Longmont City Council – Regular Meeting – February 23, 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:
was meeting to order. We start with roll call.
Mayor Begley here. Councilmember Christiansen here. Councilmember Duggal fairing, here. Councilmember Martin.
Here. Councilmember Peck. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez here. Councilmember waters. Your mayor, you have a quorum.
All right. Aaron, can you leave it as you want to leave us with the pledge tonight?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. All right. At this time, the chair would like to remind the public anybody wishing to call in for public invited to be heard will throw up this number. When the time is right. You’ll call that number and then just wait to be called into the meeting by your last three numbers and your your telephone telephone number. All right, can we have a motion to approve the February night? February 9 2021. regular session minutes of city council please.
Okay. It’s been moved by Councilmember Christiansen and seconded by Councilmember Martin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries unanimously. Do we have any agenda revisions or submission documents? Councilmember Christiansen
this isn’t really an agenda. Item. It’s actually a point of personal privilege. I was shocked to read into in the paper today that Terry Benjamin had died.
And Terry Benjamin is has been so important to long run and to everybody in
the county. He is was a thoroughly good man and
good to his bones. And we will very much miss him. He was the co founder of the our center and he worked at the American emergency food assistance
organization in for border county for many years. And
when his wife said I was just so lucky to be married to him. That’s a wonderful tribute.
Anyway, I just wanted to give a shout out to the family that
I think everybody in town who knew Harry Terry
will miss him. And we will all miss him as a town as a town in his County. Thank you.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.
Thank you Mayor Bagley. I had a few conversations this week.
And when we had our discussion a week or so ago or two weeks ago on waste diversion,
it was talked about a little bit about the the county compost facility that’s being proposed, as well as the distance that we’re currently trucking our compost out, to and from. And so I don’t remember this, but I was told by a few people that it didn’t appear that the council was supportive of a county facility. And so I was just wondering if I, I would like to move that we provide a letter of support to the county commissioners from the city council supporting a county compost facility. Because of the current litigation, though, I think that we should leave any sort of topic of specific sight out of the letter, just more of a letter of support for accomplish facility in the county.
So that’s my motion. I’ll second that. All in favor, Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
Opposed, say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously to put the compensating issue on an upcoming agenda. Please make that happen, Harold. Thank you. All right. Anything else?
All right. Let’s move on then to our update on COVID-19.
And I guess as you begin, Harold, the question I’d have is so on Council, how many of us have been vaccinated? We started?
You have Polly and Kim.
And as Joan, I don’t see, Joan.
All right. I’m assuming she has his way. Yes, I have. All right. Cool. Um, I would love to know when when vaccines would be ready, other than just the 70 enough. But anyway, I did get vaccinated as well, Mayor. Oh, that’s right. Because you’re a teacher. Yeah, deal. So let’s go ahead. And because at some point, I’d like to start meeting again together.
I really don’t like zoom. It’s boring. All right. Let’s go ahead, Harold. You’ve got four.
Harold, we’re not hearing you.
Yep, there we go.
The unmute disappeared when I shared my screen. Can you hear me now? Susan? We sure can. Thank you. All right, generally Mayor Council. What I wanted to say today is that the there’s good news. In a lot of the data that we’re seeing.
maraca sent me a release that the news release that the state issued
today, actually, and they deactivated the crisis standards of care for healthcare staffing, and EMF services. So the crisis standards of care was it was recommendations for how the medic medical community should allocate resources resources such as ventilators, Intensive Care Unit beds, in extreme cases, when patient needs exceeded available resources.
This deactivation is consistent with the declining cases of COVID-19 in hospitalization. So that’s good news that the state moved from in terms of the numbers and what we’re seeing
back up. Okay, here we go. You can see that we’re, we’re at 110.3. So we’re greater than 100. We’re in yellow, there are some counties that have started moving to blue, you can see Denver, Jefferson and Broomfield.
And so we are we’re down from 116. And last week, or one week positivity rate is in the blue category. And our hospital status is in the yellow category. So we’re currently at nine days of decreasing or stable admissions. So that’s all really good information, if you can then take where we’re Boulder County set and then our neighboring counties, you can see where others are sitting in this process and where they’re moving. So again, really good information from a regional perspective. And then, you know, corresponding what the what the state issued, you can see that in terms of hospitals, everyone’s in really good shape in Boulder County and generally we are in the region in the state.
When we look at the numbers in Boulder County,
slide this over.
You can see that we really haven’t from to eighth or to 14, all days have been under 100 cases. In three days, we were actually under 50 cases.
There have been 16 long term care facility associated cases in the past week, but again, that looks much better than it did a few weeks ago.
terms of where we’re going. Currently our seven day rolling average daily case count is about 53 cases per day.
This is decreased since last Tuesday when the average was about 55 per case. So we’re still we’re seeing good movement and then you can see where we’re all tending to now move as counties in they’ve they’ve been largely D decreasing across the front range in the metro area.
Again, when you look at the cake, cumulative rate per 100,000,
boulders 1200, long lots 1100 that’s changed a little bit, but you can see all the other communities sliding up closer and you’ll see in the next slide, kind of what we’re talking about, you can see where Longmont was really the the bulk of the cases early on. And then as we move into the foreground, the week of the 14th, you can see that long lot has gone down. boulder had 149 cases Longmont, 96, Lewisville, Lafayette superior around 40. And then the other municipalities in unincorporated Boulder County had about 63 cases.
Again, this is really showing the movement. But there were mixing trends in case rate by age group over the past week
10 to 17 had an increase 45 to 54 had an increase, and 65 to 74 had an increase. And then 75 plus
the rest of the age groups either decreased or stayed steady. Again, I think what’s important about this, and I didn’t talk about the percentage increase because but it’s really keeping in mind where we are as a county in terms of the cases as a whole.
among children, you can see that last week.
Over the past week, compared to the previous week, case rates have decreased among zero to four and five to nine year olds. And they’ve increased slightly in 10 to 14 year olds and increase substantially 15 to 17 year olds, and so
definitely seen that movement in that age group. But again, keep in mind with the overall numbers, there have been at cases among 18 to 22 year olds in the past week, and 62.5% of those have been among cu students. And so that’s some new data that we’re getting. And then when you look at it by ethnicity, and race, you can see in this chart that we’ve been showing from the beginning, in aggregate, it’s now 34.4%.
I’m actually going to go to this slide. The number and proportion of cases both decreased among the Hispanic Latinx population in Boulder County, between last week and this week. In the past seven days, 23.8% of our cases have been among Hispanic Latin x communities, members and 72.2 have been among white non Hispanic community members. So you’re seeing the shift in that caseload. And again, I think that’s a big product of the work that the health department in our communities have been doing about working with our cultural brokers. And we’ve talked to you all about that. We’ve got more work in that arena in terms of vaccination, and you’ll see some of those slides. So we look at vaccination, and again, this is changing daily.
are we back up? Number of Boulder County residents I mean, as one vaccine dose is 25, with the full course is 24. So we have 49,000 in Boulder County that it has at least one vaccine dose
that we have in the process, as the mayor talked about,
we’re seeing more folks receive vaccines I know those that are educators are getting called in, we’re starting to see even in our organization, those that fall under COVID-19 response personnel are getting called. So we’re seeing more of that starting to move in the process. This gives you a look at dose one in blue and dose two, and orange and what we’ve seen. And this really gives you then the breakout of what we’ve seen around different population groups. And so in Boulder County, 77.6% of those over 70 have been vaccinated. I know they’re continuing to that doesn’t include those who said they don’t want to be vaccinated. So that’s a different piece that we’re trying to work through in this. And then obviously, when you heard me talk about there’s more work that we need to do. This is a piece of really working within our Hispanic Latin x population and getting more vaccine over this over 70.
This really lets you see how well the metro area is doing. And so you can see Douglas boulder and Broomfield are over 70% Jefferson’s close and then
Sorry, Denver, Arapaho, and Adams are in that 50, slightly over 60% range. One of the things that we’re actually seeing is this graph, and that shows the percentage of over 70, who are vaccinated, red is over 75%, the lighter orange is 50 to 75%. And then the yellow is 25 to 50%. There’s two census tracts in around Longmont that only have 27, seven and 30% of their population 70 plus vaccinated, I just got this information earlier. So we’re obviously going to talk about that in our admin meeting. But you can see one is north of Longmont. And the other sort of Central around that looks like that Main Street area. One of the things that I can tell you is that I know, today, we had a fairly, we had a vaccination event at
Fall River, Spring Creek, Aspen Meadows where we hit a significant number of folks over 70, I think the number that they were able to provide is around 80 in terms of that area, and so these are things that we’re going to continue to work on, that was part of the work that they’re doing in the congregate living category, for those that are over, over 70. So they’ve moved through the assisted living now they’re in, generally the congregate living category.
And then when we look at the testing data were at 3.4%.
Again, you can see that we’re still able to conduct a large number of tests, and you’re seeing the positive than the number of positive tests in orange. And you can see that we’ve really tended to stay in that three to 4% positivity rate. And then when we look at hospitalizations again, this is aggregate number
that we’ve had since the beginning.
But but one of the you know, unique pieces is everything is in green med search beds is in yellow, and you can see ICU beds. But when you talk about that caseload piece, you’re seeing ICU bed use for other medical issues. And then this is what the hospitalization looks like in terms of Boulder County hospitals. And where we’ve been and you can see we’ve, we had a good steady down, downward decline, it’s increased a little bit, and but it’s still moving around. But we’re still within that
20 to 30 range.
Again, this is what the hospital system looks like for the entire state.
And then this is obviously the deaths that we’ve had. It is a lagging indicator. In January 45, Boulder County residents of COVID passed away 80% of those were associated with long term care facilities.
An average of slightly over one death per day. That was in January. So far in February, there have been nine deaths among residents with COVID 67% of those are in long term care facility. So we’re seeing again, the the case numbers start to flow through into the number of deaths. And then this gives you a sense of deaths among Boulder County residents by age, race and ethnicity.
Finally, when we look at mobility data as a whole in the state, we’re at about 43%. But when you look at Boulder County where it’s 61%, all of that goes into how they conduct their modeling.
So, Mayor council that is a quick overview of the data generally good news, we’re moving in the right direction. More vaccine is going out. I know there. Right now, Mayor to your question about where we are in vaccine. There in one B one and one B two. I know that there’s conversations about the potential to move to one B three.
I think the governor may have said something around the first part of March, they’re still working through that. Obviously, it really is about continuing to make progress in the 70 plus age category and then educators as they’re moving through the system, but we are at least anecdotally hearing a lot of people are getting going getting through the system. Next week. I think we should have more information for you all regarding our vaccine plans in the county and what’s going on. Because that’s gonna follow our admin meeting on Thursday. Be happy to answer any questions.
I have a question. You had mentioned some vaccination event that happened your Fall River, Fall River,
the lhsaa properties in Fall River and so when I talk so what that they were
Doing is the county via our King soopers and safely conducted vaccinations at Pete where we have folks living and when I say congregate living so we have a large number of people older adults living in Aspen Meadows apartments, Fall River apartments and Spring Creek apartments. And so it’s really designed in that those congregate living situations. So they worked with a similar to last week, I talked to you all about that we hit
the lodge and Hearthstone works. We’re also Li, a housing authority properties and village police. So that’s what it’s really about. So it’s being led by the county, is it a run not the city, not this? Well, the count well, so it’s a mix, the county helps facilitate it. And so from our staff, we have Kevin Ismail and Shannon McVeigh many in our OEM staff that are helping with that process. But then, when we actually get to the facilities, we actually had Michelle Wade, and her senior services staff, and then our housing authority. Staff members help facilitate that. And they literally have the pharmacist or whoever’s giving the injections in that facility. So you know, it’s through the county system, but then when they get in, we really support those as they’re occurring in those facilities. Okay, so then that’s different from like a mobile unit or a county clinic, or the community clinics is that is like the same similar concept. We’re just staffing it with some of our folks to help facilitate that. So they can balance their staffing loads and other places I know they’re also starting to really look at providing vaccines to those who are who, who are not mobile, for lack of a better word, are homebound. And so that’s a conversation that Michelle waits actively involved in and moving through it.
What you’re really seeing in this, the simple answer is it is in their system, we are putting people in to help them through the processes. And then we put people help to actually help carry out these
these of these vaccinations at various facilities. Thus far, it’s been focused on the Housing Authority. Okay. Okay. So really, these things are these types of efforts are geared towards elderly, homebound people.
And that, you know, so I’m thinking of moral along the lines of general public then should really be contacting their primary care physicians and not really trying to find any of these kind of clinics. So a, I think they still need to go into that county website and sign up as many places as they possibly can. If they’re not, if they don’t have access to technology, there’s the call in number on the county website that they should call in and utilize as well. And then I know the county,
they are looking at that next wave. So really, when we start getting into that next wave, that’s when other things will will we’re continuing to work and plan for other vaccine sites. If you’re talking about educators, now that’s a different question. educators have been directed to go through the facilities that
they’re associated school districts are working with.
Yeah, no, and they still have the option to go through their primary care correct? Through Kaiser. Yeah, but I did sign up for the district one. And I guess I just want to make sure that as we go through the next wave, or as more vaccines become available, that we’re not stamp, you know, there with vaccines and not enough facilities or clinics to get get it out to to the larger community. We have that we have the capacity in Boulder County to vaccinate 20,000 people a week, I think is the number they gave me and the challenge is really just getting supply. And, and and we have all of those facilities have been moving in terms of getting that vaccine out. And you saw me point out that map on the 70 plus where we saw lower percentages, those are that’s the data that they’re starting to utilize to really target specific areas in terms of this, this next focus to ensure we continue moving on the groups that we need to hit. Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor Bradley. So I’m Harold as we move into the larger population. Um,
are we going to have a site in Longmont, for example, the senior center or rec center or other big space where people can just come to get the shot if they have not had it? We’ve had some some question.
Not a lot about where in Longmont Can I go, I cannot go to Boulder County at shot. So that’s part of the conversation as we move into one B three, and then the general groups. And so there are a lot of sites that we’ve looked at, obviously, the fairgrounds is a site that they’re that they’re really focused on. And they’ve actually run a couple of vaccine events there. As they’re working through it, we have evaluated a couple of our facilities, the one that I think made the most sense based on ceiling height, airflow in those things, was actually the memorial building. Also, because of access to transit and some other issues. Again, that’s all dependent on I mean, so the variable that none of us can control is quantity of vaccine. And so as things open up, they they have layered plan after plan, so that we can start spinning up things based on actually having enough vaccine. We did actually look at our senior our senior center, obviously, things like roof, high airflow were coming into play. But as we continue to really target. And this is something that I’ve brought up to when we’ve talked about as admin groups, as we continue to target segments of our population where we need to ensure that we get folks access to vaccine as it becomes available. That’s really where that pop up mobile concept is going to start coming into play. So we can really target neighborhoods. So very similar to when you saw on the testing side, once we got enough testing supplies, we did some pop up testing, near countryside, mobile home park, those are the things that I pushed into the system to say we need to really figure out a way to get into neighborhoods if we can. So those are all things that everyone’s talking about and continuing to develop,
you know, down from option A to M now in terms of how we can spin out more. And those are things will get updated on Thursday. So I’ll have more information next Tuesday. Great. Thank you.
All right. What else do you have for told? Thank you have one more question? Right. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Martin. I love how everyone has been the mayor tonight. For more than
just a question for the city manager. How did the
event it countryside mobile home park actually go? Did? Did you take? No, that was a win early on when we did a testing facility there. So that was last year, when we had the testing facility there based on where we were seeing the case? Just case data and really wanting to get in it actually went really well, because we also had gift packs available. And and and so that was really some strong communication with that neighborhood. But yeah, it’s hard to imagine that was probably
I mean, we’re we’re coming out a year. I think it was March 13, where everything literally imploded on us overnight. And, and so we’re about a year in this. And so to the mayor’s question about when can we come back, obviously, the state rules on gatherings and all of that are going to be in play.
The issue that we’re going to have to continue thinking about and this is one of the rules on gap gathering, what’s the space calculator and how does that impact the council chambers? And what does that mean more in terms of residents and folks coming into the meeting? If it were just the eight of us, we could probably space ourselves and do that, like we did at the beginning. It really is about that public involvement component. And so those are things that we’re now starting to watch as we see the numbers move in.
Obviously, a lot of conversations regarding the variance. And so everyone’s still watching some of that data.
Cool. All right. Anything else for the COVID report?
All right, let’s go ahead and take a five minute break. Not a three but a five minute break. Thanks to the suggestions that Councilmember city offering and we will be back in five and if you’re waiting for public invited to be heard call on in.
Alright folks, it’s time to call in if you’re interested in our public invited to be heard portion of our agenda tonight. The number to dial is toll free 1-888-788-0099
again, that number is 1888788009
Nine, When prompted, enter the meeting id 817-391-6915.
Again, that’s 81739166965.
You’ll be prompted for a participant ID, you can press pound, and then you will join the waiting room where you will be eventually led into the meeting. please mute the device where you’re watching the live stream. Otherwise, you’re going to get feedback and a delay.
So you’ll need to listen to the instructions through the telephone when you join the meeting.
Alright, Mayor, I’m going to go ahead that’s that’s been about five minutes and drop the slide. And then we’ll wait just a few seconds for our live stream to catch up with us.
Make sure that has come down.
We do have one caller.
All right. Are you ready to begin? Mayor? Yep, we are.
So the caller, whose number ends in 212, I’m going to ask you to unmute. Caller that ends in 212.
Are you there?
try hitting star six to unmute.
There you are. Can you hear us?
Yep. All right. Please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
Okay, this is Jeff Thompson addresses 1616 Sumner street Longmont.
I’d like to refer you to the communication for item number nine B, which is the bonding
for water infrastructure improvements. And
before you go forward with this, and having the hearing in two weeks, this communication
needs a lot more information. And so I’m requesting
that you have the staff update this communication
before the hearing on the ordinance in two weeks.
to address this
these items that this bonding is supposed to cover the Nelson Flanders expansion and the price Park storage project.
These projects were supposed to be paid for, with the right increases, five years of rating increases that were enacted by the city console in early 2015. And the information provided to the city council on was provided in late 2014.
those projects, the plan was back in 2015. Those those projects were supposed to be done now and paid with those rate increases and acted back in 2015.
But the projects were deferred because instead of using the rate of increase money for those projects, the rate increase money was used for the windy gap based project and the windy gap firming project. It’s well documented and many city council meetings and communications that the city council was deferring
these projects so that it could use the money from the rate increases to pay for the windy gap projects.
So would you please
update the city council communication before you go through the hearing and inform the people of Longmont?
How much of this 55 million in bonds that we’re trying to get now
is actually to
supposed to have been spent on these projects by now, but instead was spent on the windy gap project.
And then that way, if you know you could make another thing you can make those kinds of communication a lot more clear on is, is just the basic numbers that
I got on my calculator and basically you’re spending 64 point 9 million to get $55 million. So there’s 9.9 million of Mr. Tom Santos. Riders cost you’re sorry, you’re about you’re about three and a half minutes, we’d have to cut you off, but we do appreciate
Get your your time and your your speaking up. Thank you. All right, next caller. Anybody know Mayor that was it. We had one caller this evening. All right, great. And let’s go ahead and wrap up first call public invited to be heard and move on to the consent agenda.
You can read that forest done. Absolutely mayor.
item nine a is ordinance 2021 dash 12. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2021. public hearing and second reading scheduled for March 16 2021. Nine B is ordinance 2021 dash 13. an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the city of Longmont enterprise water revenue bonds series 2021 public hearing and second reading scheduled for March 16 2021. Nine C is ordinance 2021 dash 14 and bill for an ordinance designating the shade house at 917 Fourth Avenue as a local historic landmark public hearing and second reading scheduled for March 16 2021 90. Is resolution 2021 dash 18. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Longmont downtown development authority for support and services. 90 is resolution 2021 dash 19 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for mediation services. Nine F is resolution 2021 dash 20 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving contract amendment number one to the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Colorado Department of Human Services Office of Behavioral Health for a grant for a law enforcement assisted diversion LEAD program. Nine G is resolution 2021 dash 21 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the town of mead for membership on the city of Longmont special weapons and tactics team and nine H is approved letter to Governor polis from the Boulder County consortium of cities regarding actions to ensure housing stability for Colorado residents impacted by the pandemic.
Right Would anyone like to pull an item, Councilmember waters and then Councilmember Peck?
glitch in my system tonight. I’d like to pull item nine B. Okay. Councillor Peck? Is that what you wanted to pull?
Which one was that? Again? I don’t have that water bond issue. Yes, that one as well as nine G. All right. Can we have a motion for the consent agenda less bng? I move that
writes but Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councilmember Peck. All in favor the consent agenda? say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, great. Let’s go ahead and there are no set ordinances on second reading. So let’s go ahead, john. Let’s deal with yours. First ge.
Resolution 2021 2021 dash 21. a resolution to Walmart city council approving the inter government agreement between the city in the town of mean for membership and the city of Longmont special weapons and tactics team. Great. Thank you Mayor Bagley I, I actually agree with this. But I do have a question. I’m curious are the towns where we have this type of IGA? You said Firestone, and now made for serial weapons in tactical? are they following all the state gun laws? For example, the red flag law? And is that important to us? I, I am nervous about having IGA with towns that have been adamantly against some of the legislation that has come down and passed. So I don’t know if it’s important. I just want to put that out there.
Jeff, can you answer that? I cannot answer it is a state law.
But I can’t say for sure what stance their city is taken in me and other town that we have the agreement with his Frederick.
But we do work closely with those agencies on a regular basis.
But this is more about
kind of supporting each other during SWAT operations. I can research that I would hate to hold this up for that. But I could research that I know the chief of police and meet very well in the chief over at Frederick and see what their stance is
on that. Okay, thank you. And I don’t want to hold it up on that either. I just thought this would be an opportunity to ask that question. And I can get back with you with that information. If that’s acceptable. That would be Thank you. So with that I move a nine g r 2021 21.
So I get that
It has been motion by Councillor pack Moved by Councillor Peck seconded by Dr. Waters. Nine g resolution 2021. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Councillor waters, let’s go to nine B ordinance 2021 dash 13 ordinance authorizing the issuance the city one enterprise water revenue bonds series 2021. Yeah. I have no concerns with the item. But but it is an opportunity to revisit a question that was raised last Thursday night during the neighborhood group leading leaders Association meeting, Harold did a state of the state presentation he did a great job. In among the things that were discussed, there were concerns about what had happened in Texas with the failure of their infrastructure and whatnot. In a question came up about the sale of water shares. And if I could restate the question, it was it was close to why is long selling water shares, and then asking for authorization to sell it up to $80 million in bonds. This is the $55 million
in Iran had a great response. And it seemed to me this would be an opportunity to the degree that that question is out there relative to this item, a chance here for you to answer that question for the whole community.
So actually start off and let Dale get a little bit more detail. But generally, what I thought they were referring to is the reduction in the acre feet that we had, from 12,000 to 7500 acre feet to where then it was the avoidance of the cost and then they were paying us back for what we had already invested for that amount. So Dan, why don’t you go into that and more.
Mayor Bagley and council member waters, Dale Rademacher deputy city manager,
so Council, your recall, at one point, the city was at 12,000 acre foot of participation level in the winter gap firming project, the city lower that amount down from 12 to 10,000 acre feet
some years ago, several years ago, and at that time, the project was re scoped and reduced in size. And so the city didn’t sell its capacity to anyone. The project, in fact got smaller than what it was previously scoped at.
The city subsequently, also lowered from 10,000, down to 8000 acre feet of capacity. Now, when we did that, that 2000 acre feet was in fact of capacity. Again, let me clarify, first of all, we’re not selling any water, no water is being sold, all it’s being sold or conveyed is a space in the reservoir. And so from the 10,000 to 8000 acre feet, those 2000 acre feet were acquired of capacity were acquired by Platte River Power Authority.
And then the last reduction that we made from 8000, down to 7500, that was split
half to the city of Loveland half to the city of Fort Lupton. And all of those cases, including the original reduction, the city was made completely cold for any sunk cost that we had in the project up to that date. And so we were fully reimbursed at every step of the way. And and and subsequently, we were able to recalculate what our total costs were, as you also know, counsel, and unfortunately, the per acre foot cost of those acre foot of storage has also increased in that timeframe. That increase has largely offset in many ways, the space reduction that we arrived at now, had we not done the space reduction, we’d be looking at a far sizable dollar amount
to cover our expenses. Does that answer your question? Councilmember waters? It was it was more of a question from the community. I just thought, okay, out there it’s circulating.
We want to just address it so that people aren’t attaching that question to this item and the sale of these bonds. And what’s important about the sale of these bonds,
none of these funds are going to win the gap firming that we are looking to do in this potential. This the sale that we’re doing now. And in fact, these are the bonds a portion of the bonds at the city voters authorized, which was up to $80 million in bonds. In the last election last November. Those were for the Nelson Flanders treatment plant, price Park,
reservoir and other overall water system improvements. So I’ll make an observation and ask a question Dale
The observation would be, at least in my view, what we are doing with the authorization of these bonds and the work that will be funded
protects a generation from now, Longmont residents who don’t experience what Texans experienced last week, I made that investment in 1989 are in 2011, those kinds of investments, they wouldn’t have experienced what they experienced this week. Is that fair? That’s a great point. Councilmember waters, what I would say is, it demonstrates this community’s commitment to reinvesting in both the resiliency and the reliability of their water system, so that this community should never have to face.
You know, what, what’s what folks are experiencing in other areas of the country? I can’t say we never will, but for God’s sakes,
we will have a global system. It won’t be because we neglected the system at exactly. We have one more question. If If this or any city council were to to be interested in selling water to another municipality or other interest, what would be required. So as required by the city charter, it takes a vote of the the
members of the Longmont community, people have to vote to sell water in this town. City Council does not have the authority to sell water. Good. Thanks. Yeah, I was I think it’s important if people are concerned that they have that assurance. I’ll be quiet. Thank you want to make a motion, Tim?
council my way. But Councilmember
you should make the motion. Gentlemen, Councillor Peck. Thank you very badly. a follow up question on what Councilman waters just asked. Does PRP have the ability to sell the water?
Does PR pa
Yeah, can Yes they do. Okay, um, Platte River can sell
their windy gap shares by a vote of their board. Okay. Um, the other question I have is that, because this was a vote a couple of years ago for the infrastructure on on these two plants are the water, our water rates going to go up
for this bond. And that was part of the vote, if I remember correctly, that it was an escalated rate plan. So this is not really anything new. It is cotton, but it is not new. So that’s correct. Councilmember pack? Yeah, we need to make sure that the public understands that this was their decision to do this
by their vote. And let me just clarify as well. I see Barb and Becky have come on here. But council you have already approved, the rate increases the rate structure, if you will, that are necessary to cover the debt service for the entire bond issuance up to 80 million, in addition to the bond issuance for the windy gap project. Right. You’ve done both of those already. And so you’re not having to approve additional rate increases beyond what you’ve already approved. Correct. Thank you for that clarification. Is it possible for you to actually address right now, what Mr. Thompson brought up about the 2015 rates, increases in 2015. And that this was supposed to be already built and paid off. I would like to put that to rest immediately, or verified. So I’m going to do it council member pack at a at a fairly high level. I don’t have all that data right in front of me right now. But here’s what I do recall, in that 2014 timeframe, the city had completed what we call the integrated treated water master plan. In that document, we identified upwards of $200 million
of investment that will be needed to maintain and in some ways expand the capacity and the reliability of your water system over the next about 20 year timespan. So Mr. Thompson might by referring to that document where we absolutely identified things like the need to expand the Nelson Flanders treatment plant, we identified the need to replace the price part
storage tank. So those things were all identified at the master plan level. So where we are now is we have done the rate analysis to know how we’re going to be able to afford to do those over the next several years instead of the next 20 years. And so, we are we are building these projects in accordance with that integrate
The treated water Master Plan, which again, is a very long term plan, but it but it is looking at the entirety of the water system. And so he’s correct that we identified the need to do these projects. We did not, however back then increase the rates to cover those. The last rating increase that you did is the rate increases that will pay for the Nelson Flanders in price Park projects as an example of some current projects that are going forward. Does that help? It definitely helped. Thank you. I think it’s important to get that information out. And I really want to thank our staff, especially you Dale and all of your minions to thank you for your vision and keeping you know, our infrastructure, keeping an eye on it and bringing it up to date, making sure it all works. It’s huge. It’s very important. So with that, I’m going to move 2021 13
All right, item nine v origins 2021 dash 13 has been Moved by Councillor Peck and has been seconded by Councilmember waters Seeing no further discussion and debate since it was a consent agenda item. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. All right. There are no again there are no ordinances on second reading worlds. We’ve already handled it. Let’s go on to general business.
Do we have a motion to recess the Longmont city council and convene as the board of directors the Walmart general Improvement District number one. So moved.
I’ll second it has been moved. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye.
All right, Motion carries unanimously. All right. We are currently convening is the one one or I’m sorry. We’re currently convening the board of directors the Walmart general Improvement District number one pertaining to resolution LG id 2021. Dash oh one which is the resolution of the board of directors along with general Improvement District number one, approving an intergovernmental agreement with Longmont downtown development authority for generations for general administrative services. Do I have a motion?
Number? All right. It’s been moved by Councilmember Peck seconded by Councilmember waters. All in favor say aye. Do you have any I’m sorry. Is there any debate or discussion on this matter?
All right, seeing none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously have a motion to adjourn as long general Improvement District number one board of directors and reconvene as the one one city council Now move
back right. It’s been Moved by Councillor Martin and seconded by Councilmember Lago fairing that we adjourn and reconvene as Longmont City Council. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed say nay.
All right, the Motion carries unanimously on a 12. b under General Business a request to initiate a land development code text amendment to allow vehicle fueling stations. The M un mixed use neighborhood zoning district staff.
Really mayor, Brian Schumacher city planning staff. So staff doesn’t have a presentation regarding this request to see me but we’re available to respond to any questions you might have. And then Mickey Leyva is also on the call this evening representing the property owner, if counsel has any questions regarding this request.
All right. No questions, comments, nothing to say. All right, Harold, do you have anything that you want to address on this? No. Anything on the agenda? As soon as something that needs to be done? We also wouldn’t be on the agenda.
Ryan, you want to go over the item? No, you don’t need to go over the item. We’re good. But just you saw the recommendation for staffing. Yes, we’re all good. But my point is that it’s on the agenda. We’re good. Right? You have everything you need.
You need to direct.
So So mayor, so the request is to go through the amendment process. It’s kind of like the annexation referral. Yeah. So I moved that we we I move that we direct city staff to initiate a land development code text amendment to allow vehicle fueling stations to me un zoning district.
Move by me seconded by Councillor Martin. Any debate on this issue? We’ll hear it later. Councillor Peck.
I don’t agree with this. And the reason I don’t agree with it, it doesn’t fall into our work plan at all. It isn’t our vision for moving forward with electric vehicles. It is a fueling station, a gas station, basically, a fueling station. Once we do this, then it can be in every single immutable
Within the within city for one particular area that might be different, but to amend the code, so that it can be put in every fueling station be put in every single one. I, I disagree with that. I don’t think we should amend the code to do that. Because we’re Martin.
What is the definition?
Mr. Schumacher of a fueling station? Does that include an Eevee charging station and other types of fueling stations? I just saw a plan for
fuel hydrogen fuel cell fueling station? Would all of those be covered? Or is it strictly up petroleum gas station? Councilmember Martin, it could include all of those, potentially, I think this particular property owner and request, I think they’re interested in doing a petroleum gasoline station, non electric charging station, or any other type of alternative fuels.
Furman, the request would apply city wide and all mixed use neighborhood zoning districts.
Alright, so is there a, I assume there is something coming forward that would push us to have this conversation? What is that?
So may are the questions that the property owner that at the corner of paste and highway 66 is interested in developing their property, they would like the ability to sell a proper parcel as part of their subdivision for a vehicle fueling station. And but in order to do that their current zoning does not allow for vehicle fueling stations in their property where that property is currently zoned. So so one having lived up there twice, we need fueling stations up there. But two, is it possible to do it other than instead of changing the zoning code? Is it possible just to change the zoning of this particular parcel?
That would allow that that would be up I mean, that potentially could be an option. But again, we also have to take a look at the Envision Longmont land use plan because that’s currently designated as a neighborhood center as well. And so we’d have to go through an amendment process. Right, I guess I’ll I’m saying I personally say Go ahead, bring it back for discussion. I’ll vote for it. But the other thing is, the neighbors aren’t going to understand gas station under mixed use versus change the zoning, they’re just going to your gas station. And so I’m willing to discuss it later. I’ll vote for this. But I’m just curious. I’d like to see other options as it comes back, if that makes sense. So let’s go ahead and vote and give them the the thumbs up or thumbs down to continue with it. And then we’ll debate this at another time. Councillor Ward, Councillor waters?
A work. So if we I would like to keep open. The possibility is Councilmember Martin was suggesting that in mixed use developments, we might have forms of types of fueling stations. I have heard from the residents in the neighborhood adjacent to this particular piece of property, they’re not interested in a gas station being in proximity to their homes.
So at the end of the day, I wouldn’t vote for making the change to accommodate this request. But I don’t want to vote no on this request and eliminate the prospect of considering fueling stations for at stations or others in mixed use developments down the road, if that’s an option.
So what are my options? Right?
That would be you Brian Schumacher, because I
just making sure that we’re all everybody’s looking at the right box on the computer. It was it was Mr. Schumacher versus Mr. Mayor. Yes, thank you. So if Council is interested in exploring this further, you know, we could we could look at some options in terms of putting in certain types of restrictions going forward as part of an amendment process that would help to try to mitigate potential impacts on the neighborhood.
You know, whether that’s, you know, requiring that all vehicle fueling stations would have to go through a conditional use review, whether or not they need to have some type of distance separation requirements, so you don’t have a fueling station immediately adjacent to a residential lot. For example, you could have some size limitations. You could have common
To put in some place that, you know, vehicle fueling stations after have, you know, electric charging stations. So, so voting yes on this would allow us to move further into that discussion. That that’s correct if console, so chooses.
Councillor Martin. And then Councillor Christiansen? Actually, you know what, let’s go with Councillor Christiansen only because she hasn’t spoken on this matter yet. And we’ll come back to you, Marsha. Go ahead.
Matt. Sure, Marcia has lived there. But anyway, I don’t mind having a discussion, I’d like to have a discussion on what our future fuelling will look like. And within 10 years, we will probably have mostly electric vehicles, depending upon
a number of conditions, obviously, but we may also have hydrogen fuel vehicles, we may have all kinds of different options. And hopefully we’ll have rail and
buses and things like that, too. So rather than the heavy handed thing of just making this blanket, change of land usage for all zoning codes,
all mixed use zoning codes, I’d rather have a discussion of what the possibilities are, and deal with it maybe as something that’s conditional or it’s something that this particular development could get a waiver on or some other way as mayor’s Begley suggested, rezoning that portion of the
of their land to allow that, but it’s certainly something that will affect the neighbor residential neighbors. So I think we need to have a more substantial discussion of it. Thanks.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, I just want to explain real quick why I’m gonna vote the way I’m going to vote. And it’s going to be a no vote, because I don’t want staff spending a whole lot of time coming up with a bunch of options that will probably generally won’t agree with anyway.
You know, it’s possible we would but in my my view, this
fueling stations or either conditionally allowed or allowed and all the other mixed use zonings. That’s for other different mixed use zonings that are available in this particular parcel may not be zoned one of those, which I obviously understand it is not. There are a very, you know, there’s a variety of other uses that they could use that are consistent with the zoning. And so I’m just going to vote straight, no on this motion.
And because I generally would not approve it, even if it comes back with as a conditional use suggestion that staffs talked about so just wanted to explain my vote. Thanks.
All right. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. Yay. All right. Sounds like they are you and I are in a Marcia
was thinking about it?
Good move. But no, no, they didn’t. I know they didn’t.
I was in a. Alright. Motion fails. two to five with myself and Councilmember waters. Saying bring it back. You five saying don’t so
they’ll have to get a gas station some other way. All right. Let’s move on to
mayor and council comments. I say final call public about to be heard. Let’s take a five minute break.
All right, folks, this is our final public invited to be heard opportunity.
The information on how to dial in is on the screen. You can dial Toll Free 1-888-788-0099.
When prompted, enter the meeting id 81739166965. Again 81739166965. When it prompts you for an participant ID press pound when you enter into the meeting, you will enter first into a waiting room and then be
Given entry into the meeting, make sure that you mute the live stream. Or you will hear feedback and a delay between your audio and the stream audio. So make sure you mute the live stream and listen for instructions through the telephone. Thanks.
So the folks that have called in we will be with you shortly. Once the meeting resumes, thank you.
Let’s go ahead and resume in about 60 seconds.
Alright, Mayor, I’m going to drop the slide and then I’m going to wait for the live stream to catch up and drop the slide as well. Okay. We have one caller at this point.
Well, I heard somebody
Yes, you did.
Whenever you’re ready.
Alright, looks like the live stream is caught up.
Caller that ends in 212.
Your phone number 212. I’m going to ask you to unmute. Are you there?
Call or 212
he’s probably going to hear it in about 10 seconds or so if he hasn’t muted the live stream.
There you go.
Hello. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes
Jeff Thompson again. Um,
sometimes I just don’t believe what I hear in the city council meetings from Dale rad and maker. So did he actually say that the rate increases that were authorized by ordinance by the City Council, the water rate increases in early 2015. We’re not to cover projects like the Nelson Flanders expansion project and replacement of the storage tank up by the water tower in price Park.
Did he really say that?
Because if he did, I’m going to come back to the city council in two weeks when you have the hearing on this new ordinance
and tell you exactly at what minute at the hearing on that 2015 ordinance. I spoke at the hearing and said you’re not really going to spend that money. The way you say you’re going to spend it on projects like Nelson Flanders, you just want to get your hands on that money. So you can throw it down the windy gap raffle.
And Dell router maker came up you I think it was mayor Bagley asked him about my contention.
That money was really going to be used for windy gap.
And not for these infrastructure projects. And Delray automaker denied it.
So I mean, now we’ve got to Dell Rademacher lies on the record about this.
I was the one telling you the truth or actually predicting, I said, You’re not going to spend this money on these infrastructure projects, you’re going to spend this money on Wendy gap. And he said, No, we absolutely are not going to do that. And then there are plenty of city council meetings that document the fact that the city council, in fact, did defer these infrastructure projects. So they could use the money to pay for a windy gap. So now I’m back here just asking you again, at least put it in writing. So we have some history in the city, and some honesty and accountability. And just tell us how much of this money
money was deferred so that we could use it on Wednesday gap. And would you also do something else, especially Mr. Waters, who seems to think he knows something about about these things.
There was a study that came out of Utah State University in the last week.
One of the authors of the study was Colorado State, Brad Utah. He is the expert on the condition of the Colorado River district.
That’s 315. But I’m sure he’ll be back in two weeks at the public invited to be heard or next week or even at the at the public public. Hearing. So thank you, your voice is appreciated. All right. Next caller.
Mary, that is it. We had one caller for the second round. All right, cool. Let’s go on to mayor and council comments then.
Just for waters.
Sorry. I’d like to my friends at the new Pinnacle neighborhood. My vote was not to put a gas station in there. But it was to advance the inquiry about what what how might we create incentives in the zoning for mixed use development to get more alternative or electronic or hydrogen fueling stations so
but it you know, it’s dead anyway. But I just want folks to know what was on my mind. Thanks.
Is it anybody I said?
I said Anybody else?
And then I saw Marcia go like this telling me I was muted, but I said Marsha, wow, no comments. I’m impressed. So thank you for telling me I was muted. As I was saying something slanderous in me. I appreciate that. All right, Harold.
No comments, Mayor Council. All right, Eugene, you should be in a great mood. Great mood.
Now comments, Mayor great money.
Here. All right. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please?
counselor. All right. It’s been moved. We have a second second. who moved it then? I thought you moved it. I thought I did too. Yeah. No, no, he can’t move in second. I’ll second it though. Councilmember waters has moved and seconded with a third and a second by me to adjourn the meeting. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Great. Enjoy the Enjoy the rest of your night, guys. See you next week.