a referral application. So it’s just a very basic concept plan. But they’re proposing a 24 lot subdivision. There’s currently two houses. As you saw from the aerial photo, guess where Susan is circling, there’s two existing houses, and those would stay. So those will stay and then the project would build around those. And it equates to about three and a half acres, excuse me dwelling units per acre. The concept plan that you saw a year ago, was some sort of similar but it had 22. Lots, I think some of the feedback from Council was that they would like to see more density. And so the applicant has attempted to do that while also meeting our regulations for minimum lot sizes, and so forth, and meeting street standards and requirements for access and things of that nature. And our tour, excuse me, Airport Road is an arterial road here. So we really had to limit access from a traffic standpoint. So you’ll see on the south side here, that’s where they’re proposing the main access point in and out to this small subdivision. And it would essentially be landlocked on the east and the North. As you can see, it would kind of go into a bunch of a series of cul de sacs and that’s because it’s it’s landlocked. As you saw from the aerial map on the west we have the Summerlin subdivision it backs right up to there’s no roads to get into, similar to the north side as well with the Somerset Meadows subdivision. Next slide, please. And so I’m going to turn this over to jack best all. He’s the applicant of record. And so Susan, if you want to queue up Jack’s presentation, and then we’ll be happy to answer any questions next.
1:24:04
Thank you.
1:24:07
All right. Any questions?
1:24:12
All right,
1:24:13
what do we need to do next?
1:24:18
Good evening, Mayor, members of the council object. So I’ll represent the the development team on this project. Ava’s done a very good, clear presentation. Next slide please. This is the property with the two homes. The the annexation, this is the annexation map. The annexation will also include the front the right of way for Airport Road on the east side of the private parcel. Next slide please. As was mentioned, you know this is currently in the in the planning area. has, I think a density of potential for approximately gross six, six per acre? Go ahead. So, in summary, with the right away, there’s about six 7.6 acres 6.83 private property, we would be increasing the density from the two unit residential units, which is about one unit per 3.4 acres to 24 units with two new with 22 new homes, about 3.5 dwelling units per acre. This this kind of conforms to the vision law, my plan, as you saw. And next slide, please. Focusing on the site there. Next slide, please. The plan as Eva described as well, it does have cul de sacs on the west side, the cul de sac on the Northeast, the upper right, does have an emergency access. So it would be you know, it would be gated for fire or emergency type situations. But the city would rather than add another access on Airport Road, the primary access for day to day use would be in the southeast there this is your being pointed out. So we are keeping the two houses. And we would really lock those in and they would be a part of the new project. Please go ahead. There was a question I think at the last council meeting about a concern about the airport influence area. This this diagram just indicates that this is outside of that influence area. Next slide please. There is also a question about whether this would and it was said in different ways, but pay its way. And the we had a modeling done on this by development research partners. A third party really who evaluated the plan. And we made an adjustment to make sure that it did pay its way from 22 to the 24 units. So the cumulative benefit was about 17.2 $7 for every public dollar spent, and $3.17 for each public dollar spent for city revenue. And then you can see the cumulative 1111 point 5 million, over 10 years for economic and fiscal benefits 1.5 plus for net public revenue, according to the model. And next slide, please.
1:27:53
This shows that the government revenue and costs were it spikes, of course in the early going with fees for development and construction permits and and you know, taxes related to materials and so forth. And then it levels it stays in the positive over that 10 year period. Next slide, please. Is this shows that the overall economic and fiscal benefits that you know from from the people living in the homes that would be there as a part of the city. And currently, of course, it’s in the county is not producing anything in this in this manner for the city. Next slide, please. So in summary, we think it’s a good fit, it does increase density, it conforms to the comp plan increases density, which is an economic benefit as part of the vision long line matches up with lauding of adjacent neighborhoods, which was kind of something important that we worked on, see if we can get a good match there. It does, it does on a conceptual basis conform a subdivision standards, minimal traffic volumes with because of just the 24 units. There’ll be a probably a space as we’ve talked about on Airport Road. And there will be a trail improvement on Airport Road as well as other things. So next slide, please. We’re so we’re asking that the council consider this for referral. We understand that this isn’t an approval of an annexation that, you know, we need to take the next step and provide a formal application if you were to refer this. We’ve worked on this I think for about two and a half, three years now. So you know these these things sometimes have a series of twists and turns. So we would appreciate your consideration. We’d like to bring this into the city of Longmont and we think it would be a benefit in a number of ways. I’m happy to answer any questions
1:30:02
All right, don’t send me But again, this is just sorry. Councilmember Peck and just reminder again, this is not we’re not approving this is anything. It’s just do we allow the city staff to move forward with exploring the idea of allowing them to annex and to our city? That’s it. Councilmember Peck? Got it
1:30:21
very badly.
1:30:22
Thank you.
1:30:23
JACK. I am. Thank you, first of all, for that airport influence zone because that I was the one that made that comment. When you brought it up before. I am concerned, I understand this is just a referral. But I want to voice my concern about the one entrance only off of Airport Road with basically to two roads in that whole development. The others are called a sex. So I know that Airport Road could handle the volume. That’s that’s not the issue. It’s just being able to get in and out of that development on only one road. So it’s just comment. Thank you.
1:31:12
All right. Do we have a motion? Yep.
1:31:16
I’ll I’ll move. I’m sorry. I didn’t get the number, but I can’t see it right now.
1:31:22
Just just move the just move it forward for annexation.
1:31:27
I will move it forward for annexation.
1:31:29
Second.
1:31:30
All right. The West few acres annexation referral has been moved forward by Councillor repec. And that was seconded by Councilmember Martin Any other discussion or debate? All right, seeing none All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, that said that, let’s go on to 12 B. I don’t know if people read their emails or not. But they were in a unique situation where we both own the property and we are also the quasi judicial body that’s going to be hearing this. So the chair would ask that we don’t comment or ask questions, but staff has a presentation. Mayor Pro Tem.
1:32:06
Now I was just gonna make a motion so we don’t make any comments. Perfect.
1:32:10
Even better. Go ahead.
1:32:12
I okay. Sorry. I’ve moved this item forward.
1:32:17
All right. I’ll say can I get all right? It’s been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. And it was seconded by Councilmember waters that the new Creek silo historic designation request proceed forward with its application process. All in favor say aye.
1:32:34
Aye. Aye.
1:32:35
Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Ma’am, that’s
1:32:40
awesome.
1:32:41
We should have a
1:32:42
legal problem every week. Eugene, we want those memos weekly on all topics.
1:32:48
Okay. Mayor, mayor and council Eugene may city attorney so city staff is looking for direction, whether it was with property owner consent or without? As I heard the motion, I think it was ambiguous which one of those paths Council was choosing?
1:33:08
I will restate my motion. I move forward with concerns.
1:33:13
Yeah, the
1:33:14
chair the chair. The chair failed to restate the motion but it was direction to proceed with consent of the application process. That is Did everyone vote with that in mind? Anyone did not understand that. Okay, the motion has been clarified Eugene. All right. Let’s go on to final call public invited to be heard, please. Let’s go ahead and take a three minute break and we’ll be back
1:37:55
All right, we’re back.
1:38:01
All right, give me just a few seconds and let me watch the live stream get caught up. We currently have no one who has called in. All right.
1:38:11
Let’s move on to mayor and council comments. Do we have anybody who’s dying to say something tonight? All right. I’m going to go ahead. I’m not saying anything tonight. But I’m going to be writing a letter to the editor with some thoughts, nothing controversial. And I’ll be probably calling each of you individually, just to let you know. All right, seeing that.
1:38:32
Harold, do
1:38:32
you have anything?
1:38:36
No comments, Mayor council? Great,
1:38:39
Eugene, anything? Oh, comments, man.
1:38:42
Great. We have a motion to adjourn,
1:38:43
please.
1:38:44
So moved.
1:38:46
I’ll second that.
1:38:47
All in favor say aye.
1:38:48
Aye.
1:38:49
Aye.
1:38:51
All right. Anybody say nay? All right. Motion to adjourn carries unanimously and 841 This is awesome. So enjoy your evenings, guys. Bye.