Mask Wearing Recommended while at Longmont Public Media. More information here.

Note: Effective October 1, 2021, proof of vaccination is required to enter Longmont Public Media.

City Council Regular Session – January 11, 2022

Video Description:
Join us live for this week’s City Council Meeting – City Council Regular Session – January 11, 2022

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.
Read along below or follow along here: PT 1: https://otter.ai/u/j_eOV43XuCnGxighDMnLVQ8Gqc0 PT 2: https://otter.ai/u/x5kzk1K3li9YZT8ZknFIOmno5RI

Unknown Speaker 0:08
Welcome, everyone. I would now like to call the January 11 2022. Long that city council regular sessions to order. Can we please start with the roll call?

Unknown Speaker 0:19
Absolutely. Mayor Peck of course present. Councilmember Dalgo firing.

Unknown Speaker 0:25
Here. Councilmember Martin. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Here.

Unknown Speaker 0:33
Councilmember waters here. Councilmember Yarborough? Here. Mayor, you have a quorum.

Unknown Speaker 0:38
Thank you. We’re having meetings being held remotely due to the ongoing novel Coronavirus pandemic. You can watch the meeting live stream by clicking play on the video link within the interactive agenda window. The interactive agendas are on the city’s agenda management portal at www dot Loma. colorado.gov/online-services/agendas-and-minutes/agenda-dash management dash portal. That’s a lot to say. Or viewers may go to long lat YouTube Live or Longmont public media.org/watch Councillor Martin, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Unknown Speaker 1:31
Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:34
I pledge allegiance, allegiance to the flag of America and one under God, indivisible this as well. Yes, sir. Oh, thank you. As a reminder to the public anyone wishing to provide public comment, during public invited to be heard, must watch the livestream of the meeting and call in only when I open the meeting for public comment. callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time. Some of the instructions for calling in are on the screen now the toll free call in number is 888-788-0099. Watch for the instructions to be displayed and write down the meeting ID when it is displayed at the beginning of the meeting. Wait for me to open public comment and direct callers to call in. When I say to call in dial the toll free number on the screen enter the meeting ID and when to ask for your participation ID press the pound sign. Be sure to mute the live stream and listen for instructions on the phone. callers will hear confirmation that they’ve entered the meeting will be told how many others are already participating in the meeting staff and council included and will be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted into the meeting. Once you’re admitted into the meeting, callers will be called upon by the last three digits of their phone number and allowed to unmute to provide their comments. Comments are limited to three minutes per person, and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Once done speaking, callers should hang up. Thank you. We now have minutes from the last three city council meetings to approve. Can I have a motion to approve the December 7 2021 regular session minutes summon Thank you. Do we have a second? I’ll second. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Hidalgo fairing. It has been moved by Councillor Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Rodriquez, seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairy. All those in favor? say aye or raise your hand. All right. Thank you all those opposed? That passes unanimously, and I am going to ask you to raise your hand because for the city clerk to be able to record it. It’s too hard to know who actually answered. So I now have the December 14 2021 regular session minutes. Can I have a motion to pass I’ll make a motion to pass the December 14 2021. Regular Session minutes. Can I have a second? Sergeant? It has been moved by myself. Mayor pack and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Rodriquez. All those in favor. All those opposed? That passes unanimously The last one is the December 20 2021. Special meeting minutes. Do I have a motion? To pass that? So moved. Thank you. That’s been in a second.

Unknown Speaker 5:14
I’ll second that.

Unknown Speaker 5:16
So it’s been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by myself. All those in favor? Thank you all those post that passes unanimously. We are now at the agenda revisions. We have no revisions or submissions of documents tonight. But do I have any motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas? Counselor waters?

Tim Waters 5:43
Mayor pack I thank you. I don’t know if this is a direction to staff that you’d for what you’d want a motion? Or you would just can I just advance the question of the request and see who might else be interested. Of course, late in 2021, we heard a presentation from Glenn, where he laid out kind of the body of work on which his staff was working then and I’m certain they’re working now. And identified, you know what was going to come to us in the first quarter in the second quarter of 2022. With following up on so many of our conversations about land code and design standards and and in the housing ordinance, etc, to resolve conflicts, that was very helpful to me to know what to anticipate from, from planning. If we could get like a one pager from Glenn and the other directors have kind of similarly what are they? What are they anticipating bringing, bringing to us in the first two quarters or you know, through 2022. And maybe the first two quarters is about the timeframe that is reasonable. But just to have an idea of what for them, the big bodies of work that are in the queue that are kind of come to us. So when we do on Tuesday nights think that there’s something worthy of adding we have some idea of the other work that’s that’s coming to us. So we know how to kind of set priorities.

Unknown Speaker 7:10
Councillor Rogers, that’s a good idea. But would you like to make a motion to direct staff to bring it back at a certain time? Frame?

Tim Waters 7:17
I you know, they’ve got a lot going on? i i Can I was? If that’s what you want? I’ll do

Unknown Speaker 7:23
I think that that would be I would prefer that to be honest. Like, if you wanted at the end of the first quarter, the beginning of the second quarter, it’d be

Tim Waters 7:33
helpful to get it before the first quarter since we have come stuff coming to us. But if we could get it by the end of I guess by the end of February, put that in a motion. I move that we direct staff, or the city manager to bring to submit to us some summary of the work that’s being on which the staff is working now that will come to us in the first two quarters of 2022. So we have some idea of what what to expect.

Unknown Speaker 8:01
Do I second? Okay. All right. Thank you. So the motion is I hopefully I am repeating this correctly by Councillor waters to direct staff to bring back a summary of projects or work that they expect at in February. Is that what you said, Counselor?

Tim Waters 8:25
Well, it worked in the first two quarters, but we received a summary by the end of February, that would give them time to pull it together. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 8:36
Um, I would like city manager, if you wouldn’t mind to weigh in on this. I know that we have some of this sounds like amendments that we were to the code that we were talking about earlier. Is this tire work for years?

Unknown Speaker 8:50
It was Yeah, that’s fine, because I’ve actually asked staff to put a sheet together. So I can start seeing that further in the future as well. So I think the end of February is a good timeline for us.

Unknown Speaker 9:03
Okay, great. Thank you. So all those paper this motion, please raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 9:09
All those posts.

Unknown Speaker 9:11
So that passes unanimously. Are there any other? Councilman Yarborough? I do see your hand up is that you use the reaction button and you have a hand up? No. Okay. Councillor Hidalgo? Sorry.

Unknown Speaker 9:28
Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I wanted to propose or ask the question of my council colleagues, to dip into our contingency funds to help the residents with the wildfire. I know they’ve been inundated with items. But it seems like you know, we’ve had several teachers in our district who have been impacted. They live in the area and they’ve lost homes. It seems like money is really what’s what’s mostly Miss Willis we needed. And I was I was looking through the Community Foundation, the county, the Boulder County wildfire fund seems like their work there. They’re an organization that is working, partnering with local governments to really fill in the gaps and find what what money would go where. So you know, I make a motion or propose to our my council colleagues to dip into the contingency funds for the amount of 20,000 to go into the the Boulder County Wildlife Fund.

Unknown Speaker 10:35
Rather second for that. I have questions.

Unknown Speaker 10:43
I’m America Tim. Why don’t you second it and that would open it up for discussion.

Unknown Speaker 10:49
I will second it for the idea of discussion. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 10:54
So do you want to go ahead with your with your question?

Unknown Speaker 10:58
Yes, absolutely. Usually, when we make requests to dip into the contingency fund, there’s a specific kind of amount and direction for which we direct those funds. So I’m just wondering if you had a specific idea where and how much these funds would be allocated? I’m not against the idea by any standard. I just, you know, need a little bit more specificity, if

Unknown Speaker 11:23
you will. Okay, so, um, yeah, so there is the wild Boulder County wildlife fund. And I would propose that we donate to that particular fund, because that in you know, just kind of looking through different, you know, rather than sending it to the, to the government, you know, they’re they have access to receive state and federal funding. This what this particular organization would allow or fund would allow them to kind of align their resources and fill in gaps where needed among residents in Superior and Lewisville,

Unknown Speaker 12:05
I’m gonna break in here for a moment. Councillor Hidalgo. fairing. Did you have a specific mount that we I said,

Unknown Speaker 12:13
I thought I said it. 22. I did. I mean, that was

Unknown Speaker 12:19
okay. So I’m his counselor Martin.

Unknown Speaker 12:24
Yeah, I think this is just a miss speech. But did you say Wildlife Fund, wildfire, fire? Wildfire. And I kept typing that up to as I was.

Unknown Speaker 12:38
Yeah. Okay. Okay. It’s Any other discussion?

Unknown Speaker 12:43
Yeah, I actually had a question in addition to that clarification, which is, I am not sure whether it’s appropriate to to spend money on the council contingency fund that doesn’t stay in Longmont, as much as I care about what has happened in Boulder County. I just would like some discussion, maybe from the staff of about fund management, to know whether that’s okay.

Unknown Speaker 13:14
I don’t know what that became golden. Would it be Eugene? Probably Jane

Unknown Speaker 13:19
needs to jump into this. That was the question. I know, we have some provisions within our city charter in terms of how we can spend funds. So Eugene, do you have a thought on this?

Unknown Speaker 13:35
Mayor and council Eugene Bay City Attorney, have we ran into this issue in one of the hurricanes I think and donating to the Red Cross. And I think would be better if we had some sort of contract or, you know, exchange of services rather than a straightforward donation would be my recommendation.

Unknown Speaker 14:06
Okay, um, we can vote on this. Counselor, Hidalgo fairing Do you want to go forward with with emotion?

Unknown Speaker 14:15
You know, I would like to, if anybody on council has some recommendations on how to how to approach this, but then perhaps contact the organization.

Unknown Speaker 14:28
So I’m going to jump in here. If you don’t want to remove the motion. We need to vote on it. So the motion is to take $20,000 out of our council contingency fund and give it to the Boulder County wildlife, wildfire hires. I got all those in favor, raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 14:50
Opposed.

Unknown Speaker 14:54
Okay, so that fails unanimously. So I’m We Can Do you want to put this on a future agenda to discuss?

Unknown Speaker 15:06
I’m wondering if that’s the best the best route to take.

Unknown Speaker 15:10
So what would your motion be then to put this? Oh, I would like

Unknown Speaker 15:13
to put this on a future agenda too. No, I guess to discuss or, you know, possibly utilize 20,000 of our contingency funds to, to assist with wild the wildfire needs.

Unknown Speaker 15:32
Okay. Do I have a second?

Unknown Speaker 15:35
I will second out and volunteer. Between that now in the future agenda time to work with council member at all go fairing to try to find the source of an IGA that we could work on? That would be great.

Unknown Speaker 15:53
That sounds great. Harold to make us.

Unknown Speaker 15:57
I was gonna say I can talk to the Boulder County Emergency Management Group and see what they’re doing also see if there’s something that can accomplish what Eugene talked about, if that’s Council’s desire.

Unknown Speaker 16:11
That’s fine. So it’s been it has been the motions been moved by Suzy Hidalgo fairing to dis put on a future agenda item to discuss using $20,000 Out of the council contingency fund to help in some manner with the uh, wildfires that have affected our county. Councilwoman Martin seconded that all those in favor? So that passed unanimously. Thank you. Do we have any other motions for the for future agendas? Seeing none. The next thing that we have on this agenda is the city manager’s report. Harold, you have anything for us?

Unknown Speaker 17:00
Mayor Council, we do have a COVID report. Tonight. I’ve asked like Lexie Nolan from Boulder County Public Health to present that information to you. Based on what we were seeing. I just wanted to really let you all know I appreciate Lexi joining us tonight. They have been very involved and in the recent disaster that we’ve seen in our neighboring community. So for her to take time to present this information. Just really appreciate it. I know we’re in a spot with numbers right now. I didn’t get the update earlier. So Lexi, you will be updating all of us today.

Unknown Speaker 17:38
Thank you. Let’s see. There you are.

Unknown Speaker 17:44
Good evening, everyone. Leader pack long month city council and guests. I’m Lexie Nola, Deputy Director of Boulder County Public Health. I am here to present updates on the pandemic. And specifically in relation to the early impact that we’re seeing from the Omicron surge. I need to start a little bit with apologies. You’ll see even on the first slide tonight, we’re moving very quickly. And it mentions the Board of Health meeting because that is the slide deck that I adapted the presentation for a long month from but we are just we’re very busy. It’s a very text heavy presentation, which is not my preference. And we’re just moving very quickly. Director Rodriguez sends her regrets that she couldn’t be here with you all tonight, she has to attend another meeting. Thank you very much. So next slide, please. So our key messages this evening, are that what we’re seeing in Boulder County is not unique. It’s very much the same pattern that we’re seeing around the state around the nation and around the world. Right now with this variant surge. The surge breadth in strength does require some additional action and pivoting in our communities. And we recognize that this comes at a time when our community and staff energy is really depleted. So the good news is that we don’t think it will last very long. But we do need to pay some attention for a few weeks to get through this gracefully, as gracefully as we can. It is a dynamic situation. This particular variant is moving extremely quickly. I’m sure you all have been watching the news. And some of our numbers are changing twice a day right now. So I’ll mention a few updates as we as we move through the slideshow just from today. We are finding that the three key goals that Boulder County Public Health originally proposed about eight months ago do remain the same and relevant to prevent severe illness and death in our community. to protect our health systems for everyone, and to promote the safest return to normal that we can achieve. And we recognize that sometimes the decisions we make aren’t perfectly centered in the science and they are not perfectly aligned with what folks would like in terms of return to normal. And we really work hard and do our best and work with partners to find the most tolerable solutions that that meet those needs for the community.

Unknown Speaker 20:33
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 20:37
If we go a layer down on our key messages, I can let you know that we are expecting cases to peak in Colorado in late January or early February, and hospitalizations to peak in early to mid February, we are seeing increased hospitalizations of children. There are a number of theories about why this is some of it has to do with the particular type of infection that this variant creates, really centers in upper respiratory infections rather than lower respiratory infections, which affect children more. But there are a number of other theories. Also, we are happy to say that there is new booster guidelines out our our 12 plus population can is now eligible for a booster and the end everyone’s eligible for booster five months after their full course. There are some notable ways that this particular variant is shaping thinking and action. within our agency in our community, there’s less of a focus on cases because it does seem to be generally a milder variant, it produces milder illness, that the sheer numbers are pushing more people into hospital quickly. And so it’s the pace of the spread. That is the biggest challenge for our health system right now. For instance, we’re not seeing patients quite as sick, we have more ventilators available than we used to in the last major surge, that we end we’re seeing people being discharged more quickly. But it’s this year numbers that are really stressing our hospitals. I’ll talk to you a little bit about the science. But in general, what we’re seeing is that the spread happens extremely quickly. And the transmissibility period of someone who’s infected is shorter. And because cases are also very high, some of the implications of that very, in very practical terms are that waiting for testing results to go into isolation is too late. By the time you get a test result, by the time you start feeling symptoms and get a test, you’ve already participated in spreading the virus around the community significantly. So effective masking is really critical. And I’ll mention that a couple of times this evening, because we’re really extremely focused on the need for everyone to be masked with a high quality mask. There’s been some guidance changes to what we’re finding is that requiring a test to release someone from isolation is less useful than it used to be because of this shortened infection period. And also our tests are in very short supply right now. So we’re trying to really prioritize testing for folks that are feeling symptoms. Third, we’re finding that case investigation and contact tracing is not a particularly effective strategy for containing cases when there’s this much transmission. So we’re really prioritizing those resources. And finally, the new CDC guidelines that were also approved by CDP he really reduced the isolation and quarantine periods to be a shorter period in that is because of that, all of those factors that we mentioned just a minute ago. So that’s the good news is that our isolation and quarantine periods can be a little bit shorter. The bad news is that it this variant really is going through our community very quickly. We’re seeing a lot of business disruption due to staffing shortages related to illness. We’ve seen it in eceee in early childhood education in our K through 12. Schools in the jails, law enforcement, hospitality workers, grocery stores, lots of other businesses, transportation and our health care providers and the list is quite long. Find finally we are also paying attention to the interactive dynamic of the variant and the fire anticipating that family displacement due to the fire may exacerbate and speed cases in our community speed hospitalizations or, and or have further impact on staffing in the region. Next slide. So this is just a little bit more about the science and I won’t go through it in detail.

Unknown Speaker 25:25
But the median time from exposure to infection may be as little as three days with the Delta variant it was five to seven days. That is one example of how much faster infection really sets in the risk of reinfection may be five times higher compared to Delta. The lecan risk of hospitalization compared to Delta appears to be lower. As I said, it’s a little bit of a milder disease for adults. And we are seeing that vaccination does provide significant protection, particularly if it was the Pfizer Maderna vaccine. But it does wane after about nine months. So those boosters are really important. Next slide. So kind of taking all that science together. And just to kind of review the track practicalities again. And I really I want to be very articulate about this because there have been a lot of questions about the CDC and CDPH new guidance on isolation quarantine and that shortened period, that it’s because the omachron infection happens quickly. And often before symptoms and diagnosis even appear on the first day of illness. The highest risk is within households, it’s your highest risk is from getting getting it from someone else in your household, and exposure prior to diagnosis and symptoms. As I mentioned, vaccination boosting is very important. Viral clearance is more rapid among vaccinated persons meaning that you’re you stop being trans you stop transmitting the virus sooner, right. And in situations in which transmission and virus burden is very high, those tools of isolation and quarantine are more limited. And we really want to emphasize that the path through this surge is high quality masking, not cloth masking, but in 95k and 95, a KF 94. And ventilation air exchange is very important also, mostly we would like to encourage folks just to sit tight and try not to be around a lot of other people for a couple of weeks until we can get through this surge. Next slide please. So this gives you a sense of the magnitude of the surge that we are seeing. Our seven day cumulative case rate is 12 143 per 100,000. Yesterday at BCP H. We downloaded 1600 64 cases. And today that number was over 1500. You’ll notice those lines that are so tiny now and lowdown of high transmission, substantial transmission in moderate transmission, and we were way down in low transmission even as recently as June but haven’t been back there since with the Delta surge. Prior to that delta surge, that second peak that you see was the CPU surge last year and this current surge that we have already as dwarfing it, and we have about two more weeks until we anticipate that we’ll be peaking.

Unknown Speaker 28:49
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 28:54
Our seven day positivity rate in Boulder County is right around 25%. You can see how quickly that positivity rate moved up. This is not unusual. I think the Colorado positivity rate is at about 28%. And there are a number of counties including counties nearby that have positive rates in the mid 30s. Next slide. This is an age breakdown but it’s a little bit different than what we usually show. This is an age breakdown showing the proportion of COVID case cases for each age group. And the reason that I wanted to show it to you is because I would like you to notice that that brown line on the top that five to 11 is dropped significantly and those are ages. That’s a misprint. Those are ages five to 11 Your old group was a significant proportion of the of the population of cases back in November. At the in the middle of November, when vaccinations became available, you see a drop. And four weeks later, when their second dose became available, you see another significant drop our population of 65 plus that blue line along the very bottom is a population that in Boulder County has maintained very high vaccination rates and very high booster rates and manage to keep its proportion of cases quite low. So just to really reinforce that value of vaccination and boosters in this context. Next slide. This is a projection of cases from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. And what’s important to notice about this graph is not how scary that that number goes up to but how much value we can get out of masking and how it brings the number down. So significantly, the green dotted line, that lower green dotted line in the projection is the projected impact of cases, number of cases, if they’re strong masking in the community. Luckily, Boulder County does have strong masking, we need to encourage folks that we come into contact with who may not have a masking requirement where they’re located. to also go ahead and just for a few weeks, go ahead and mask up with a high quality Nast and it will really help our health system.

Unknown Speaker 31:40
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 31:43
Just a review. This is where we are with our vaccinations at this point in different age groups. This is a vaccinations with the single dose and the reason why we think it’s useful is because it indicates intention. And there. There are a couple of age categories right now that have recently gotten their first dose. So if we should do the second dose, it might not give you as clear a direction that we’re going in. I think what’s of note is that our five to 11 population is now at 58% vaccinated which is terrific, we need to go ahead and finish that out. Get it a little bit higher for that age group to really protect them. The other notable change in the last few weeks is the 18 to 19 and 20 to 29 year old groups, vaccination rates have increased substantially. And I think that this is likely due to the messaging of the variant. What I’m a little bit concerned about is that one dose does not confer us as much protection as two doses. And even with two doses, it’s really two weeks after the second dose that you really get that full protection. So we’re thrilled to see some of those numbers increasing substantially recently. It’s important for those second doses to happen.

Unknown Speaker 33:10
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 33:13
I’ll move on to some health system data. This is where we have particular concern. About 72% of the hospitalized patients across the state are unvaccinated. That number has been dropping a little bit recently, we think because folks need to go ahead and get their booster shots. Then we’re seeing more breakthrough. As the immunity wanes, we see that immunity begins to wane about nine weeks after a full course of vaccination. So we need people to go ahead and get their booster shots. I’ll go ahead and put a plug in right now for their at the we’ve been working with the state to set up a mass vaccination drive thru site at the fairgrounds in Longmont. Appointments are required and there’s more information on our website about that. hospitalizations in the region increased by about a third last week. So what in one week they increased about a third. Notice that the bold notes are above thresholds for urgency and those include pediatric hospitalization, staffing shortages, medical surgical beds and ICU beds. And just to note, although those numbers for medical surgical and ICU Bed Availability have been fairly stable, the reason that they’re stable is because less urgent care is being redirected to other care providers or is being delayed altogether. We know from the early days of the pandemic that delaying Critical Care has a health impact on our community, whether it’s surgeries or routine examinations, cancer detection, all kinds of things. So we are concerned that this is where it’s great that we can make maintain a certain number of open beds, because we do think that they will be absorbed very quickly. But we are concerned about the way. The end it’s necessary. It’s absolutely necessary. It’s not a criticism, but that it has the impact of delaying care for other folks. We are seeing increased ER visits and significantly increased wait times in our ers. And we’re seeing significant staff cases, even in hospitals that require staff to be fully vaccinated, and those are largely due to external exposures. A number of hospitals and facilities are closing satellite locations and adopting additional guidelines to manage staff shortages.

Unknown Speaker 35:49
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 35:52
So what what is happening in response to these efforts, hospitals are eliminating cloth masks as acceptable masking and requiring higher quality masking even in outpatient settings. The combined hospital Transfer Center plan remains activated to transfer patients so that they can best manage their resources. As you may know the CDP he enacted crisis standards of care for emergency medical services on Friday, it’s the first time it’s been enacted since April of 2020. It means that only the most severe patients will be taken by ambulance to hospitals. It means that some patients may be taken to urgent care or other non hospital facilities. It provides guidance to emergency medical service workers on what kind of treatment to provide insurance that they know what to how to wear their PPE, and that they have sufficient supplies, and that they are no longer providing some kinds of life saving treatment in situations where it’s not deemed to be a good use of resources. So it may result in not transporting some patients or declining to resuscitate some patients such as those in continuous cardiac arrest that have very little chance of survival. So that’s quite significant, right. This is this is one of the ways that this pandemic that by not containing our cases, which drives our hospitalizations that we are really tying the hands of our health system such that they are really needing to ration care to best protect the community as much as they can. A VISTA which was evacuated during the fire is expected to be back online in about two weeks, which is fantastic. That’s amazing that they can move back into the building that quickly. In the meantime, their staff have been deployed to other hospitals to to support the staffing shortage. Finally, I’ll just mention, the new CDC guidance also allows hospital staff that have picked up COVID to return to work more quickly.

Unknown Speaker 38:05
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 38:11
This is just a note that we see about 37 patients admitted for 100,000 admitted to the hospital every in the last seven days. Every day in Boulder County hospitals, Boulder County residents are generally only about 1.5 per 100,000 of that share. And historically, we haven’t exceeded five per day. So Boulder County is doing a relatively good job of not contributing to the health care stress that we need to make sure that we keep those numbers as low as we can and also to encourage our partners in surrounding counties to help us protect the health system in the same ways. Next slide. So we are this was this data was pulled on Monday morning. It showed we’ve had 71 deaths since May of 2021 for a total of 329. I regret to let you know that that number is now 75 deaths since May and virtual look 333. The deaths that we are seeing continue to be largely unvaccinated folks, occasionally vaccinated folks, but mostly in older age ranges. Next slide. So I mentioned there’s some additional public health responses. As I mentioned, we’ve set up this mass vaccination site at the fairgrounds appointments are required. They can see they can vaccinate up to 700 people a day right now. We really like to encourage people to go ahead and get that extra protection if they haven’t done so yet. It will serve boosters, adults children, whatever’s needed.

Unknown Speaker 39:58
The We worked very hard. Oh sorry.

Unknown Speaker 40:06
We worked very hard with the schools in December to develop new school quarantine and isolation guidance to better support maintenance of in person learning. We were beginning to see some of the science, we could see some ways that we could use the science to our advantage to reduce isolation quarantine times and reduce quarantines in general and help keep kids in school safely. The new CDC guidance also aligns very much with that guidance and also supports the staffing shortages that I mentioned the as it applies outside of school settings as well. We have been increasing public communications lately particularly recommending that are vaccinated. Our vaccine verification program partners encourage masking during the Omicron surge. It’s not required right now. But we are encouraging them to to go ahead and encourage masking during the Omicron surge because this virus is transmissible. We have put out some communications on the use of quality masks, including wearing them outdoors in crowded areas and the discontinuation of cloth masks if you go to our BCP H website, there’s additional specific information on what a what qualifies as a quality mask. And we are also encouraging, not requiring encouraging reducing non essential social interactions, visits into public places, and also were quote encouraging remote work. The virus surge has also had an impact on our Surveillance and Epidemiology teams, we are managing a very challenging data situation. The number of cases has created some data lags at the state level, as well as additional workload on our own staff. We it’s a very rapidly changing situation. So we are needing to keep a close eye on the data. And we are continuing to learn about what the human impact is because this has evolved so quickly. We are taking a pause on some of the more high work intensive data collection and verification indicators. That includes race and ethnicity data as well as the breakout of at at the municipal level. That requires our staff to do an enormous amount of manual data coding, which we don’t have the capacity to do right now. But we will pick up those indicators as soon as we can. We are also further prioritizing case investigation contact tracing, focusing on the focusing on outbreaks. Finally, we were able to provide support to fire victims. At the Disaster Assistance Center we provided at 595 Masks 1000 pairs of gloves by 1000 rapid test kits 1100 COVID vaccines 220 T daps. Because tetanus is often a problem after fires and 500 flu shots.

Unknown Speaker 43:34
Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 43:36
So I will I’ll try to go quickly through an update on the schools because schools did return last week, there were some significant developments. And I think that particularly the community, as well as the city council may be interested in these. Next slide please. As you can see from this slide, we are seeing the surge occurring among all of our school aged children, some more than others. You’ll see that five to 11. You’ll see that repetition of the pattern of that surge a few weeks ago, the impact of the vaccination and the recurrent surge that we’ve seen in the last week or two. Next slide. Just a reminder of the vaccination rates in the five to 1112 1415 to 17 age groups 12 to 17 is doing very well. We hope to continue to support increased uptake of the vaccination among five to 11 year olds.

Unknown Speaker 44:42
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 44:44
So the schools have done an tremendous job to create the safest environments they can in schools and this includes hosting vaccination clinics, making sure that teachers are vaccinations vaccinated. Although We have noted other staff are less vaccinated, and those are where we see some of the biggest staffing shortages for the schools. The schools have spent enormous resources, installing high quality ventilation, daily cleaning, distancing at three feet when possible. students, students symptoms screening by parents, community and mobile testing sites, school masking in all metro areas except Douglas County, and ongoing communications and letters to parents. And we really thank our school partners for all of the work that they have done with us to take steps to make the school environment as safe as it can be, so that we can keep kids in school in person learning. Next slide. So what we’re seeing is historically, we’ve seen relatively low classroom transmission. In the January returned, there were a significant number of students and staff that missed the first day of school because they were recovering from COVID. So we knew that it was going to be a little bit of a bumpy road coming back in over the last. Over this past school year, we’ve known several students and staff that have been hospitalized or with severe illness and one death. And I mentioned that because a lot of times people aren’t aware of that impact on students. That has happened over the last year in Boulder County. And we, you know, our school health staff are overwhelmed just as the rest of us are in this space. We are also seeing that some private schools have delayed returning to in person learning or are using testing to return testing to return was not deemed feasible for our public school systems across the state, because of the shortage of tests, and the operational complexities with making that happen. We don’t see that as a major problem be for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. We really see masking as our go to mitigation strategy at this point. We know that Denver moved to remote learning one day last week due to staff support staff shortages. This is that issue of support staff sometimes not being as heavily vaccinated as teachers. We also note that the fire impacts create an additional stressor for BVSD and maybe also for some s BVSD. Students in particular.

Unknown Speaker 47:40
Next slide. So

Unknown Speaker 47:49
So there were some guidance changes as students returned to school in January. So let’s start with eceee. This guidance was actually developed cooperatively with our partners in December, and fortunately largely aligns with the recently released CDC cdphp guidance. And so what we see for early childhood education is that for quarantine, if a child is exposed, they are we’ve removed whole classroom quarantine, we’re not doing whole classroom quarantine anymore. But we are quarantining for vaccinated home exposures. The duration is five days if the child can wear a mask upon return, and then they continue to wear a mask for a few more days. If they’re under two and they can’t wear a mask, then we asked them to quarantine pretend days. In terms of isolation, if there was actually a positive case in the child, the duration is five days that they can mask upon return for the child or stat Oh, excuse me, that’s for staff only five days and then they can return and be masked. For children. It’s seven to 10 days of isolation. Next slide. At the K to 12 level, we are continuing to really work with our schools to prioritize in person learning we understand the challenges to parents to the community to children’s mental health, to socialization to learning processes that remote learning creates. So we have really worked hard to develop guidance that meets both the needs to protect from the virus and also supports our schools and our school staff. A lot of times the challenge is really creating guidelines that don’t create so much burden for school staff that they can’t manage the implementation of the guidelines. So that’s been an ongoing piece. of work that we’ve had with both school districts, and SV VSD and BVSD. So as I mentioned, we adopted guidance. This guidance was adopted by metro counties together. And Boulder County, the Boulder County COVID-19 school guidance is the following masks are still required and we expect them to be required for quite a while, given the current cases, and other mitigation strategies are still in place. The deviations from the CDC cdphp guidance are that we have defined fully vaccinated to include boosters so children to be for children to be fully vaccinated and get the benefits that isolation quarantine benefits of being fully vaccinated. They need to have boosters at an appropriate time for them. There’s a 90 day exemption for quarantine after a student has had the virus. But we are applying that 90 Day exemption only after December 19 When the omachron variant was dominant in Colorado. And finally the quarantine for high end medium risk. There’s quarantine for high and medium risk for contact sports is more strict, but those students can test or Return. Surveillance testing by schools is being provided in public and private schools via cdphp. In terms of quarantine, the rules are Nutkin will continue with no routine quarantines for classroom exposure only for household exposure. And the quarantines are five days with five additional days required masking. Testing is encouraged but not required to come back to class. In terms of isolation. It’s five days of isolation with five additional days of required masking. kindergartener, kindergarten is now included in the upper level school grade guidance as opposed to ECA. Previously it was eceee because of the availability of vaccinations for that group, so that actually supports them to be in person learning. Um, in relation to that out break, we’ve really had to prioritize resources. And so we have stopped case investigation contact tracing in the schools except for outbreaks. And parents may not necessarily be noticed, notified of every classroom exposure because there are so many. And additionally, we have really focused had to focus a lot of our data resources, simply on data entry to maintain to keep some kind of awareness of what’s happening with the numbers.

Unknown Speaker 52:48
Okay, next slide.

Unknown Speaker 52:52
We’ll just do a few additional policy updates for you next slide. So in Boulder County, I will I would, I’m very happy to let you know that CEU it’s not on this mat on the slide because as I say things are changing very quickly. But CEU is now requiring boosters for students and staff to return to campus they are expecting to resume in person learning. At the end of January, our universal masking order remains in place. As I said we are recommending good masks, not just a good quality mask. What you’re really looking for in a mask is a mask that fits your face. Well that snug that doesn’t have any openings that covers your nose. The in 95, KF 90 pores and K 95. So the best quality surgical is okay. cloth is we’re really actually kind of trying to discourage cloth masking on its own because it’s it’s simply not as effective as the higher quality masks. And as I mentioned the vaccine verified facilities stay in operation but we are recommending masking and we are considering the possibility of incorporating boosters as a requirement as we go forward and talking to our partners about that. Next slide. I think you’re all aware of the state level policies. We still have the proof of vaccination for indoor and seated events issued by the State. It’s been extended until January 31 requires vaccination.

Unknown Speaker 54:40
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 54:42
Our partner counties surrounding counties of jetco Adams Arapahoe now Broomfield has been added. Denver Larimer Summit, you can all require indoor masking. There is an interesting lawsuit in Douglas County YouMail remember that there was a challenge to the masking order that they wanted to put in place. And so an anti mask order was put into place. And it is being determined now whether that anti mask order was actually outside of their jurisdiction to do a little we can get into the legal weeds and other day. Next slide. At the national level, we know the Supreme Court is reviewing the Biden administration’s proposal for businesses to vaccinate. The TSA mask order is in place through March 18. As we mentioned, 12 to 15 year olds are eligible for a booster and the booster is now moved to five months after full vaccination status. So that’s a lot of information, I just have a couple of slides to kind of give some kind of a little bit higher perspective on kind of where we are in how we’re attacking this thing. Next slide, please. You may remember this kind of spectrum of layered mitigation strategies that goes from more essential and less burdensome strategies at one end to the more burdensome strategies that no one likes to do at the other end. And we’ve really worked hard to stay in that less burdensome strategy space. But we’re finding ourselves needing to dive a little bit deeper into our arsenal into our toolbox of strategies. And in relation to responding to the Omicron variant surge, you’ll notice there are a couple of strategies that are in red, they are less effective right now. So we’re kind of loose at the same time, we’re kind of losing some tools in our toolbox. You’ll notice that the the green ones, which indicate that they’re in place now. If they are in bold, they we have just recently added them in relation to responding to the Omicron variant.

Unknown Speaker 57:09
Last slide. So

Unknown Speaker 57:13
we’ve really tried to embed what we see as a strategy where we’re working with the community to create healthy habits and community self regulation, to create a long term strategy for responding to this pandemic. So that it’s not this constant reactive mode of, you know, what’s the public health department doing today? But really, how do we, as citizens of Boulder County, really know when we need to take steps because we have conditioned ourselves, we’ve gotten into the habit of changing our practices. So we find that the three goals seem to be pretty widely shared, which is really helpful for creating common expectations and a common set of values and goals. We also know that policies that support ongoing community led corrections have been useful, such as our masking pH O, that’s linked to case numbers at different kinds of thresholds, that pH O has stayed in place where we’ve seen a lot of other communities go in and out of public health orders very frequently, and it takes a lot of energy to make those changes. And we really feel like having a consistent mask order where the requirements change within the mask order that the phos stays in place, actually is helping to kind of train our community. Now lately, we haven’t had a lot of relief to be able to take our masks off, but we hope that that strategy will continue to pay off. So some examples that we’ve seen of the community self regulating, including organizations adopting your own vaccination policies for staff voluntarily moving to remote work, particularly again lately. Many of our BVP participants are requiring masking Tiller through Omicron. And the public is seeking testing at higher rates during higher transmission. We’ve also worked really hard to support solutions that meet the community’s self defined needs when they come to us that was how the DVP and the policy development support along with that were developed were created. We will continue to provide ongoing data and analysis and provide in public meetings for conversation and to make sure that folks know what’s happening. We are continuing to work with businesses for whom mitigation presents challenges, including folks that seem to have a hard time enforcing the mask order. And we have been working to continue to provide PPE to small businesses at Fire Support sites. Along with extra tests and vaccinations, just as that in that responsiveness space to work with community. So that concludes my presentation. I’m happy to take questions. Whoops, I

Unknown Speaker 1:00:20
was Councilman Hidalgo firing.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:24
Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I have a few questions. And it was primarily, you know, when you started discussing the K 12 public schools, and so I am, you know, full disclosure, I’m a third grade teacher in the district. So I, you know, some of this is a lot of this is of concern to me, especially since I started last week with a fourth of my class. Virtual because of COVID. So, um, you know, when you were looking at when you were explaining about the, what is it the, the change to cloth mat or from cloth masks to more higher, stronger PBE? So, what are what is the how is the Boulder County Public Health supporting businesses, school districts, where you’re just obtaining access to having accessibility to correct mass, stronger masks? You know, some of us in the schools are having a hard time, you know, we’re given one once a week, and sometimes we’re told that they’re not there. So, is this something that’s coming from the state? Is this something that’s coming from the county for us to attain? And as well, for kids, you know, we have kids that just kind of throw the cloth or the bandana over. So then what is what is the expectation then that we as a, as a larger organization, you know, whether it be school district, a business that holds a lot of people, or, or the city, as far as, you know, should we be looking at having stricter requirements of our, of our staff and customers and students? So that makes sense. Absolutely. So that one, yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:02:29
right. Thanks for the question. It’s a great question. It’s part of the reason why we’re not making it a requirement, we’re strongly recommending it, we’re trying to create a bridge so that folks can, you know, acquire masks, hopefully, quickly, we are also providing some support. Some we have provided masks, as I mentioned, to a lot of families that were victims of the fires, but we have also reached out to provide supplies where we could to other high priority communities, I would have to check with our school team to find out what we specifically done with the schools. I know that we’ve been having a conversation with the state about PPE and tests both. So I’m happy to get back to you specifically on how we can further support any needs that SV VSD has to supply staff and students with high quality masks.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:28
Okay, thank you. And then the other one, then it goes on to, you know, we have masking exemptions, that don’t necessarily require a doctor’s note, just, you know, the word of the parent or even other staff who say, you know, I can’t wear a mask. And it’s so you know, we have that piece, but then, you know, so we’re indoors. And then in the event of sports, that’s another one where we’re having, we’re finding issues where people are coming in non mass, and they’re coming in from other communities. So when I look at our numbers, and then you see these sporting events that are happening indoors, you have people from all different communities coming in, and it’s exposure, and it’s infection in our community. So that for me, that’s, that’s where my, my large concern lies and, you know, how, how do we as a community mitigate that or, you know, push back, because, you know, we’ve had teachers who are and even, you know, security guards who are like, hey, put on your mask, and, you know, you got folks from Lamar or wherever, and they’re like, Nah, I’m gonna do what I want. And so it puts people who that’s not necessarily their job description, in a very uncomfortable place. So where, you know, as a county, what are we doing to help support or back folks who are in those positions in their businesses, workplaces?

Unknown Speaker 1:04:54
Right. So this I mean, in relation to folks on school grounds at sporting events, etc, yes, we’ve been having this conversation with the schools for months, doing what we can. But a lot of it is outside of our control as the public health agency or there does not seem to be sufficient agreement on what the what we can do together in partnership with the schools. So I agree with you, it is an area of concern. And I think what you’re really talking about more broadly is how do folks who want to protect the community and want folks to be wearing a mask approach folks who don’t want to wear a mask? And I, you know, we see that in restaurants, we see it in businesses. And we do have some training in relation to our business outreach and our vaccine verification program, about how you can talk with people how to kind of deescalate situations, we have provided that kind of training. But we also, you know, we don’t we understand that difficulty and have a lot of compassion for the difficulty of, you know, trying to confront someone who may be a little bit hostile to what you’re asking them to do. And so we don’t necessarily as a public health agency, we are not expecting people to, to push or force that what we’re really asking is for people to get educated about what the risk is to be considerate about their fellow citizens to encourage but not force, we we’re certainly not going to be punitive. If someone doesn’t confront someone who’s not wearing a mask. It’s it’s just not, it’s not fair, it’s not realistic. What we really need to do is we need to get through the next three weeks of this through the peak of this surge, and get out to the other side.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:57
Okay. Yeah. So so never really comes to a point that that your your organization would intercede in any place of business, or institution. We have

Unknown Speaker 1:07:09
not come to that place. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:12
Okay. Would it ever come

Unknown Speaker 1:07:14
to that? You would have to ask Director Rodriguez,

Unknown Speaker 1:07:17
I will ask her. Okay. Thank you that that’s all I have. I’ll email you with more.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:24
Counselor, Martin. I mean, I’m sorry, waters. We look so

Tim Waters 1:07:28
much alike. It’s hard to tell the difference. So she has that beautiful hair.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:33
I got most of it cut off.

Tim Waters 1:07:36
These are actually real close to the questions that Councilmember had dog suffering was asking. But just just slightly different. You made reference in what you presented in one of the slides. That right now, on an average basis, we have 37 hospitalizations per 100,000 residents in Boulder County. But one and a half, the average is one and a half. Right now, among the 37. Five or our Boulder County residents. I’m going to conclude that 32 of the 37 are non Boulder County residents. Is that fair?

Unknown Speaker 1:08:20
Um, so those are those are regional numbers. Right. So the 37 is within our regional hospital systems. So that includes a number of counties,

Unknown Speaker 1:08:29
and counties.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:32
I’m sorry, I don’t have the list on the right now. I’d be happy to send you the list of counties that are in our region.

Tim Waters 1:08:38
Well, I’m just curious what what that slide presents or provokes for me as a question. Is there a pattern? If five of those are Bullitt county residents? Is there a pattern among the other 32? And the follow on question would be for me, not to you. But to our county commissioners, whether or not our county commissioners are reaching out to commissioners in those counties where residents are seeking medical care in in Boulder County, and they would get they get high quality care in Boulder County. I’m not questioning that. I am wondering about the levels at which the outreach is occurring to take pressure off, given the rest of the data that you provided pressure off health care providers in Boulder County that could be provided someplace else, if everybody was following the same guidance. So that was that was a question. Question related to the data you presented on schools and council member Daga fairing was curious about masking. I’m more curious about testing. What what assumptions can we make about teacher access or administrator access in school district employee access in the savory Valley School District Boulder Valley in the private schools in Boulder County in terms of access to test testing kits, and the cost to those gets in, I just make a narrative comment. And I’m going to listen seems to me if given given the interest in the push in the data we’ve collected on kids returning to school and how important we know that is that we ought to value our teachers, at least, I think in the boulder in the University of Colorado basketball program, the basketball players have access to as many tests as they need, and they should. I just hope we’re valuing our students and our teachers, at least at the same level, we are college basketball players, and the coaching staff that they also would have access to as many tests as they need when they need them at no cost to make certain teachers can monitor themselves, their family and in kids in their classrooms. So can you help me with? What do you know about their access in the cost, if there are costs for teachers to get access to testing?

Unknown Speaker 1:10:55
Okay, so I’m gonna take your first question first. The point of that analysis, and what I can assure you of because I have seen the numbers of average hospital admissions for other counties, Boulder is particularly low. So we are contributing a disproportionately low number of patients to the hospital system burden. Would we like other counties to find ways to do more, absolutely, masking would be a great start. But that’s not really in our purview. We would love to see folks voluntarily masking, even if their counties aren’t requiring it. I will say that the stress that we’re seeing in our region’s hospital system is the same all over the country right now. So it’s not so so the solution, it wouldn’t be feasible to think that we could displace patients, because the number of patients or the number of patients, what we really need to do is lower the overall number of patients in Colorado, and that’s what will really relieve our hospital systems. And we feel like Boulder County is doing a really good job in doing almost everything we can to keep those numbers low and to keep our contribution the hospital system low 30. Yes, of course, there are always places where we can make improvements, and we continue to work on those places.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:30
But

Unknown Speaker 1:12:33
we also recognize that as a public health agency, we don’t have a lot of control over some things. In relation to your second question about providing financial and effective access to tests for teachers and staff. In an ideal world, yes, we would absolutely be able to do that. There’s a national test kit shortage right now. We are not expecting that to be relieved before the surge moves through Colorado, it’s hard to find tests right now. There’s a for instance, there’s a state program where you can order a test, and it has a pretty significant backlog right now. And I’m not sure that anybody ordering a test through that system is going to receive one before the surge moves through Colorado

Tim Waters 1:13:25
were part of the backlog in this house. So yeah.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:29
But I think the other piece of the question is really about would that be effective. And that was kind of that first part of the presentation that I really tried to spend a little bit of time one was really showing how this virus is infectious so quickly, that by the time you get a test, and if it’s a PCR test, it’s a three day return of your result. And that’s after your symptoms started. By the time you get through all of that that horse has left the barn, that you’re not going to really be able to control the majority of the transmission, you’ve already done the damage in terms of spreading the disease. If it’s a at home test, if you’re able to get your hands on it now, on that home test, we do also see that it tends that at home test tends to be less sensitive than the PCR test. And so it needs to be repeated. And again, you usually wouldn’t do it until symptoms that in that, if you want to do it asymptomatically There’s just not enough tests to be able to do that right now. That’s why we’re really trying to be very explicit about saying we need everybody to be wearing high quality masks right now. That is our most effective mitigation strategy. And, you know, I love the idea of, of, of being able to test whenever it’s convenient. It’s just not an operationally feasible solution at the moment, we are still trying to do testing in schools, we are working with the state to do sampling testing, and to have tests available. But in terms of having mass availability to test, it’s it’s just it’s not possible right now.

Tim Waters 1:15:24
Yeah. I just wish we, we could do that for teachers like the NFL does it for football players in the NBA and college athletics. Right, they can do it. I wish we could do it for our teachers as well.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:37
As do I. Um,

Unknown Speaker 1:15:41
Harold, would you like to weigh in on this?

Unknown Speaker 1:15:44
Well, I have a couple of points on this. I wanted to make you to write to you all, and then a question. So if there’s more questions, then I can defer.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:54
I just have an ask it’s not really a question. So you can go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:00
So the one thing I did want to tell Council on this one is you heard throughout I’m gonna ask Lexi to stay on, related to my next question, probably. But um, when you talked about the impact of businesses in different industries, what I would tell you is we’re in many ways, not any different. And we’re starting to see more of our folks out because they’re also testing positive. And so what that really does is add to the operational strain that you know, every business is in right now. Because you’re also having struggles hiring folks. We’ve obviously talked about the great resignation and those issues. And so it’s just another burden it’s coming on. The reason why I wanted to bring that up to you all is we are watching our numbers on a regular basis, there is the possibility that certain operations can can be impacted so heavily that we may have to as we’re moving through the next few weeks make decisions that we’re not able to open up certain activities within our organization, because of the impact of people testing positive and where we would really see that as we’re already seen, shortages anyway. So if you look at recreation centers around the region, lifeguards are are a different challenge for us. They were a challenge for us before this. If we were to see more people test positive and we couldn’t safely operate a facility, we will have to make real time decisions in terms of saying we can’t have it open today, because we just don’t have the staff. And in in that something that we’re monitoring across all of our departments right now, because we’re just having to manage the operational impact of it. So that’s one that was the big thing I wanted to tell you is we’re not any different than anyone else. Right now. The question for you all, and I sent you on email with this question is really based on all of this information. I know that you all scheduled an in person open forum. And the question for you all is based on the information how do you all want to proceed in this and that, that is I wanted to make sure you had the data that you understood what the world is, and now it’s really your cause the city council to determine how do you want to proceed with the forum next week?

Unknown Speaker 1:18:19
So let’s open this up to the discussion. Councilwoman Martin.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:26
Oh, yeah, my opinion is that we should not hold any large public meeting right now as a city. So, you know, the Stewart auditorium thing is off the table. I did not think that our virtual open forum was effective. And therefore, I would like to try to postpone this until after the surge.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:50
Okay, um, I would like everybody to weigh in on this actually, who wants to go next. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:58
Thank you very much. I think there is an important piece of the open forum that needs to be held in a public manner. So I’d actually concur with councilmember Martin, that it should be postponed and not be held virtually. And wait until we have a safe enough level of transmission to hold a public forum in person. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:25
I’ll just call on Councillor Yarbro. Please. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:33
Mayor Peck. I agree with both both Councilwoman Martin and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez that we should postpone it. We should have an in person but postpone it until the surge is over.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:48
Thank you. Councilwoman Hidalgo. Sorry.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:53
I agree. I Yeah. I’m in consensus with the with the group on this one. I would like to have the opportunity to have a an in person, open forum. But now’s not not the time. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:20:09
Councillor waters?

Tim Waters 1:20:10
I concur with whatever things

Unknown Speaker 1:20:14
I do as well. Do you have your direction here?

Unknown Speaker 1:20:17
Do and we’ll work with some of the open dates that you all have and look at scheduling that. So saying you’ll be in touch with all of you. I just so you all know, it’s important for me to tell you let you hear the data, ask you the question. And then we can go from there. But Lexi, that’s why I asked you to stay on was just in case there are more questions regarding that for you. But that’s what I needed today. mayor and city council on this one. So I’ll turn it over, if you will have any more questions for Lexi.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:47
Okay, thank you. I do have an asked for you, Lexi. You had mentioned in the PowerPoint that Douglas County was not masking at all? Would it be possible to bring back the data, and so that we can compare it to mask and unmask it with your help with some of the emails I’m getting from the anti vaxxers to have that data, and also probably for the school district?

Unknown Speaker 1:21:13
I’ll see what I can do. That would be great. Thank

Unknown Speaker 1:21:15
you very much. This was a great presentation. Pardon me.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:18
What I can tell you is we do have some old data sets that Lexi shared with us that are that are also in there. Again, they’re the staffing is an issue for him. But we do have datasets that specifically when you look at Larimer County, from when they implemented their masking order, and what the numbers look like, literally the curve did this after the date. So I think I may have those in some old presentations. And I was send you that so you can see where they really looked at Larimer and Boulder and what happened? Pre masking and post masking because I think that does answer your question. Okay. And there were two.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:53
There were two parts to that data. Harold, as we recall, the first piece was the putting a public health border to mask does change masking behavior. Right. That was the first slide and the second slide was that the change in masking behavior directly aligned with a change in hospitalizations

Unknown Speaker 1:22:15
to laughter. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:17
That was a great presentation. Lexi. A little overwhelming. But good to know. All of us. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:26
Thanks, Mike. See,

Unknown Speaker 1:22:27
thank you, Mary, do

Unknown Speaker 1:22:29
you have here more add him to city manager report. And I know this took some time. But we were definitely at a at a point here where I think we needed to take his time. What I wanted to tell you, I’ll just tell you briefly, great news, we signed the contract for an AMI meter contract. And and so that’s been signed. And I’m not going to take a lot of time on this. But really, it’s important as we look to the future in terms of managing energy usage that are held at the household level and in the business community. But this really is the first step or not the first step, but a very big step in us moving towards that 2030 Bill, we’ve been moving in other steps in terms of bringing renewable energy in, what this will do is it will allow people to really manage their consumption at the household and also save money because it reduces our peak, which then as you know how Platte River charges weakens, we can reduce that. So that’s a really big step. We’re hoping to have the first 500 installed. I think we’re hoping for spring, but let’s say spring ish. So it may go a little bit beyond that. And I just wanted to let you all know, I know, they sent you a press release on that, talking about where we are that you ought to chance and it’s been sent out. So I wanted to say that to you all. Thank you, you know, we’re moving. Oh,

Unknown Speaker 1:23:50
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:54
I was very excited to hear that day as I was also very disappointed in that you literally in the initial deployment missed my house by two houses. So

Unknown Speaker 1:24:04
you know, I haven’t seen it yet. I’m wondering where I’m going to be in this one. But it is exciting to where we’re moving to as a utility. And what this lets us do and what a lot of people don’t realize is this will also let us evaluate our infrastructures and start in taking some more proactive approaches in terms of our capital improvement projects. Now, did I miss anything?

Unknown Speaker 1:24:31
No, at all those and I would say to Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. You know, we’re starting with that 500. But there’s many folks that are probably close. And I think as we get those initial deployments in we’ll be more than happy to get to your house as soon as we can. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:51
I think that’s it for us important is also if we’re asking the community to do this. It’s important for us to They there too. I think that’s the big piece on this idea. The other thing I didn’t point, you and the other thing I wanted to say is we are bringing the opt out program that you all directed as well, for good, which is why when you connect the two, it’s important for us also to have these if, if the if we’re talking about it, so I just wanted to give you that information. That’s all I have for right now.

Unknown Speaker 1:25:22
Well, and I do want to say on that subject, that NPR pa of the four cities, Loveland is the only one that so far isn’t working on Ami. And they did. It did ask me, the utilities manager sat down with me and asked, how did we sell this to our city? So they’re very interested, they’re ready, they’re, they’re ready to go. They just need to have basically the motivation to do it. So that’s pretty exciting. It looks like you’re gonna do Ami.

Unknown Speaker 1:25:56
And I’ve said before, we’d be happy to talk to Loveland and other communities that you know, when we do our purchasing, or purchasing is done in a way where others can participate in it. If the company allows it, and if we, I mean, there’s some logistics, but you can definitely do that as municipalities. And so, I think I would pass on, we’d be more than happy to talk to him if they have any questions.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:16
I’ll bring that up at the February 11. Retreat. Thank you. Councillor Martin, do you have your hand up? No. Okay. Thank you, everybody. And moving through the agenda. The next thing that we have are two presentations. The first one is a proclamation designating the week of January 16 through the 22nd 2022 as honoring Dart Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week in Longmont, Colorado. I would like Glenda Robinson, who is the chair of the Martin Luther King Planning Committee, and Judy Huston to please turn on their cameras if they’re here. And Dallas, would you mind putting up the the proclamation as I read it. A proper proclamation designating January 16 through the 22nd 2022 as honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week in Longmont, Colorado, whereas January 17 2022 marks the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday on which we honor Dr. King’s unwavering fight for the absence of oppression and the presence of opportunity for all who sacrifice to sow the seeds for a movement of peace, equality and justice. And whereas across the nation in the state of Colorado and in the city of Longmont honoring Dr. King has become a week of service within our communities. events held throughout Boulder County are made possible by the commitment and dedication of many volunteers from diverse backgrounds. The combined efforts of these volunteers are a fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream and highlight the importance of the Civil Rights Movement and the need to take action. And whereas Miss Judy Huston has made a commitment to outstanding community service in sharing the importance of the civil rights movement, Dr. King’s legacy and keeping the dream alive for future generations throughout the Boulder County. Now therefore, I Joan Peck Mayor by virtue of the authority voted in me and the city council in the city of Longmont do hereby proclaim the week of January 16 through the 22nd 2022 as honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week in Longmont, and invite all to attend the exciting program honoring Dr. King. I would like to invite Glenda Robinson if you would have a few words you would like to say?

Unknown Speaker 1:28:50
Yes, thank you. Actually, I think Judy, who has been holding on she’s been ill this week but duty wants to say a word or two first and then I you don’t mind I will conclude.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:04
No, that’s great. Judy Houston, you so

Unknown Speaker 1:29:07
much. Yeah. So this is such an honor. And I thank the mayor, the Longmont City Council, the Longmont multicultural Action Committee, and the city of Longmont for your continued support of the annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. life and legacy celebrations. As you all know, no effort is done alone. And it is because of the amazing continued work of people like Glenda Robinson, and that James, Adrianna Perea Madeline would make Widley and so many others who are steadfast in their vision for a better world with actual liberty and justice for all that keeps me in this work. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:49
Thank you, Judy. Yes.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:51
And I would just like to thank you, Honorable Mayor, I have not had that opportunity to extend that courtesy. But, and the city council members, thank all of you for your continued support over the years. Thank you for all that you’re doing to uphold what Dr. King often referred to as the beloved community. It does take us all. And so I just want to say thank you for that. This year Elmax, which is Longmont multicultural Action Committee, the NAACP Boulder County branch along with the City of Boulder Human Relations Commission, and the office of arts and culture. Also Second Baptist Church of Boulder, Colorado of which I am on the ministerial staff will bring a collective collaborative effort here to both Boulder and Longmont. Our thing is the dream. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, we sure don’t want it to become a nightmare. Our pillars are celebration, tribute, solidarity, and service, all of which will be covered in our presentations. Sunday, we will open our series of events. Now it’s going to be a series of six week series of events. But it opens on Sunday at the very Art Center at 130 in the afternoon, honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, but featuring the opening of the withers, museum and gallery exhibit of Memphis, Tennessee. You all know some of you all know that I’m from Memphis. And I was in that last March with Dr. King on March 28 1968. And so the withers Museum and exhibit has captured that as one of their images and they will bring that here to the dairy Art Center. On Monday, we will be at Silver Creek High School, we are honoring and listened to that incredible presentation, we are honoring all of the requirements of social distancing all the CDC guidelines. And so we will be in person and we will also it will also be live streamed. And so that’s that’s a good thing. Now, this exhibit will go for six weeks at the dairy Art Center. We will have students from Boulder Valley Schools, st brain valley schools who will be able to go through the tours. And what this exhibit is is a picture exhibit of the civil rights movement. Dr. Ernest withers was the photographer for the civil rights movement. And his daughter Roslin is now the executive director. And she will be here at Silver Creek and at the dairy Art Center to talk about this incredible exhibit. So I invite you all the all events are free and open to the public. I invite every one of you

Unknown Speaker 1:33:30
to come.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:33
We actually go for six weeks, and we’ll come culminate on February 27 at the Mackie auditorium, with the fist Jubilee Singers. So,

Unknown Speaker 1:33:51
thank you. Thank you Glenda and Judy, and for keeping the dream alive. So um, we have another proclamation and this is brought to us by Susan Martino and Patty Dooley strop, ster Pelley, Boulder County Public Health Specialists. It’s a proclamation designating January 2022 as national radon action month in Longmont, Dallas, would you mind putting the proclamation up? The proclamation designating January 1 through the 31st 2022 as official national radon action month in Longmont, Colorado, whereas Radon is an invisible, odorless radioactive gas that threatens the health of our citizens and their families. And Radon is a leading environmental cause of cancer mortality in the US and the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality overall. And whereas the Colorado Rocky Mountain region has been ranked zone one and area with the highest radon potential possible by the US invasion Mental Protection Agency and Colorado residential. In Colorado residential radon data has shown 50% of Colorado homes tested as being at or above the US Environmental Protection Agency, radon action level of 4.0 P CI slash L. And whereas any home in Longmont may have elevated levels of radon and supporting recommended radon practices and policies to reduce radon exposure is important to protect our community’s health and welfare. And whereas testing for radon is simple and inexpensive, and identified radon problems can be fixed. And whereas Boulder County Public Health, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association are supporting efforts to encourage Americans to test their homes for radon have elevated levels of radon reduced and have new homes built with radon resistant features. Now therefore, I Joan Peck Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me and the City Council of the City of Longmont, do hereby proclaim the month of January 1 through the 31st 2022 as official national radon action month in Longmont and encourage all residents to complete a simple and inexpensive test for radon. D’Souza Susan Martino are Patty strock. Mr. Pelley want to add a few words to this.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:38
Yes, thank you. Good evening. I’m Susan Martino. I’m with the Boulder County Public Health air program. And we want to thank you very much for proclaiming January is national radon action month in Longmont. I just like to say in the United States, lung cancer kills more people every year than breast, prostate and colon cancers combined. And radon exposure causes as many as 500 lung cancer deaths every year in Colorado, and about 50% of the homes in Boulder County have elevated radon levels. So we’d like to take this time to encourage people to really to test their homes. It’s simple, inexpensive thing that they can do themselves, and to then if their radon levels are elevated in their homes, to take steps to fix that.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:32
Does anyone have any questions?

Unknown Speaker 1:37:37
Seeing none, I would like to thank you for caring so much about this. And if I’m correct, our library has Radon Testing kits that can be checked out. So people can test the radon in their homes. And I encourage everybody to do

Unknown Speaker 1:37:52
that. Yes. And and people can certainly contact us at public health if they have questions about what they can do to fix their homes and funding that’s available. And you know what kind of contractors they can use to fix their homes, things like that. That’s great information. Thanks,

Unknown Speaker 1:38:13
Susan.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:15
Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:18
So moving on, it is now time for first call public invited to be heard. It’s time to call in now if you want to be part of the public invited to be heard. The information is being displayed on the screen, please mute the livestream and dial in now. We’ll take a five minute break to give everyone time to get dialed in. But Dallas, we might have quite a few people who want to dial in. So if we go over that five minute time threshold, let’s just allow everyone to get in this time.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:49
Absolutely. And I was advised to add that for those calling in about the RIVERTOWNE annexation item that there will be another opportunity later on to call in for that specific item.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:00
Oh, that’s a great, that’s a great mention. Thanks Dallas.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:03
No problem. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:06
Okay, we’re gonna take a five minute break. Mayor Peck, we’re

Unknown Speaker 1:44:00
about 15 seconds out from the five minute mark. And I’m seeing we do have several callers in the queue.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:09
Great. Well, let’s get them all in. Sounds good.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:18
Okay, we’re at the five minute mark, I am going to stop the SlideShare and if you are ready, and once I see counsels back on I will

Unknown Speaker 1:44:34
get our first caller don’t

Unknown Speaker 1:44:36
has Are there more people waiting to come in?

Unknown Speaker 1:44:39
Do you know they’re there or not? Nope. Everyone has been accepted right now.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:44
Perfect. Thank you. Okay, let’s let’s hear from them.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:47
Break. I will lock the meeting. And for our first caller. Caller you are last the last three numbers of your phone are 755 Color 755 Would you please unmute Color 755 to unmute it should be star six okay, we’re going to go on to the next color we’ll come back to 755 color 452 Color with the last three digits for five to have their phone number would you please

Unknown Speaker 1:45:35
unmute?

Unknown Speaker 1:45:48
Call her with the last three digits 452 I’m asking you to unmute right now that is star six on your device

Unknown Speaker 1:46:05
we do have to

Unknown Speaker 1:46:06
color 452 We can hear you right now. Are you there?

Unknown Speaker 1:46:10
Yes. Perfect. Jerry Malloy 16 Yeah, go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:18
Okay, sharing the WHY 1632 Sherman way speaking to river town. You’ve all said this property should be annexed into Longmont. So 10 a one is a yes vote was an amendment which I’ll address shortly. And a to include approval of the concept plan, which needs amending tonight to address Council and the community’s concerns. Several of you expressed legitimate concerns at first reading, and tonight is your only opportunity to direct staff and the applicant to make the necessary concept changes. Regarding annexation 10 a one there is no access road on the river town property. Therefore, if the property owner to the south refuses to allow a road Another possibility would be constructing one on open space property. A man I can a requiring the annexation agreement hammer provision prohibiting building an access road on open space land on the west side of this property by paragraphs late. Council continually discusses long runs need for housing, where people could invest and build equity. You all agree that for purchase housing helps address the missing middle type housing. For this proposal, four of the five of you present on December 17 agreed that rental was not the best housing space for this area. Three out of five expressed dislike it the high percentage of housing in question whether this complies with the intention of mixed use employment zoning and a two needs to be amended to address these two significant issues. As you know, this quarter has had 11 plus 11 flood against the pension well flood again, climate chaos is here. The wisdom of putting people in property in harm’s way must be questioned. I have two other issues that warrant scrutiny for revision on this concept plan. First, the plan does not meet the code for compatibility with adjacent nature areas. Over half of river towns border is our Greenway and Rogers Grove fairgrounds Lake. Revision should required code be met to be designed to complement the visual context of the natural area it needs. Therefore, it needs to include a multi layered native buffer to protect sensitive native neighboring areas for light, storm runoff noise and other human disturbance. Secondly, the northwest corner by river towns is one of the only nesting sites of banks while it’s in Boulder County, a Boulder County species of special concern in declining species nationwide, banks wells migrate 1000s of miles to nest in the bank by the bridge. Proposed flood recovery calls for a split channel flow where their nests are destroying their habitat. The developer could demonstrate common faith common good faith by respecting our community’s values for habitat and wildlife protection by offering a conservation easement for the split flow channel and their property. So the blood bank flowers nesting area might be saved. Let’s go. Let’s hope they do just that. In the meantime, thank you for wrestling with these issues and enacting good policies which protect our community’s values. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:49:42
and going on to our next color color with the last three digits 708 Color 708 Would you unmute yourself please?

Unknown Speaker 1:50:08
color with the last three digits of your phone number 708. Would you please hit star six on your keypad? Okay, I see here.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:16
Yeah. Right there. Can you hear us?

Unknown Speaker 1:50:20
Oh, it appears you have just muted yourself again. Let me try that one more. Color 708. There you are.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:34
You’re on. Yes,

Unknown Speaker 1:50:36
we can hear ya.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:38
Hello, this is Shelly Shelly Bassman We live at 3417 Lakeview circle and one month.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:51
Are you listening?

Unknown Speaker 1:50:52
Can you? Yes, we are. Oh, thank you. Okay, thank you for taking our call. And thank you for the opportunity to speak out about the river. We’re concerned about the river town. Application for annexation. That property is adjacent to Rogers Grove. And next to the county nature ponds are insane brain river goes right by actually we support sharing Baloise points 100% 150 200%. I understand that the developer wanted to put 300 dwelling units on 20 acres. That’s one dwelling unit for every one. So every seven and 100 of an acre. And if it was two people and each of those 300 units, that’s 600 people. And if each person in those has a car that’s 600 cars. This is totally incompatible. The highest and best use of this property would be as a an extension of Rogers Grove, the nature ponds and the st. Frame River and the nesting banks where the Bank Swallows Nest. It absolutely. That proposal is could have been submitted to somebody somewhere in the 1970s It’ll have a clubhouse it’ll have we never did to say we’re just going to park all the cars. I did listen to that presentation. And I was appalled. That’s that’s not appropriate for 2022 with a climate crisis and and I really do object for do the taxpayers subsidizing someone who’s obviously a pretty wealthy I think the city such should just a more appropriate thought would be down by the Longmont Hilton, they built right next to the sanitation department. And, and leave Rogers growth expand on Rogers grove. I’m also suggesting that a moratorium be placed on annexations. And to give the city council time to upgrade our zoning and building code.

Unknown Speaker 1:53:38
Applicants and

Unknown Speaker 1:53:41
presentation that I watched on there wasn’t a solar panel and shot site He never mentioned.

Unknown Speaker 1:53:49
They proposed putting townhouses right across from not even a road

Unknown Speaker 1:53:56
from the pond. But anyway, both I asked you to very respectfully to vote no

Unknown Speaker 1:54:07
dismissive Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:10
Thank you, Shelly. Yet three minutes, and we appreciate your comments.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:17
So thank you very much. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:54:24
and next caller with the last three digits 876 And this is a reminder to everyone to mute your live stream and to to be checking in through the phone. That’s how you’ll hear me if you’re on the phone right now to make sure that you’re getting the prompt. Unmute. Okay, caller we see you there. Hello.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:46
This is me no mere I’m at 524 flicker Avenue. Is it okay to briefly speak though?

Unknown Speaker 1:54:52
Yes. I mean, go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:55
Yeah. Thank you. All right. Appreciate it. I think this one’s going to be fairly Quick, and it’s just a real ask for all of these projects that hopefully, we will continue to see being proposed and come down into city council. We are very much in the need of housing in this space, and all of Longmont. And I believe that there is a way to do it in such a way that we honor the beautiful piece of land that we’ve been given. But at the same time, don’t use that as an excuse. And a consistent excuse as to why we can’t build there, or anywhere else in this town, but tear for numerous years now. And some of the communications every time I continue to hear another reason as to why we can’t do a particular thing and it comes down to the environment, or comes down to noise or comes down to these other aspects. I wonder what is really going on that some of us feel that others of us don’t deserve to live here. So as you go through this, and you decide on this project or subsequent ones, if you can still keep in mind that there are still some of us human beings that also deserve an opportunity to be here and would like to work in harmony with one another to figure out how we get to yes. Or how do we get to something that’s a balance as opposed to just being exclusively? No, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:34
Thank you for me.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:39
Okay, and color with the last three digits 706706 Would you unmute right now?

Unknown Speaker 1:56:59
Hello, hello.

Unknown Speaker 1:57:02
Am I Am I live?

Unknown Speaker 1:57:04
Yes, we can hear you. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:57:07
very good. Good evening, Honorable Mayor, pack and congratulations on your recent reelection I guess to the council. My name is Brian O’Brien and deliver three to one Gay Street. And I just I’m not sure of the format of your meetings. I hear people commenting about the new development. And I actually called them just for a question. I’ve been working well with the city manager on some traffic and parking issues. And I wanted to ask a question about the seems like there’s a little controversy come up on Third Avenue. It’s a couple blocks from where we’re at, down by the Western tavern, and see if this is an appropriate time to discuss the new parking regulations there.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:12
So Brian, thank you for that question. But we do not interact on public invited to be heard. However, if you will leave your contact information with our city clerk or actually you can email or call me through the city of Longmont website. I would be glad to discuss this with you.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:33
Just Yes, ma’am. I sure appreciate that. And I want to say that having participated in many municipal meetings, in my 60 years, being involved in civics and the towns that we’ve we’ve lived in. I really appreciate the way that the town is handling this virtual engagement, I did get to save the beginning of the meeting with the Boulder County folks giving the information about the the COVID pandemic that we’re all enduring for so long now. And I want to say that the way that you accept citizens calls by taking the five minute break and making it easy instructions on how to dial in is a vast departure from some of the other municipalities have dealt with. Do appreciate it. We’ll give you a call. Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:37
Thank you for those comments.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:42
Okay, and now we’re going to go to Color six to five color with the last three digits six to five. Could you unmute

Unknown Speaker 1:59:51
yourself please we can see you there. Can you hear us? Yes.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:01
Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. So good evening their pack and council members. So by referring Martin Yarborough and waters, first of all, I want to give you a Happy New Year greeting. I know that there’s been a lot to deal with. And I really appreciate all of the time that you have taken as we go through these difficult times. The river town development is on today’s agenda. Oh, I’m sorry, I need to say my name on your junior black and I listened to 609 Elders circle in Longmont. So the river town development is on today’s agenda for a second reading and I’m speaking to urge you to look more closely at this proposal before voting on it. I am concerned that a higher proportion of residential use does not seem to comply with the Longmont development codes. mixed use employment zoning designation for this property. And if the high density of residences does not seem compatible with the natural areas that it will border, please do take a closer look at the ratio of residences to places of employment and after design along the waterway. Minimally, a multi layered buffer of native landscaping between the waterway and the proposed buildings would protect both the human and wildlife inhabitants of this corridor. Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this proposal.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:31
Thank you Virginia. Okay, and

Unknown Speaker 2:01:37
we’re going to go on the color with the last three digits 096 colors 096 If you were there, would you please unmute yourself?

Unknown Speaker 2:01:46
Okay, hello. Hello. Hello.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:52
Oh, we got this. All right. Good evening, Council and staff. My name is Richard Coby and I live at 419 Collier Street. Item nine be on your agenda tonight is for rezoning a parcel on highway 119 across from the sandstone ranch. This is a homestead of married Dickens Allen she was the proprietor of Burlington hotel in the stagecoach stop, and the wife of the very first settler of the same Green Valley. rezoning without any contingencies will permit the current owners to tear down the original home barn and outbuildings and replace them with a convenience store taco outlet and guest station, recognizing the historic significance of the parcel Planning and Zoning recommended approving the zoning change, but only if the owners made concessions agreed to by their historic preservation commission. The wording from pnz minutes is recommending conditional approval of the rezoning with a second condition that the applicant shall develop a plan for preservation of the site’s history, with implementation in accordance with historic preservation commission and city staff. Well, as far as I know, the only suggestion from the property owners to address the historic aspects of the property has been to put up a plaque. The September 9 minutes for the historic preservation commission show that they voted unanimously against the rezoning with this concession as it was felt to be grossly inadequate. Hold on a second I’m having. Here we go. There is a way around this Loggerhead. At one point the parcel was offered to the city by the property owners when many on city staff were unaware of the historic significance of the property, there may be still the possibility for the city to acquire this property which meets criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. As you know, I have written you as a concerned citizen about all of this information, which is all on public record. I’ve also talked to David Bell, the director of parks and open space, who is interested in looking into the possibility of acquiring the property if it’s economically feasible to do so. But this has yet to be determined. It would be a shame to lose such an important piece of long money history at the gateway to our city if this could be presented. So I would ask that you only approve the rezoning with the conditions recommended by planning and zoning or table the rezoning proposal until those conditions are met. I also respectfully suggest seeing if acquisition of the parcel by the city is feasible. Please remember state and federal grants that are available for help with rehabilitation costs of homestead buildings. At a minimum don’t abet the destruction of this historic homestead by changing the zoning without the contingencies recommended by planning and zoning. Thank you very much. Have a good night.

Unknown Speaker 2:04:48
Thank you, Rick. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:04:54
and we’re going to go on to the next color color with the last three digits 755 Color 755 Are you there? I’m there. Perfect. We can hear you.

Unknown Speaker 2:05:08
Hello Roland Herman, Cain 21 Red Mountain Drive here like so the first step in the queue go to the live stream and missed it. I want to thank all the members of council and the mayor for their service. I know it’s a difficult job, and it’s kind of a divided community nowadays, and your pay is ridiculously low. I want to weigh in on a couple issues. But for the record, I am pro business development when he jobs or isn’t growing local businesses a priority for me. Pro attainable housing, we need some entry level housing for workers. It’s not rental housing. So we need more than just rental assistance. And I’m pro environment, I realize the population Longmont will continue to grow. But we need to do so responsibly and slowly. And we have a great character in our community. I’ve been here about eight years and I really enjoy the community and I wanted to share that Longmont is seen as a desirable place to live 25 years from now. I’m not interested in becoming a mini boulder. First, I guess I’m unclear why the city council meetings went to four times a month to two, I think Longmont is booming and times are challenging. I think we need more communication and public comment and not less. Regarding Riverton, I’m all for seeking the highest and best use for the development, balancing the image of the town, the need for jobs and the environment. I’m truly concerned about the number of apartments that Longmont has built in the past decade. I’m from Arlington, Texas originally long time ago, and witnessed an apartment boom in the 70s and 80s. It really changed the character of the town. And now those apartments are getting you know, 4050 years old, some of our neighbors have really deteriorated and the town in general has lost some of this prestige. I don’t want that to happen to us here on Longmont if we must build a more condensed housing or be more in favor of townhouses or possibly nicer condominiums, not apartments and find a way to get people into those houses. But also like to funny new high density development or housing subdivisions require a certain percentage to be of attainable housing. So if this development reverts and happens, we need to make sure there’s some sustainable housing in there as well. We’d like to see the space cleaned up, and we’d be okay for some kind of non rental. Not so high dense housing there. As long as there’s an ample buffer on the st. Lorraine. I think for me, townhouses are the best option. And last but not least, I want to weigh in on the west side tavern issue. I think that we could clear that issue up by putting a three way stop sign at the intersection of third and Sherman north. I was just there for dinner on Saturday, and cars are flying down the road and I’m parked on Sherman. So who would like to run the gauntlet to get through? I think we need to be aware that COVID is really impacted this business and

Unknown Speaker 2:08:19
Roland I, I hate to interrupt you. But there’s a three minute limit on public invited to be heard. But if you’re interested in having that conversation, you can email either one of any of us through the city website and our phone numbers there as well. If you would like to have one on one conversations, thank you for your skills.

Unknown Speaker 2:08:46
Yes, we have a couple more. Okay. All right, so color with the last three digits 765 Color 765

Unknown Speaker 2:08:55
If you were there, I can see. Hi. Hi.

Unknown Speaker 2:09:02
This is Anne Marie Jensen. I’m the director of the east county housing opportunity coalition which works in the communities east of Boulder to help create more affordable and attainable housing. And I’m here today to ask to thank you for their report further on down the agenda that includes recommendations for the use of American rescue plan Act dollars for affordable housing in a significant way. And we are really grateful for that. July of last year, we sent you a report along with together Colorado and interfaith organization and made some recommendations to you and it seems like you have adopted some of them and we really appreciate that. But there are a few things that are not included in this and they don’t have to do with projects so much as they have to do with system improvements. that we recommended that you could do that won’t take very much money. But that could really help make the creation of more affordable housing easier in the community of Longmont and create more housing stability for folks. And the first I know is on your agenda for this year. But we would like to suggest it needs to be done in an expedited manner with an outside consultant. And that is to look for efficiencies in the entitlement process, and ways of reducing the time it takes to build housing. When margins are low as they are on affordable housing, and even smaller, attainable housing and cash is tied up for many years. It discourages developers from building that housing in favor of other types where the margins are higher. So if you hire an outside consultant who’s familiar with building and planning processes elsewhere, and can make suggestions for improvement, I think this is the best approach to cleaning up the entitlement process and making it more user friendly. Another recommendation we made to you was to use an Ombudsman’s Office for renters as we’re in the middle of a pandemic. And so and we’ve seen the, you know, eviction moratorium

Unknown Speaker 2:11:22
go away.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:24
So many renters face eviction or lease termination, because they don’t understand the law. They don’t have enough money for an attorney and they don’t know what their options are, at least as a temporary measure during the pandemic. If you could help renters during this health hazard, you would prevent people from doubling and tripling up and spending time in ways that increase the spread of the virus. So we would ask you to do that for renters in Longmont. And then lastly prosper Longmont with the EDP did a study that revealed that communities who had an ombuds person who worked with developers, as the liaison between them and the city have significant reductions in delays and getting housing developed and ready can be an effective tool. I’m good. That’s my last one. Yes, so I don’t know what the extent of our recommendations and we’ve I’ve also email these to you guys, so you have them in your email box.

Unknown Speaker 2:12:30
Thank you very much. Dallas,

Unknown Speaker 2:12:36
we got one more. So we’re moving on to our last caller. Caller with the last three digits nine nine? Caller 999? Would you please unmute yourself? Hello, 99? Can you hear us?

Unknown Speaker 2:12:57
Yes, I can. Thank you very much. Excellent. I just want to say thank you to council for number one, hearing some of the concerns from Sherman Street. And third at the coffee for council meetings. My name is John locker and at 220 Sherman. And I just wanted to share my wife was driving home from work on southlawn Francis towards third. She had been making a right and then making another lesson going around the block for the longest time. And she was able to make a left on from Francis on the third and then get on to Sharman. And she was twice this week. She was very happy about that. So I commend you on your efforts on our behalf. And I was able to look, Tyler suggested the long line leader which showed the sightline criteria, which was used in putting some of the new changes into effect. And I was very grateful to be able to understand how that the reasoning for the extent of changes that were made. So thank you very much. And that’s all.

Unknown Speaker 2:14:05
Thank you. Thank you, John. Thanks for those comments.

Unknown Speaker 2:14:09
And that was our last caller. Great,

Unknown Speaker 2:14:12
those were good comments actually enjoyed that. So um, now we are going to our consent agenda. And Don, would you mind reading the items on the consent agenda into the record?

Unknown Speaker 2:14:26
Absolutely, Mayor Peck. Item nine A is ordinance 2022 dash O one a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to execute a lease extension of real property known as 1140 Boston Avenue with Longmont Winair company, public hearing and second reading scheduled for January 25 2022. Nine B is ordinance 2022. Zero to a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving this Latin commercial center rezoning from NP II non residential primary employment to PUD planned unit development, generally located located at the northeast corner of state highway one nine tene and Slaton drive public hearing and second reading scheduled for January 25 2022. Nine C is resolution 20 2201. A resolution of the lung Matt City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for parent education services. 90 is resolution 20 2202. A resolution of the Long Night City Council approving an intergovernmental agreement with the town of Lyons for electric standby distribution service by Longmont power and communications. Nine is resolution 20 2203 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives for firing range and Training Center use. Nine F is resolution 20 2204 a resolution of the lung mass City Council. Pardon me approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and the Colorado Department of Transportation for state funding for asphalt rehabilitation along US 287 from 11th Avenue to 15th Avenue. Resolute nine G is resolution 20 2205. A resolution of Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city in the state of Colorado for grant funding from the Colorado arts relief program through the Colorado creative industries. And nine H’s designate the city’s website as the official posting location for city council meeting notes notices for 2022 meetings. Thank you, Don.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:24
I can see that Councillor Martin would like to pull it out of counseling.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:31
Yes, I would like to pull nine be please.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:35
Okay. Are there any other items that councillors would like to pull? So Councillor Martin, would you like to move the consent agenda then?

Unknown Speaker 2:16:44
Yes, I move the consent agenda excluding Item nine be driving.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:49
Okay. So the consent agenda has been Moved by Councillor Martin is seconded by Councillor waters. All those Let’s vote all those in favor,

Unknown Speaker 2:16:58
raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:00
All those opposed? That carries unanimously. So let’s move on then to the ordinances on second reading and public hearings of the any of it is time now to call if anybody wants to speak on these items on second reading, now is the time to call in for that. We’re going to take another five minute break to give everyone time to get dialed in. Dallas, can you put the information on the screen? The dialing in there you go. So we’ll take another five minute break and we’ll Dallas as per the last call. Let’s make sure everybody gets in before we close the window for that

Unknown Speaker 2:17:42
so we’ll see you in five minutes.

Unknown Speaker 1:38
Mr. Peck, we’re approaching the five minute mark. I am seeing a couple callers in the

Unknown Speaker 1:45
chat. Okay, let’s,

Unknown Speaker 1:51
so everybody’s in. Is that what you’re saying? Does?

Unknown Speaker 1:53
Yes, everyone has been admitted. And we are at the five minute mark, if you would like me to start, actually for this one?

Unknown Speaker 2:04
I would. Yes. So let’s have our first caller.

Unknown Speaker 2:09
So, Mayor, if I can just interject for one moment. If we are going to start with item 10, a river town, we just need to read the items into the record first course Don, I’m happy to do that if you’d like me to but you

Unknown Speaker 2:21
can. Yes, it looks like we have not only that one, but we have B as well.

Unknown Speaker 2:25
Correct. Yeah. And then then when you open the hearing, we can take the speaker’s. Thank you, Grant welcome. Item 10. A one is resolution 20 2206, a resolution finding a parcel of land known as the RIVERTOWNE annexation, generally located north of Boston Avenue and west of Sunset Street at 21 South sunset Street, eligible for annexation. And number two is ordinance 2021 Dash 78. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the river town annexation and concept plan. generally located north of Boston Avenue and west of Sunset Street at 21 South sunset Street and zoning the property em up mixed use employment, public hearing and second wheel that is today. There you go.

Unknown Speaker 3:09
Thank you. So Dallas if we have anybody that would like to speak on these issues. We do have a presentation by Eva.

Unknown Speaker 3:24
Her Jeff ski.

Unknown Speaker 3:25
I think I got that right. So I would like that presentation first. So, Eva, are you ready to give your presentation?

Unknown Speaker 3:35
Yes, good evening Mayor pack and council members, Eva Petrovsky, principal planner, Planning and Development Services Dallas, could you please queue up all the staff presentation and I am joined by Glen van Nam Wiggin, our planning director. He’ll be taking some slides as well. So this is again the river town annexation before us tonight. Next slide please. Thank you. Again, just to give you some background, I’m sure you are all aware where it is. This is 21 South sunset Street. It’s about a 21 acre parcel on the west side of Sunset Street. It is immediately east of the Rogers Grove nature area and is immediately south of the St. Rain Creek and slightly abuts Boston avenue toward the south. There’s some parcels zoned primary employment just south of it. Um, it’s designated on our city’s comprehensive plan as mixed use employment. And so for those of you who aren’t familiar with the annexation process, we have you know, we have our zoning map right and our zoning designations and then we have the city’s overall comprehensive plan called Envision Longmont and in the zoning map, we only have properties zoned that Inside city limits, in our comprehensive plan, we do designate potential zonings of properties that could be annexed into the city, as well as obviously the city, the parcels that are in the city. In this particular instance, this is designated as mixed use employment. And the applicant is requesting mixed use employment, which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Next slide. Alright, and so just in general, again, just to remind everyone through this process, this is not a site specific development plan, meaning, you know, we wouldn’t have construction crews out there. This is not an imminent development. What this is, is a generalized concept plan of what in the future could be applied for as a land development application, if it were annexed into the city. And so as you can see here, they’re looking at some type of mixed use development, generally speaking, they’re looking at about 20,000 square feet of commercial on the east side of the property abutting sunset Street, and an access point into the site off of Sunset Street. They’re looking at about a half an acre of amenities, which again, this is all general, we don’t have specifics but amenities adjacent to the st. Green Creek, and the applicant is here. And I’m sure they can, you know, answer those questions you may have about what those amenities are. And the remainder would be residential development, as has been noted earlier. And that includes some townhomes, sort of less density right against the Rogers Grove nature area on the west side. And then 380 units approximately of apartments kind of toward the center of this. There are also proposed, again, conceptual access points off of Boston Avenue, you see the red arrows there, those parcels are budding Boston Avenue are currently in city limits, they are planted lots. And on those subdivision plats. There is an access easement at those two locations that’s planted through those properties that could potentially provide secondary access. And so when we talk about the land uses that are allowed in the mixed use employment zoning district, these are secondary uses the residential component. However, I know that there’s been some talk among you know, somebody that constituency that this is not an allowed use, but that is an erroneous statement. This isn’t allowed use as a secondary use in the mixed use mixed use employment zoning district. And so when we look at primary uses and secondary uses, and Glenn’s gonna jump on the next slide, but when we talk about those types of things, we don’t take it on a parcel by personal basis, we take it on a district zoning district basis. And so we’ve got some slides to share with you to show you the whole picture of the mixed use employment zone in this area, and how we classify primary and secondary uses next slide. And so with that, I’m going to turn it over to Glen van Nijmegen, our planning director, he’s going to talk to you about secondary uses in our code, and how city planning interprets secondary uses and zoning district and then I’ll finish up, Glenn.

Unknown Speaker 8:39
Thank you, Eva. And thank you, Mayor Peck and council members, I appreciate an opportunity to talk about this is we can see I think there’s questions with our residents, as well as with our Planning Commission recently. And that’s why I want to give a little bit of clarification of what the code says about secondary uses and how we apply it. On October 27. We had about a two hours study session with our planning commission. Going over the history of how we got to this point, we’ve had some ups and downs in Longmont as far as how you implement a mixed use district. But at the end of the day, we adopted envision Longmont which stated how you create connected nodes, active districts and reduce vehicle trips is by getting housing particularly close to commercial uses and employment areas. So the code followed up and was amended creating mixed use employment, mixed use corridor. Mix use regional retail. I think those are our main three mixed use districts. So this is what the code state says shown on the slide, section 15.04030 talks about three specific criteria for adopting secondary uses. I might add that the code has three tiers of allowed uses within any of the mixed use districts. Number one is just a straight out permitted use. So, in employment, certainly a light industrial use and office use would be just a straight across allowed use within that district. At the top of the tier is conditional uses, there are some specific uses where our code states that the Planning Commission needs to take a closer look at that use in that particular district. And then in the middle is secondary uses. So that has these three criteria that staff must look at in approving any kind of secondary use. And in this case that has to do with a rezoning. It’s ultimately Council’s look at it as well. So the first two criterias is number one that the secondary use is of a scale and design that’s compatible with the surrounding uses, and that we mitigate any potential adverse impacts. And the code has a number of sections of how we do that. Number two, the secondary use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the underlying zoning district. I talked a little bit about the goals of the mixed use districts. But the third criteria is the one I think people kind of focus on. And that is that a secondary use, as proposed will not substantially diminish the availability of land within the underlining zoning district for primary uses, or reduce the availability of land for primary uses below a minimum level necessary to meet the intent of the district. And so what staff has done is it’s a bit of an art and a science. So you try and locate secondary uses where they make sense where they potentially might be a buffer to some existing neighborhoods. And then also we apply a mathematical number that substantially diminished we take kind of conservative look at that, and it cannot be a secondary use cannot be greater than 50% of the district. So how do we define district and Dallas if you could progress the slides one?

Unknown Speaker 12:57
Are you seeing it on your end?

Unknown Speaker 13:00
There now? I am. Okay. Awesome. So I want to show you an example basically, what the less than 50% is applied to the district that’s contiguous. And that kind of relates back to the comprehensive plan. We put these districts in areas that made sense from a land use standpoint and are well connected. So this is an area I wanted to show this example of the Creekside development, I think the Planning Commission and council worked on the project we know it is 1901, South hoever. That’s the area that is on the left hand side of your screen includes 19 acres of a mixed use commercial and multifamily development project. Also, it provides middle tier housing. But when you look at the whole district, we have 73 acres, we have two acres of undeveloped land 37 acres of Office light industrial uses 14 and a half acres, that’s a high density senior living facility, and another 19 acre mixed use. And that the previous project I’ve talked about the mixed use, high desert density, high density residential use. So in this case, we’re kind of close we’re at about 46% of the overall land area devoted to secondary uses. So using this going forward with the subject site if you can hit the next slide Dallas will talk specifically about river town so it’s as Eva pointed out in the mixed use employment zoning district, it is a multifamily residential is a permitted secondary use. So we look at the contiguous multi use employment area and this In this case, it extends down Boston avenue to Pratt Street. It includes a total of 117 acres. This the only multifamily portion that’s a part of this district. So it’s 18 acres divided by 117. About 15%. The mixed use employment area is devoted to multifamily so well below that middle point. And the other thing I want to point out from a land use standpoint is the area where this residential is going is very close to those gray area land uses that are primary employment. There’s no residential allowed in that area. So from a staff standpoint, I think we feel not only does it serve the horizontal district, but it serves the area around this site, where there’s a lot of employment, concentrated. So that in a nutshell, is how we apply the secondary uses. The Planning Commission basically reaffirmed that they feel we’re doing it the right way. And it makes a lot of sense and retains the flexibility. But we told them, we’ll continue to look at a better way to do it. So one way might be as we if we get into the comp plan in the future, maybe paint a better picture of what we want these mixed use districts to become. And we’ll take it from there. So that’s really all I wanted to add in. And I’ll turn it back over to Ava to get into the particulars and the the amount of public outreach for the project.

Unknown Speaker 16:42
Great. Thanks, Glen. Dallas, can you go to the next slide? Thank you. So I just want to give you a little bit of background was it was in the staff report was in the planning commission report. Again, you know, some concerns and some background on this property. Again, it’s adjacent to St. Green Creek on its north side, some things that counselors should understand a couple things, the property owner, you know, again, this isn’t a development plan, it’s annexation. And so, within the annexation agreement, the property owner is obligated to dedicate land as as necessary and determined by public works for channel widening for the resilient st rain flood control project. In addition, after they dedicate the land for the channel widening, wherever that property line moves south, then they will be required to dedicate Greenway. In addition, whatever they build on the property would have to maintain a 150 foot riparian setback from the edge of the creek. And again, as we’ve noted previously, you know, we did get a cursory environmental analysis, they didn’t identify any habitat for federal or state protected species or plants. Again, this is annexation is not a project. So if we were to get a project application in, we would have to ask for a brand new survey. And I know there were concerns raised about the timing of the survey. Again, we could, we could always require them to have them do it. In the spring or in the summer. There’s nothing in our municipal code that dictates to a property owner what time of year they can repair these environmental reports. In addition, there’s Eagles nearby, but there’s no habitat at this location for nesting. The property is in the floodway. And that would require a conditional letter of map revision from FEMA. Again, this is probably years down the road, there’s a couple ways this can be resolved, the owner can spend the money on their own dime and do this floodplain mitigation to get out of the floodplain in order to be able to develop, the city would never permit any development on this property in the floodplain or the property owner, if they don’t want to spend their own investment, they could wait for the resiliency Green Project to you know, finish those improvements as they move upstream. But that project isn’t fully funded yet. So that could be several years. So development is not necessarily imminent in this case. One advantage to annexing this property I would remind Council is that it does put this property into our jurisdiction. At the moment. It’s in Boulder counties, and so it gives us greater control. It allows us to get the permitting done on our end, and so forth. And again, as you’ve seen in the aerial maps, it was formerly concrete batch plant. We’ve had some environmental reports looked at no evidence of any environmental issues on the site. Next slide. Again, just just a reminder, in terms of the community input, we’ve been soliciting, we had a neighborhood meeting in November of 2020. We had, we sent out notices when the application was submitted in January of 2021. We send out notices with the public hearing for planning and zoning, as well as for this meeting, and you have received the comments that you have received. I know in your email box, we obviously have gotten mixed messages. We’ve gotten people who are expressing deep concerns about the environmental impacts. And we’ve also gotten emails expressing support. And next slide.

Unknown Speaker 20:50
And so this meant the Planning and Zoning Commission, a few months ago, they made a Reza recommendation of conditional approval, what that was about was the concept plan had set a certain amount of units on it. And then there was a traffic study that was associated with it. And it had a different number. They didn’t quite match, they were in the three hundreds, but they weren’t exactly the same. And so the planning commission just asked that the concept plan be updated to have the higher density that was shown in the traffic study. And that has been done. And that’s the concept plan in front of you. So that is the correct amount which is 334 dwelling units. And next slide.

Unknown Speaker 21:43
And so I’m going to turn this over to David Starnes, who has a presentation on behalf of the property owner. But before I do that, just want to introduce or let you know, we do have staff here to answer questions. If you have questions about the environmental studies that were done on any environmental concerns, we have David Bell and Dan Wolford from natural resources here. And we also have our environmental sustainability planner on our team Hannah mole Roy’s here. If you have questions about you know, the traffic, the accesses, utilities, anything of that nature, we have Chris Huffer, from Public Works Engineering, the Public Works Engineering administrators here to answer those questions. And with that, I will turn it over to David Starnes. They have a brief presentation, and then if counsel has any questions, we’re all happy to answer. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 22:45
David, you’re up. You’re up next. What’s your unmute ’em up if

Unknown Speaker 22:56
just going forward. If anyone needs to speak just feel free to raise your hand and I’ll be able to click the button quicker. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 23:03
Great. Thank you, Dallas. Good evening, Mayor Peck and council. I’m David Stone with the river town Development Group. I’m gonna give a brief presentation and actually turn it over to Tony De Simone from Confluence. In just a few minutes, he will provide some additional commentary on our development group and project experience and concept for this Rivertown redevelopment. Delphi Brio big up our presentation please. Thank you Next slide. So as David mentioned, you know, our site again is a 21 acre site, located quizzically at 21 South sunset street. So, we’re in Boulder County the existing uses our office warehouse and some vacant land behind the industrial buildings. The current zoning in Boulder County is general industrial and as David mentioned, our proposed zoning aligned with envision in Longmont on the land use designation of mixed use employment next slide. Um, current conditions on the site you know, it’s a blighted property it’s a former you know, concrete batch plant. It’s an enclave parcel we’re essentially surrounded by the city and our directions except for the property just to the north and then a portion to the east, but we are more or less entirely surrounded by the city. Our property our goal is to really transform this blade the blade to area into a high quality mixed use development that will be a desirable place for people to live and to work you know, the existing properties look on the backside of our property is dominated by the former batch plan, you know, large concrete block blocks him there’s no environmental conditions that were identified, but again, these are not desirable uses or appealing uses that we feel. Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 24:58
Are proposed redeveloped It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Within the comprehensive plan. It’s one of the site is located within the sake brain Creek focus areas. And this is one of four key areas identified by the city in the comp plan with the greatest opportunity for future development. And our goal really is to revitalize will be called this River District corridor. As you know, Imprimis of the floodplain are made to really make this a desirable area for people to live and to work. And as identified in the goal of the comp plan, the integration of high density, residential uses and support services are encouraged within the NPV designation. Also to expand housing options within the city and to leverage what we hope is planned transit investments with the BRT corridor. Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 25:53
The river town redevelopment will incorporate you know medium density residential rental apartments and townhomes and a wide variety of employment spaces, we actually been in contact with a number of small businesses who are in Longmont who are looking to expand and our desire to locate into a modern kind of flex business space. That’s something that we’re willing to entertain, and obviously work closely with these businesses to create opportunities for them to stay in Longmont to grow and to provide additional employment opportunities. Our goal and again, this would be part of our site plan application. As you know, as part of the after annexation, we’ll come forth with a detailed site plan that will outline what the buildings will look like. Again, our plan is to have a mix that aesthetically consistent with the adjacent area, in terms of high quality residential housing, and commercial opportunities.

Unknown Speaker 26:48
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 26:56
And I just want to kind of share this quick slide. This is what we call the River District. You know, we’ve been doing some visioning, with adjacent business owners and property owners to kind of really look at reinvigorating this, what we feel is a very vital and important area in the city that has been neglected for a long time having left hand brewery their brewery in this area has been really critically important to kind of activating St. Green Creek, providing a destination and we feel you know, with a river town redevelopment, this can be an opportunity to really introduce some residential and commercial in an area that doesn’t have any residential. Just catty corner from our 21 South sunset earlier this year, we had actually well last year now in 2021, we had our six and a half acres of our initial phase of Rivertown annex into the city where we’re contemplating and going through a process of flex commercial space that’s modern and adaptable, again, to provide opportunities for businesses to stay and grow in Longmont. Next slide, please. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Tony De Simone from compliance.

Unknown Speaker 28:01
Tony, if you’re there, could you raise your hand? I’m trying to find the in the list of participants.

Unknown Speaker 28:20
Just need to unmute your mic, Tony. Yes, Tony, if

Unknown Speaker 28:25
you are there and can raise your hand, I’ll be able to unmute you.

Unknown Speaker 28:30
He’s under Anthony. Gotcha. Come on. There we go. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, David. And thank you, city council. Certainly appreciate your stamina tonight to work through this. My name is Tony De Simone. I’m one of the owners of conference companies. And just appreciate the opportunity to present tonight. We’re part of that ownership team. And I’m really grateful for the opportunity to rethink the use of this former concrete batch plant. And I really want to focus on the word opportunity because I think tonight we have an opportunity to really kind of rethink what’s out there now change a concrete batch plant into a vibrant mixed use community and really meet some of the community needs that so many people have been talking about. So we’re excited about this. The main focus I know tonight is really to consider the merits of the property for annexation. I also want to make sure you understand the quality of the team that’s behind this. And I think it’s important for you to know that we’re local. We’re we’re a golden based developer, builder, and property manager. We only work on a handful of sites of a year that really meet our high expectations. And we believe this site meets those expectations, it will be a long haul. It’s not an easy project, as Eva mentioned. So, but, but we’re, we’re excited about it. So we have experience, redeveloping blighted sites working in wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas. And I want you to know, our motto is creating exceptional places. And you’ll see some of those exceptional places on the slide there in front of you. And we’ve also given Eva, a list of our references, you know, both in municipalities and working with lenders. And I encourage you to reach out to those so you understand how high how high quality, that reputation is, in the marketplace, I also encourage you to visit any of these properties, to see the high quality delivery and experience that you’ll get on site. So thank you. Next slide. So, this slide really addresses the comprehensive plan, Vision long lot. There’s a lot of words on the slide, I’m not going to focus on line by line all those I just want you to understand we have two pages here of goals that we feel like we meet with a future development here and worthy of that annexation. The gist of this slide also I want to I want to focus on the pictures on the right, those are actual photos from a project we can project we completed in 2019, in Arvada called Timberline farms, and it’s certainly precedent image imagery of what we’re trying to deliver here in Longmont. It’s a really respectfully well done property on a very similar site, the site is 20 acres. It was a former industrial yard as well and very similar condition of what we have here today. But what you’ll see in those images is we’ve created these these wonderful opportunities to gather these community gardens. We’re very respectful to the adjacent open spaces and trail systems. And it’s, you know, it’s just a great opportunity to create something special here. So next slide. Next slide Dallas. Okay, great. Thank you. So we also, you know, we’re looking at a mix of uses here, this side is a little bit focus more on the commercial side of things, you know, the last few years of COVID, the workforce has changed dramatically. You know, we’ve gone from these large corporate centers in big cities, and it’s shifted the workforce more towards the suburban community, so people working from home or want to be closer to home. And so there’s been this big shift to the suburbs, which, you know, has been good, it’s kept people close to home. But it’s also brought the demand for housing and the demand for for modern workspaces. So, for us, this is an opportunity to create a really kind of modern workspace that’s close to home. This project, we’re really focused on creating a community center, it’s a place

Unknown Speaker 33:07
where we will bring the most likely our craft co working brand, where people can rent or buy office space there they will walk to work Bike to Work, grab a coffee lunch, hang out for a happy hour. But it’s it’s kind of what the markets craving. Now, it’s just to be closer to home and have those experiences and have that walkability in the suburbs. But, you know, in total, we’re planning on investing about $100 million into Longmont with this community. So just an exciting opportunity. Next slide. So one of the things that’s in addition to our presentation, we did a Planning Commission’s is this housing needs slide. And I apologize, we had a site plan. I have the song here, but I’ll talk you through the different things. There’s some some truly amazing statistics today that I want you to be aware of. If you’re not, I think they’re important to consider as we look at the site. Currently, we’re seeing 50,000 people a year move to Colorado, we’re not building enough housing to satisfy that demand. We recently completed a market study specifically for this location. What that market study showed is that Longmont can expect to see as many as 25,000 new residents over the next 13 years. You know, households are also getting smaller 62% are one in two person households now, compared to 55% 30 years ago, baby boomers are aging, they’re looking for lower maintenance living. Young Professionals are waiting longer to have children so they’re not living in traditional housing and I know we’ve had a lot of talk about the missing middle and that’s where that comes in that image to the upper right hand corner no may be hard to read. But it shows you those variety of housing types that handle the missing middle. And when we talk about missing middle, it’s not just for sale housing, it’s also for ran housing, because in a lot of ways, the foreign housing can be more affordable than for sale housing. You know, from a developer’s perspective, it has to do with the financing mechanisms that allow that housing to be built. But it’s really difficult in today’s world to deliver affordable housing, because of construction costs, municipal fees, taxes, there’s a whole reason why but the the beauty of doing a mixed use site where you can have varying levels of density, it allows your higher density product to subsidize the lower density product, and make that attainable and affordable. And so that’s why when you look at that site plan and how you have these different uses, it allows us to deliver that attainable housing that is so needed in the market today. So I know we we received a lot of letters of support, you know, through the annexation process. One I want to call upon, was written by Eric Wallace, the president of lefthand. Brewing. And I thought Eric said it best he said, addressing the housing crisis is the number one issue impacting the long term sustainability and economic viability of Longmont. The negative impact of the housing crisis on my family, and my business is why I agreed to help start prosper long line. And I couldn’t agree more as a business owner, with nearly 100 employees as well, we have a lot of our employees living at our communities, because they’re attainable. And without that attainable product in your community, your businesses will suffer. And we’ve seen that over and over again. So I did want to point you to that site time, but I don’t have here. So let me let me work towards the next slide if I can.

Unknown Speaker 36:56
Okay, so um, so, you know, in conclusion, we just want to bring up that look, the sites identified for annexation, it satisfies a lot of the goals in envision long lat we know that the site’s currently blighted, it’s, it’s really well suited for, for redevelopment. The current use, as I mentioned, is a concrete batch plant. And we just have such an amazing opportunity. You know, the alternative Eva kind of mentioned, if it’s not annexed into Longmont, we could work through the process through Boulder County, that’s an option, we can currently leave it as an industrial use. And but I would argue, you know, both of those routes are not better for the site, it will not help the environment around it. I think having that, that that low density as we approach those native areas will actually be helpful. There is also the repairing setback, I don’t have the map, but you’ll see that we’re not building to the property borders, respecting that there’s 150 foot riparian setback that sets back into our site. And so we’re very respectful of that. And we know the site can be really good neighbors. So with that, we’ll, we’ll open it for questions. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 38:20
Do any counselors have questions at this point?

Unknown Speaker 38:24
I do.

Unknown Speaker 38:25
Tony, thank you for those slides. And you do you do build beautiful places. I agree. What I wish that we could you would had a picture of is how do you actually build a

Unknown Speaker 38:41
Arun mir podium,

Unknown Speaker 38:46
I just want to make sure that we do have two items here. And they’re both very different. I believe most of this presentation has been more for the second item than the first item. So I do want to make sure that I agree if we’re gonna if we’re going to open everything up that we do it appropriately. So I that’s just I want to clarify where we’re at. Sorry. Hey,

Unknown Speaker 39:12
I thank you for that. But I am going to ask my question. So when I wish that you had as you know, we are very concerned about the environment. Just you don’t have to answer this, it would be really helpful to have some kind of a description or picture of how you actually treat rivers and Lake corridors. So that’s it going forward. I would like to see if you have ever developed around an actual

Unknown Speaker 39:42
river or creek or lake can answer that real quick if that’s okay, you know, the project that I brought up and you know, I would encourage we’ll be happy to set up a visit but it’s called Timberline farms in Arvada, it it is adjacent to vim Beaver Creek. We actually part of the project required us to reroute part of that area. So we’re very familiar with working in that type of environment and respecting, you know, those settings. So I think it’s a really good example that we can we can show you.

Unknown Speaker 40:15
Thank you. All right. So that’s all let’s keep going. Is there any more to this presentation? Are we is that it? Mayor pack?

Unknown Speaker 40:30
That’s correct. So staff and the applicant have both completed their presentations. Okay. We’re available to answer questions. And just to clarify, there’s two items on the table. One is a resolution of statutory compliance. That’s not the formal annexation of this property. It’s a state statute requirement that says this property is eligible to be annexed because it meets all the requirements of contiguity with city of Longmont boundaries, and then the ordinance is the actual, you know, approving the the land to be annexed into the city.

Unknown Speaker 41:04
Correct. Thank you for restating that. So can I have a motion for the resolution are 20 2206 to move that forward? Councillor Martin,

Unknown Speaker 41:16
I will move the resolution art. I can’t see it. My screensaver kicked in. I’ll move it. Just for procedural clarification. This one is a resolution and doesn’t need the public hearing. But then the correct the public hearing will be on the second one. Is that correct? Or do they both need a public hearing?

Unknown Speaker 41:40
I think I think we do have a you’re correct. You’re correct. I just reread it. You’re correct that there is no public hearing on this resolution. There’s only one on the ordinance. So you made the motion. Do I have a second? Oh, Second. Thank you. So are 20 2206 the resolution finding a parcel land known as RIVERTOWNE? annexation has been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor waters.

Unknown Speaker 42:11
Let’s vote. Oh, excuse me. All those in favor? Raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 42:17
All those opposed? So that Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. So let’s go on to zero 2021 78 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the RIVERTOWNE annexation and concept plan, generally located north of Boston Avenue and west of senzit Street at 21 South sunset Street and zoning the property in UAE mixed use employment public hearings and second reading scheduled for January 11 2022. Do we have any kind of a presentation on this or did your first presentation cover everything it seemed to

Unknown Speaker 42:59
know that’s correct. Good. Did that was really the intent.

Unknown Speaker 43:02
Okay, great. Thank you. So I’d like to open the public hearing for zero 2022 78.

Unknown Speaker 43:12
If there are any colors that are currently in chat that would like to speak on this item, please hit star nine to raise your hands via star nine. That’s how we’ll know Perfect. Okay, I’m seeing three hands right now. So keep them raised. I’m going to start with the first color at the very top. This is color with the last three digits 073 Color 073 Can you unmute for me?

Unknown Speaker 43:46
Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hey, Mayor Peck city council members. Good evening. I’m making luster. Christine 17 May field lane. I’m a member of stand with our st frame Creek. At your December 14 Regular Session Council shared concerns about the river town concept plan. As you debated said river town annexation ordinance. Please translate those concerns into action. If you will separate the concept plan from the annexation ordinance and send it back to the drawing board. You’ll give the city and the community an opportunity to address the very concerns you yourselves raised in discussion last month. We need a development on the river town property. That’s a good neighbor to our Rogers Grove nature area. We don’t need 90% of the acreage dedicated to high density rental apartments. And we really do need more mid tier for sale housing in Longmont so folks can buy a home and build their net worth, but not more rent. tolls like what’s proposed in the river town concept plan. If big employers in this town are worried about affordable housing for their employees, maybe they should use their clout to work with our state legislature, revising the construction defect laws that discouraged developers from building the so called missing middle housing, like affordable condos and townhomes around here. Let’s be realistic rental apartments crowded onto a property that isn’t zoned residential. And that in point of fact, doesn’t even have an access road. This is not a housing solution. It’s a half baked idea. And constructing these buildings will undermine the natural areas and habitats right next door to them. That’s why even considering using the public’s open space land to create an access road onto this private development, it’s just playing unfair to the citizens of Longmont. We all enjoy Roger Scrope and we all pay to maintain open space, please, let’s not destroy the things our community treasures by giving them away to private interest. I’m convinced that some forethought on the city’s part and some consideration on the part of the developer can produce a much better concept plan. So send this one back to the drawing board tonight. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 46:31
Thank you nating. Alright, and we’re going to go on to our next caller.

Unknown Speaker 46:39
This is I think we just lost you color with the last three digits 323 Hi, caller 323 Can you hear us?

Unknown Speaker 46:52
Yes, I can. My name is Janie SEMO and I live live at 1020 dentistry. Mayor packing councilmembers thank you for letting me speak tonight. As you’ve already heard in the river town concept plan must go back to the drawing board. I will briefly reiterate that any housing in this area is not likely to be a workforce or affordable housing long run is a neato since 2016 More than Lotsof 2154 new apartment units built. Longmont is first a number of apartments built in all of Colorado. But what I really want to talk about tonight however our long run Stateflow of the bank follows a small Migratory songbird, the nest and vertical banks. It requires a very specific substrate and bank slope without which it is not able to nest Bay falls or Boulder County species of special concerns and long law school and wildlife management plans W MP which was just revised in 2019. lists the bank swallow is one of the species that increases long months biodiversity. The W MP notes colonial masters of which banks while is our one our quote unquote special interest because an action that affects one Ness may silence simultaneously effect many others. Thankful are also a highly migratory rare and specialized species traits specifically noted in the web of species that deserve special protection. Rogers Grove is one of the only known places in Boulder County and the only place on Longmont protected land we’re thankful as nest. The nesting site is just on the other side of the pedestrian bridge from the river town property. Well, one month’s flood mitigation project in the area of Rogers Grove isn’t yet fully funded. The favorite plan is to construct a split flow channel running under Homer Street. Unfortunately, this channel would destroy this valuable and rare natural habitat. Given how specialized the Bank Swallows nesting conditions are, it would likely be impossible to create a suitable replacement habitat elsewhere. I again ask that as a condition of annexation, a conservation easement would be placed on Rivertown properties so that the construction of the split flow bypasses the banks while a colony if this cannot be done Natural Resources needs to come up with another way to prevent the destruction of this area. Thank you for your time consideration.

Unknown Speaker 49:00
Thank you, Jamie. Looks like we have one more caller.

Unknown Speaker 49:06
That is correct. Yes. Caller with the last three digits 949 You can unmute yourself float. Hi, can you hear us?

Unknown Speaker 49:18
Yes, excellent. This is Ruby Bowman 1512 Love 10 drive. I have the following concerns about the river town annexation. One zoning the intent of the mixed use employment zoning is to promote primary employment. However, the river town concept plan shows 90% of the property will be used for high density residential secondary use. Current code states a second use secondary use is not intended to be a primary or predominant use in the zoning district. The city should not reinterpret the code in order to facilitate allowed the facilitation of the Rivertown concept plan. which is in violation of the proposed designated zoning. To review criteria. One of the one of the criteria requires that development be compatible with surrounding properties in terms of land use site, building layout, design and access planning staff claim. river town meets this criterion because the nature areas would provide a quiet and peaceful setting for the residential buildings. In other words, the river town residents will get to enjoy seeing birds in Rogers crow. But what about us, the users, the ones who already live here and invested in these net nature areas. When will the city credibly assess the impacts of high density residential on our wildlife and our enjoyment of wildlife in Rogers Grove in St. Frank Creek, Cintas is step interpreted this criterion so that it benefits the developer free access road. At the planning zoning, public hearing city step promoted the idea of building an access road on City County Open Space in the event, the property owner to the south of river town refused access on her property. Okay, staff the authority to put this option on the table of conveying Rogers Grove property to bid to benefit private development area and I found out that natural resources did not even know about this option to build an access road for everyday use next to their ground Lake. Again, city step promoted the idea for the benefit of the developer for conflicts of interest. At the annexation public and zoning hearing, the Commissioner revealed that the river town developer was a client of his but he did not recuse himself. city policy allows a commissioner to decide for himself whether he has a conflict of interest. In other words, the policy kicks the door open for possible corruption on our commission. This has got to change.

Unknown Speaker 52:20
Thank you, Ruby. Is that our last color? Dallas? Yes, that is the last caller. Hey, do we have any remarks by council? Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 52:37
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I guess it’s time to get us started here because this seems like it’d be a fairly substantial conversation. First of all, few questions. It seems to me in our code that annexation requires a concept plan. And so I’d like to get an answer from possibly legal or planning and development whether a an annexation can be severed from a concept plan and still be accepted.

Unknown Speaker 53:13
Councilmember or Mayor Pro Tem severed, meaning how can

Unknown Speaker 53:19
we can accept an annexation without the concept plan?

Unknown Speaker 53:23
I can I can. We can certainly ask. Mr. May. But it’s in the municipal code that says an annexation concept plan must be approved with the annexation. And those are clipped as attachments to the annexation agreement as well as to the ordinance. And I don’t know if GGG has some comment.

Unknown Speaker 53:48
That is my question is whether we can accept an annexation without accepting the concept plan. Give me a moment if you got another question. Yes, I have a few questions. And so this would probably I guess, also be for maybe natural resources. When we we’ve heard comments about this as well as in the presentation, that there were no species of animals that were would be affected adjacent like I understand not on the actual site, but adjacent to it in the riparian area. So in that assessment, it’s saying that the bank swallow in the leopard frog are not species of concern adjacent to the site. Is that correct?

Unknown Speaker 54:50
I believe David Bell is here but that is correct. There are no Bank Swallows on this particular property there on the Rogers Grove property. I believe David and Dan Wolford are both here from natural resources.

Unknown Speaker 55:05
Yes, Mayor Pro Tem do the belt director parks natural resources. As a was mentioned, the the Bank Swallows are adjacent to this property and the work to be done on this property would not have a direct impact on those nesting birds in that area. They really would be the RSVP project as we come through there as we try to figure out long term plans without how we would work through that. But this document in this plan, there were no swallows on that area. And the the work that was done by their consultants and looked at by Natural Resources staff would concur that there was no impact from this project to those the swallows.

Unknown Speaker 55:46
Yes. As for the leopard frog, the leopard frog,

Unknown Speaker 55:50
I believe Dan wolf runs on right now, because his staff is the one that really reviews those documents that are coming through from the consultants. I have not looked at that. But Dan, would you mind taking that?

Unknown Speaker 56:02
Mayor Pro Tem council members, I’m unaware of leopard frogs being anywhere in this particular area. Again, as David mentioned, we do have the Bank Swallows, as well as making certain that our engineering staff who’s working with RSVP is aware of those situations that are incorporating that information into the design. There’s a lot of unknown yet, because we are going through that phase three development of Rs P. Again, as we move through the actual development of this site, it’s would be planning and development, responsibility to make certain that they did that an appropriate habitat inventory and share that with the Natural Resources staff. And at that point in time, we could incorporate that evaluation into those specific design details. But at this point in time, I was unaware that we have any leopard frog presence adjacent to this development.

Unknown Speaker 57:13
Alright, thank you very much. So I understand it that we have 150 foot setback from our riparian the same rain as as it is. directly west of this proposed site is a body of water at the Rogers grove. I don’t know what you would call the lake or or whatever. What have you. Correct me? fairgrounds Lake fairgrounds, like, so we don’t have a similar 150 foot setback from that lake. Is that correct?

Unknown Speaker 57:49
Mayor Pro Tem, that’s correct.

Unknown Speaker 57:52
So you can about up pretty close to it if I’m not incorrect there. So just to clarify, that’s just a clarification. Um,

Unknown Speaker 58:04
Mayor Pro Tem sorry. You know, we’re upon a development application, we would ask them to take a closer look at fairgrounds Lake and determine it’s up to the you know, the applicants biologist to verify whether that is or isn’t a riparian area. And if it is, the 150 foot also applies on the west side.

Unknown Speaker 58:25
Sure. And my understanding is that would be materion not riparian anyway, so slightly different anyway. Just just clarifying things. And it seems that the attorney may has an answer on something. So I’d like to get it

Unknown Speaker 58:44
as Mayor Pro Tem 15 Oh, a three requires a concept plan when the annexation.

Unknown Speaker 58:51
So it’s not possible to sever that per code per Thank you. Thank you. That was a question, not emotion. So I will continue. So continuing saying that I have no problem with the MEU zoning. I’ve already stated some issues with high density residential. I was a big proponent of transitionary zoning, when we did that earlier in the land code updates when it came to the change from single family to higher density. And so I would say that the closest residential to the site are single family detached homes. And while they’re across the river to the north, in concept, the transition would be somewhat Stark. So that’s that’s just more of a statement. But I would say that, in the interest of everything, I continue to promise to work towards finding the right fit, because this will continue to come back before City Council. And if I’m no longer on city council, so be it. And no offense to Mr. De Simone. I understand that you are within the state, but each municipality has its own unique traits and characteristics as well as the fact that we were all at least as far as City Council is concerned, elected by our constituents, not those in say Arvada or golden. And I appreciate everything, your work and everything you do. So again, it’s no offense to Mr. De Smith. And so when it comes to the missing middle, in Longmont, as has been stated by some other folks, we have built a lot of multiplex and to a certain concept, live workspaces. And so I do want to continue to push the idea of missing middle that is slightly less than density. And so I’m going to say something and maybe make some motions that are probably going to be not in either side’s best interest. And I think usually that’s a better idea than giving one side or the other everything they want. So one thing I would say is that I would approve the annexation and concept plan with the condition and this is emotion with the condition that there will be no ingress egress access road easement on open space, be it boulder county or city of long months open space. That’d be one condition. And that’s my first motion. I have a second motion.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:48
I’ll second that. Okay. Um,

Unknown Speaker 1:01:53
do we have any community any discussion from Council? This is the time to discuss that. Councillor Martin?

Unknown Speaker 1:02:02
Yes, thank you, Mayor Peck. I don’t think we saw this on a map. Or if we did, I didn’t recognize it. I’m where I’m in the, you know, the ingresses that I thought I saw on the concept plan. We’re off sunset and through the commercial area. So So where is this hypothetical ingress over the open space supposed to be?

Unknown Speaker 1:02:36
Hypothetically, if it were to happen, it would be on the west side of the property, which would be I believe west of the duplex is proposed. It’s just a condition. It’s not even proposed, but just to make sure to ensure that certain fears are allayed.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:57
Okay, well, it’s already seconded, right?

Unknown Speaker 1:03:01
Yes. Okay. So I would like to weigh in on that. And I think where I am interpreting this motion is that the off of Boston Avenue, the two proposed a grosses have to go through private property. And it’s not, it’s not clear as to whether that owner is going to allow those development to go through that private property. And if that is the case, then then we need, the developer is going to have to find another way to have an egress. So the way I’m interpreting the motion is that don’t even think about going through open space for that egress. If in fact, you have to look for another way to get onto this property.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:51
Are there any other that is? I just want to comment as far as the one I as I made the motion? That is the the spirit of the motion is that we’re not going to allow open space to be used for easements for Ingress egress on the property. Okay, because that’s not what the spirit of open space is for our taxpayers.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:12
Nor is it what the open space ordinance states counselor, Whoa, don’t go firing.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:20
You know, I do have a question. Maybe this is for a or Glenn. What is the status how, with the working with the property owner, just south as far as their willingness to to allow for, for access roads to be developed? They’re

Unknown Speaker 1:04:42
sure I can take that one mayor and council member fairing to answer that question. Again. Those are planted easements. So they’re legally allowed. But then again, if there were developments, you know, that’d be a different story. We added into the annexation agreement, a clause that says any access is proposed off of Boston from those properties need to have written permission from those property owners. one access point is at the gas station where it’s at the corner of Boston sunset, and the other is further west. You know, in one of the industrial buildings down there on the west side, they don’t necessarily need to access points if their traffic study again upon development, or they’d have to get a new traffic study, or with more details, but they may not possibly need both axes, they might not just need one off of Boston, in which case, they would only need one property owner’s permission. I hope that answers your question if neither one. So there’s a requirement in the annexation agreement that says either property owner needs to give written permission, before any development could be approved. If neither property owner gives permission, then they’d have to look at only having one access off of Sunset streets. And they would have to fine tune a traffic study to see if that’s even feasible, and what traffic mitigation might be required on Sunset Street to accommodate all of the traffic.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:16
So the concept plan very well or most likely would change based on you know, the written agreement with the property south and the change in the access point. And I’m just trying to make sense and understand this.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:34
That so yes, if the property owners to the south don’t, for some reason give agreement to access, then that would be a minor change, which is the arrows that you saw. The the Municipal Code says there can be minor differences in a development plan from a concept plan, as long as it’s generally consistent is the language in our municipal code.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:01
Okay, and then one more question, and I don’t know if this is the time are we going to have an additional discussion as we move forward. But I had seen it I might have been when I was watching the planning and zoning meeting, but I did see a number of like, of 200 Something units, and then to see the I can’t remember where I saw it, because I was looking at so many notes. I can’t remember where exactly I saw that. And why did it change? Are is the developer looking to to max out hit that 300? And what did I put it at 22, I believe number of units.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:44
So I can turn that over to Tony, but I can tell you in terms of the background, there was a little inconsistency because we had the concept plan that was turned in I think it showed like it wrote down 279 units, but then there was an accompanying traffic study. And it had like 330 units. And so the Planning Commission said, Well, what you know, how much which is it really is it the 330 or the the 200. And so the applicant said is probably going to be the one that’s consistent with the traffic study. And so the the concept plan you have that would go in the agreement is the correct one, it has 330 units, but I will turn it to Tony to answer about why things may have changed.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:25
Yeah, no, I don’t think it has changed from from where we were before. I think there was just a discrepancy in, in the traffic study versus the graphic. But we’re we’re in that 330 inch range. But that’s really to deliver that variety of housing, and be able to do that affordably.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:43
Would that change if there was only one access point? So

Unknown Speaker 1:08:48
I honestly don’t believe this is an issue, you do have an easement to access that area. And and just to confirm, there’s no concern of us have any inclination, we want to go through open space. So that is not an intention whatsoever. So we’re planning on, you know, following the the path that we’ve laid out tonight, so that’s really our main objective.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:14
Okay. And, you know, back when the floods happened, I lived on Bowen Street, between second near second and third. And so we were really close to that that area and just seeing the devastation you know, that is still in a flood zone. What is the what has FEMA or any kinds of study looking at flood mitigation, you know, I don’t want to be responsible for creating you know, approving such a concept plan or such a plan and then a development and then habits be flooded and

Unknown Speaker 1:09:54
no, that’s a good point. You know, the site is not developable as it is. As it stands today, we would not be able to build housing in that area, there’s a significant exercise that that has to happen to fill and bring that site out of the floodplain. But as David mentioned, there’s a comer and then Aloma process, and it’s it’s fairly lengthy, so it will take years to get through. So as Eva mentioned, this is not an imminent thing. So we’re planning for the long term, but there is a significant cost to raising the site out of the floodplain to make it buildable. So it’s a it’s a fairly expensive site to develop.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:32
So really, this is just the first step in the process. In order to move forward with any kind of flood mitigation in that area, kind of this step needs to to happen is that

Unknown Speaker 1:10:45
I mean, there’s there’s, there’s different routes you can go. One is to again, take this to the city of Longmont and the development process that way, the other would be through Boulder County. You know, our intentions were to take this through because we believe it’s, it’s been indicated in the comp plan to be annexed in so that is our main objective. You know, that’s step one. Step two is then to work through the site development process, and that’ll be with staff, and then we’ll go through, you know, another couple another round of this with planning commission, city council, and then once the site plan has been approved, that’s when we can really, you know, finalize all the grading apply to FEMA and start the plumber process. So, you know, again, this is this is years and into the future to get through it all.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:38
So I’m going to interrupt here in that we have a motion on the table, and your comments need to be to this motion. And if they are, so thank you for for the next comments they need to be for the for this motion. Councilwoman Martin.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:55
I think it’s about the motion because the motion is about an amendment to the concept plan.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:04
No, this is a corrective emotion is specifically about not using open space for an access road. It’s just one simple motion.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:15
Okay. So then I will wait to speak until we are back on the main motion. Okay. This isn’t the only vote we get to take.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:23
No, it is not. It is not. Councillor waters. Did you have a question or you went away? Okay. We have a motion on your way. Okay. We have a motion on the table that Mayor Pro Tem made about? Do you want to restate that? Mayor Pro Tem.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:42
Yes, it was a motion to condition. The annexation and concept plan that no access easement be on any open space Be Boulder county or city have long months? Owned open space. And that is that’s the motion.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:02
Okay. And I second to that. Let’s vote. All those in favor of this motion. Please raise your hand. Those opposed? That carries unanimously. So a Councilwoman Martin, I guess you’re up well, looks sorry. Oh, right. I had forgotten Mayor Pro Tem. I had

Unknown Speaker 1:13:23
I had one separate motion and then I will give up the floor. I was hoping to keep the floor just for a second motion. Yes, I’ll explain it very quickly. That because of the riparian area to the north, and the latarian area or the fairgrounds Lake, to the west, that a condition of the annexation concept plan would be a multi layered with natural vegetation buffering on those specific the west and north side, portions of the site. And that that is that motion.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:57
Do I have a second on that? If not, I’ll second that. Um, do we have discussion? Councillor Martin?

Unknown Speaker 1:14:09
Yeah, I would like to clarify. Mr. De Simone made some statements about land dedication for the purpose of flood mitigation and the wildlife corridor and talked about compatibility of the of the landscaping. So I would like to question whether the is the intent of that, that the in particular the 150 foot foot setback but also any land dedicated to make the split flow. Future mitigation work? Does does that include restoring those areas to natural landscaping as opposed to the current blighted nones scaping whatever is there. Just you know, is that is that the intent?

Unknown Speaker 1:15:07
The intent is partially that and also to ensure adequate buffering on the west side of the property, which does not qualify for the 150 foot setback. That is a riparian setback. But it also seems to me to be a very inappropriate place to add buffering as it is complete, is directly adjacent to open space, as well as a lake body of water versus a river body of water. Yeah, that that is the intent.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:42
Right. And I was actually questioning Mr. Doose moans intent. Does he get to talk or not? Um,

Unknown Speaker 1:15:53
yeah, I guess so. Mr. De Simone, let’s have a fast statement on that,

Unknown Speaker 1:15:58
ya know, that’s our intent is is to kind of revegetate that to make it natural and create that buffer. On the west side, we are looking to try to down zone on that area, there is a pretty active walking path adjacent as well, built into Rogers grove. So we just want to be respectful to that, and we’ll do a good job to be able to blend into that setting.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:24
Yeah, my my concern with this motion is, is the, the specifics of the term multitier as opposed to something less? Well, something less prescriptive and less subject to interpretation, because I don’t know what three tiered means, necessarily, but I have a much better comfort level with compatible. You know, we we, you know, we have examples, we can go look at Dickens Farm Park restoration, for example. So, Mayor Pro Tem Can you clarify, I

Unknown Speaker 1:17:08
can, I can clarify, I will change if folks are amenable. I will clarify and alter my motion to say that it will be consistent buffering. As with the riparian area, the western side of the property will have consistent buffering as the northern side of the property with natural vegetation. Does that sound more amenable than Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:17:34
I you know, better about that. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:37
Consistent buffering.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:39
So I second to that, because I have a different vision. And we don’t know what this concept plan is going to look like. The the path around that lake, the open area that is open to residents and people. My My reasoning is we don’t know what the concept plan with that residential area, is it going to be people’s backyards, people’s patios, I would just assume that for me and for using that pathway, like it is today that we’re not looking into people’s backyards and homes and vice versa. That’s why I would like the tiered buffering. So that we we make it compatible with with what’s there already as far as an environmental bikepath. That that’s why I second. America, Tim? Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:37
I just I guess I would say that it’s very prescriptive in the riparian area, in a lot of concepts, and that’s why if we make it consistent on the west side, the turian area, if you will, if they’re consistent, it automatically kind of brings that prescription Miss to the west side of the property it at least that’s what I am interpreting when I when I say

Unknown Speaker 1:19:06
that, alright, um, is there any comments by any other counselors on this? Council waters?

Tim Waters 1:19:12
Just to clarify, was the motion did you change the motion to consistent in the second, the second change to support that motion?

Unknown Speaker 1:19:28
This The second change? What do you mean by that? I’m sorry?

Tim Waters 1:19:32
Did you second his the change in his motion? Because I thought you were not seconding. I just just want to clarify.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:39
Yes, I will. I will second the change in his motion. Thank you. So we do have that motion on the table. Let’s vote. All those in favor of the consistent buffering on the west side. Please raise your hand. Thank you all those opposed, That passes unanimously. So our there any other? Is there any more discussion about this? Councillor waters?

Tim Waters 1:20:05
Thanks, Mayor Peck. I’m going to I’ll apologize going into this that I don’t want to surprise that this may be a surprise to David Bell or or Glen or others. And I should have thought to ask us earlier, when we looked at the the sustainability evaluation system, and David brought back with a team, the red green, the red, yellow, green areas to which the SCS would apply. Without going back and looking at that presentation, I’m assuming that this area would would have been in the green with a been a green space. David Bell, is that fair? And I think if you’re the right one to ask.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:47
Yes, counselor member waters. I’ll have my planning group right behind me to back me up on this. But the st. Bring Creek was one of those those green areas, the fairgrounds like those I looked that direction. That’s where I won ameripro 10 asset question. I think that would be one of those other other areas where we did not look at that the st. Bryan Creek was one of those areas.

Tim Waters 1:21:07
I just think it’s important to point out well, I just let me assume, Glen, you’re still in on this call. Describe the process is going to unfold. This is a green area, which means the sustainability evaluation system, as it’s applied to private sector development would be applied in this particular case, which protects the riparian area, it also expects a certain kind of benefits to the community social socio economic, economic development, social equity, you know, benefits to the community. I would assume this is one of those. This it would be a proposed project at some point to which the SES would be applied. In nicey. Dan came back on the screen, I don’t know whether it’s Glen or David or, or I’ve got an array of Okay, thank you, Eva, how we would apply the SES. Now the way it was this, it was the first presentation. On the other side of sunset, as I recall, of this particular project. That was the basis for the motion to apply the SES to private sector development. That’s what move this forward. So it’s interesting. Now, this comes back to see how this gets applied.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:29
So if I could just clarify councilmember waters, the SCS is only applicable when a developer cannot meet the 150 foot riparian setback standard. And they’re asking for a variance. That’s when we go through the whole SES process.

Tim Waters 1:22:46
Okay, that’s not quite how I understood it. But I’ll accept your statement. The SES had we went through that discussions about nexus between area in in the three legs of the of the SES, social equity, broader economic prosperity, and obviously, the economic impact for the both the developer and for the larger community. It will, I’m going to assume that it’s going to apply to this project to in this way, at the very least, that there won’t be any encroachment. We’ve already heard this and the 150 foot setbacks along with the motions that the mayor pro Tim’s already offered. That fair? Eva,

Unknown Speaker 1:23:37
sorry. You’re yours. You’re asked. I’m sorry, Councilmember wires, just want to confirm what you just asked. You’re asking. If this project meets the 150 foot riparian setback,

Tim Waters 1:23:51
you will have satisfied the criterion we’ve created in the SCS.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:58
So it’s, I’ll I can toss it back to David, but it’s my understanding, we do the analysis of the SES when someone says I can’t meet your standard. And that’s when we look at all of the factors. Is that correct? David?

Unknown Speaker 1:24:13
Yes, as we understand as we went through that exercise, if the developer came to us and said, we’re up against these areas in the green that Scott You know, the SCS tool apply to it and we cannot meet that setback then we would to help make that decision. If we would grant that variance we would run that tool to see if those trade offs made sense for the the community and in this development Eva this Robin, I’m having hard to answer in this development. We are not hearing there’s anything there’s being asked for a very

Tim Waters 1:24:42
there’s gonna be issues all those thanks. Can I ask one more question Mayor pack of Yes. of both Tony and David Starnes. You know, we’ve come we you you’ve heard a lot of these concerns, all of them like I share. But I also would like to give you a chance to talk about what do you need from from whether it’s the city council or any city council, this is a, this is a redevelopment. This is brownfield development, there’s a certain amount of risk and expense that goes along with developing this, to turn it from a development from a blighted area into something that is usable and attractive and compatible. What do you need from people like us to make this work in ways that reduce them to the degree we can reduce the cost of the product, whatever that product is going to be reduced the cost of the product, and achieve all the compatibility and environmental standards that we’ve talked about?

Unknown Speaker 1:25:47
I don’t know if David wants to take the first swing at it, but I can certainly jump in as well. Thank you for the question. Calcium waters, you know, this, as I mentioned, the site’s a very costly site to develop. The change that was just proposed of implementing another 150 foot setback from the property line is detrimental to the project, I mean, the fact that we’re shrinking this site, so densely. It’s gonna force higher density housing, and we’re proposing and what we proposed was to have more walkable streets. And by bringing the site in from the outside actually is going to make it denser and less walkable. So I think we need to be careful on changes. You know, I feel like we’re just throwing changes out at this thing. The reason the unit count is what it is, is because there there needs to be 100,000 yards of fill brought in to bring the site out of the floodplain. That’s usually expensive. And so you need that unit count, to justify the cost to be able to develop it. And so, you know, to do the commercial is is challenging as well, because the commercial doesn’t make money. The residentials with subsidizes commercial in having the the amount of units that we’re proposing is what allows us to create that employment zone. So there are some mechanisms, you know, as a blighted site, and, you know, potentially maybe there’s TIF there or something like that, but you know, this site needs a lot to be developable. So I’m a little disappointed in the direction we’re going I just you know, we’re we’re proposing tonight is being cut up. So I just don’t know if what we propose is now developable based on the changes,

Unknown Speaker 1:27:42
excuse me, I’m going to interrupt to make a motion that we extend the meeting past 11 o’clock. Second, all those in favor raise your hand. Separate Councillor Oh, passes unanimously. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, I was a no vote. Oh, you were a no vote what oppose so that does not pass unanimously. It passes five to five to one with Councillor waters opposing Davidson Starnes has his hand hand raised. But Councillor Martin was first. So hang in there, David. Councillor Martin does

Unknown Speaker 1:28:28
it? Yeah, just quickly. I didn’t understand what Tony meant by a second 150 foot setback?

Unknown Speaker 1:28:40
I don’t either, actually.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:42
Yeah. So can we clarify that? Because I don’t think anybody said that.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:46
Okay, will we be able to pop the site plan Eva, because maybe I could talk through it that way. Maybe I’m misinterpreting this. I apologize. But it just put me in a tailspin. So I don’t know if we can pull up the site plan and maybe we can talk from there.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:01
Yes, I can. Do you know which slide that was?

Unknown Speaker 1:29:06
Who, it’s, it’s kind of towards the beginning of that presentation. There’s a concept plan on there.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:12
Okay, give me just a moment. I’ll pull it up and you can tell me which one it

Unknown Speaker 1:29:17
is okay. See, let’s go down.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:30
One more. One more.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:35
Right there. Okay. So in the upper left hand corner, that is the site plan. And what you’ll see in that site plan, there’s a property boundary in that black kind of dotted line. That area between that property line and where you start seeing those colored shapes. That’s 150 Put 150 foot repairing setback. So that’s an area that we’re not planning any develop meant. We talked about revegetation I, what I thought was proposed was that 150 foot setback then go all the way around to the west. And we’re we’re proposing that, you know, that missing middle product that that lower density townhome or paired home product that would eat up that whole part of the site if we had a setback from that edge of the site. So there are regular setbacks that are in the code that allow for this. So that’s what I interpret as what was proposed was was making that on developable. Can I,

Unknown Speaker 1:30:48
Councillor Martin?

Unknown Speaker 1:30:50
Go ahead. Yeah. Just to sort of finish out the question. First of all, we don’t have a lake side setback in our code. And second, if we did, it would be from the edge of the water not from the edge of the parcel. Correct. For you know, I mean, hypothetically, I think we would. Um, so what were maybe maybe Mayor Pro Tem can clarify what he what he wants to do in the townhome area, and honestly, in the comp in the concept plan. We’re talking about the townhomes or the duplexes, I think are in that blue lozenge. The vertical one correct. Mr. DeSimone?

Unknown Speaker 1:31:44
Yes, that’s correct. That scare rectangular, darker blue is where Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:31:48
so are they houses in the do they have backyards? Do they have a?

Unknown Speaker 1:31:55
We don’t know any of that? Yeah, I

Unknown Speaker 1:31:57
know. And that’s what I’m saying. Why? Why are we? You know, we don’t have the we don’t have the the picture is too small to know the scale. So it’s really hard to tell how much is being eaten? I don’t think we have enough information there.

Unknown Speaker 1:32:17
May I jump in here? Mr. De Simone. We never mentioned 150 foot setback on the west side. It was a it was a layered buffer that is consistent with what would be on the south side. Yes. The north side.

Unknown Speaker 1:32:37
Okay. I did challenge for us on our side. We don’t know what that means. So where do

Unknown Speaker 1:32:42
we we just know that we want to be buffered.

Unknown Speaker 1:32:47
You know, we intentionally did lower the density as it approached Rogers Grove for that reason those those units would have backyards would have fences would have privacy. But I just want to make sure we have the flexibility to do what what is appropriate. And I I just don’t the language is very, very loose. So I would just ask for some help there.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:18
Um, I don’t know. I’m going to call on David Starnes. Now perhaps he has some insight into this

Unknown Speaker 1:33:29
APEC councilmember, yeah. My question being answered my question. That was, does that mean the 150 fee was unclear to me. So and what the tiered buffering system means, in relation that, you know, I was mentioned for the north side. I just didn’t know how that applies to the west side. So I think it’s been partially answered, because you’re referring to not applying to 150 To the west side. But what exactly to be determined, and maybe that’s part of the site plan application is we could work through that down the line. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:34:02
exactly. Thank you. So our Mayor Pro Tem arabicas.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:09
Yeah, sir. His statement is based on my motion. And so I just want to make a clarification on kind of the intent. As far as I see it, you know, the way that map looks, which is obviously just some blocks overlaid. So there’s no true detailed site plan there. But what I would say is what I’m not looking to see is say, a fence directly next to the current walking path. For instance, there would be a consistent buffer, as I would hope to see on the north side, that is not dealing with the 150 foot setback, but just some sort of natural buffering between actual development as and the adjacent property, just as you see it, many different places, not 150 foot setback. not necessarily from the edge of the water, because that seems like that would be onerous in comparison, if you will, that was the intent of the motion, that you’re not sticking that fence right next to the walking path. Your or whatever it happens to be maybe, you know, a porch or who knows, as there’s not that much detail there. That was the intent of the motion, not 150 foot setback.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:30
So I am going I know Councillor Martin, you would like to continue this conversation. But let’s move on to other areas. Does anyone have a motion or a comment that is not about this buffered or 100 and supposed 100 foot setback? Councillor Yarborough?

Unknown Speaker 1:35:53
Thank you, Mayor Peck, I just want to say, I am learning so much. I’m Tony. This is my debt. I’m new to council. So I’ve been really quiet to learning and observing the experts, my fellow council members and Mayor. I just want to say thank you all for having good discussion. And I agree with the the the buffer and everything else that I’ve read and learned it was a lot of information. But I do appreciate you Tony being patient, and understanding what we’re trying to portray to you and explain because just like if you build your home, you want to make sure your home is is, you know, livable for your family. And so no, mine is our home. And so our constituents also want to make sure that we make the best decisions for and we can’t please everyone. So I just want to say thank you, Eva as well. And, um, and I I don’t really have much more, I just agree with my fellow council members. And I just wanted to say thank you for your patience,

Unknown Speaker 1:37:05
Councilor waters.

Tim Waters 1:37:07
Yeah, I was hoping that just from my earlier question, we could get a response from David Stern’s if he has one about, you know, what, we certainly create expectations, and we should for these developers, for all developers, but I’d also like to hear from them. What we could do that would help deliver the kind of housing or other product that we’ve said that we would like the development community to propose to us. So what do they need from us? David, do you have a response? I appreciate Tony’s

Unknown Speaker 1:37:46
Mayor Peck Cosmin waters, I think, just from a development perspective, I think one of the things that’s really important for us, I mean, is transparency and predictability in the process, as you know, you know, the longer thinks tank to get approved Well, you know, we recognize going through entitlement process is like the, but to the extent that the process can be transparent and predictable, so that we know when we respond back to comments from city planning staff, that’s really helpful for us to one shorten the number of reviews, and, you know, hopefully deliver a product that meets the community expectations in terms of housing and commercial development. So that’s probably the the main thing I think this is just knowing what the rules are, and then kind of follow, you know, being predictable, transparent throughout the process, and having good communication with planning staff, which we do, I think we’re really appreciative of EVA, and Glenn and the rest of the staff have been really helpful to kind of help us walk through this is, again, this is the first step and the next big step, assuming we’re successful is going through the site plan application, which is the big one. So I guess I would just reiterate that, thank you.

Tim Waters 1:38:59
Thank you. Thanks for allowing me to get get that answer.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:04
Okay. Councillor Martin, you have spoken several times on this issue. So I’m going to speak first.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:11
Yeah, I just, I’ve spoken on the sub motions, but I don’t think I’ve spoken on the main motion. Okay. Go ahead, can speak first, I just want to be sure that I can speak

Unknown Speaker 1:39:25
Yes, you can. I will not forget you. So I do have a question and I am a little I have I’m a little concerned are frustrated in that we can’t divide this motion because I would definitely vote for the annexation, but I have a problem with the concept plan. So I think that is some of the reason we’re having these motions is is because of that. So my my concern is in the concept plan, bullet number 14 And before I make this or ask the question, can you clarify the dedicated land to the city along the same train? Does that have to do with the RSVP? Or is this actually part of the development? Eva? Can you answer that?

Unknown Speaker 1:40:17
Mayor pack? That’s

Unknown Speaker 1:40:18
That’s correct. That’s land dedication for RSP.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:22
Okay, in boat 14 on your concept plan that says that this land along the st reign dedicated to this city is going to be dedicated at the time of development. I am going to move that we changed that to the that we that you dedicate that at the time of the acceptance of the concept plan. And the reason that I’m saying that is that RSVP could come way before the development of this property. And we need that dedicated land in order to complete RSVP. So is that does that make sense? Eva,

Unknown Speaker 1:41:05
Mayor Peck, I just wanted to say, actually, that is in the language of the annexation agreement, which you have before you, which would be recorded with the property. So in our opinion, it’s not necessary at this point to make that motion. And the reason why is because as you know, this is unfunded, and so public works, and I’ve got Chris Huffer, here on jimang stad. From Public Works, who can elaborate, but they haven’t determined those exact boundaries of land dedication yet. And so it’s in the annexation agreement that says when public works figures that out, the applicant will have to dedicate that land. So that’s already agreed to and signed by all parties in the annexation agreement that that’ll be done,

Unknown Speaker 1:41:50
then why is it in the concept plan? If it’s in the annexation agreement? Right.

Unknown Speaker 1:41:55
So I think you’re talking about two different things. So the thing that’s in the concept plan is Greenway dedication, which would be separate from the resilience ain’t rain channel widening.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:09
Oh, that that was my question to begin with, in this concept plan. Does this refer to RSVP or the Greenway? So in the concept plan, it refers to the Greenway, and you’re going to dedicate that at development, not at the acceptance of the concept plan?

Unknown Speaker 1:42:33
That’s correct. And that’s because, again, this is an annexation. So we haven’t begun a planning process that comes next when it’s in our jurisdiction at the planning process, when we plant the property, that is when you dedicate the Greenway.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:51
Okay, I will not make that motion. And thank you for that explanation. Eva. Councillor Martin?

Unknown Speaker 1:42:59
Thank you, Mayor pack. Since we seem to have a lot of issues with the concept plan. I personally don’t actually. But, Mike, my question is, you know, this is a long development, a bunch of, you know, the Army Corps of Engineers work and so on has to happen before this land becomes developable. The housing market could change will change in that amount of time. So for example, right now, the concept plan says a lot of this is is presumed to be rental, would it have to be rental because it was in the concept plan or could a similarly dance, but differently organized or differently marketed? Building? Could it would a project be acceptable that was like that that wasn’t precisely what the concept plan had. Or no, does it have to be rental if it says rental now?

Unknown Speaker 1:44:11
Right, Mayor packin and Councilmember Martin, I don’t believe the concept plan specifically says rental what we do call it is apartments. We call it multifamily in terms of land use, but we don’t dictate at the annexation juncture, whether something very specifically would be a rental or for ownership. So that’s more sort of those details are fine tuned at Site Plan Review.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:39
Okay, excellent. So that means that well, we’re generally describing the density and the idea that it’s less dense over by Rogers Grove than it is over by the industrial area. That you know, basically this is a Middle ish, dense multifamily area, which is what’s going to be built from here on out, frankly. But but we’re not dictating the marketing details at this point. Then. So, Eva is that you’re nodding I said

Unknown Speaker 1:45:19
that. I thought my mic was off. That’s correct. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:23
Okay, then I’m done. I am comfortable is is? Is it appropriate? Now I’ve lost track a little bit of track of how deep in sub motions we are as inappropriate to move the annexation. And now as amended. Yes, then I so move. Do we have a second?

Unknown Speaker 1:45:47
Oh, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:52
Thank you. I just want to chime in very quickly, that yes, that is specifically why I made the motions that I did. The sub motions, if you will, is to provide as much protection around our riparian area and open space areas as possible, knowing that it’s going to be a process before we get to the real nitty gritty details of the development. And so as long as I felt that we had the proper protections for the riparian and open space areas, that we can now let it go through the process. And so that’s why I, I do second.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:35
Is there any more discussion?

Unknown Speaker 1:46:38
I don’t see anything, but I will make my statement and that, again, I will vote for this. But I am disappointed that we couldn’t divide this per Robert’s Rules of Order to have two separate motions on this project. And I do want to to add the statement that in our last discussion on this at the last meeting, the annexation that three of us at least really wanted townhomes condominiums and for sale properties so that it wasn’t all rental. So when we do the site development plan, I I would like us to remember that. So all those in favor of this motion, please raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 1:47:24
All those opposed?

Unknown Speaker 1:47:25
That passes unanimously. Thank you, Anthony. Tony. Thank you. You’re welcome. Oh, okay. We have one more reading on the second hearing and it is be public hearing to consider action on amendment number 20 Dash oh four to the 2020 CDBG action plan. I would like to invite Molly O’Donnell or Kathy fetlar. There is no presentation here. But if you would have some remarks on this, that you would like to make.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:00
Thank you, Mayor Pac and members of council. I will be speaking on this today instead of Kathy fetlar. So this is just briefly a proposed amendment to change the eligible activity and the number of beneficiaries under our Community Development Block Grant COVID relief funding from the COVID Recovery Center Project to house temporarily housed unhoused individuals that need to isolate and change that funding $70,000 to implement to help implement the Fresh Start utility billing assistance program. So we need a public hearing in order to make that type of change. And this will help actually serve more Longmont residents. And the reason that the COVID Recovery Center funding is no longer needed is because they ended up getting funded by FEMA. So we’re moving that into the next highest neat.

Unknown Speaker 1:49:01
Okay, thank you for that explanation. Do I have any questions from councillors? Council Councillor waters? Thanks for your pick,

Tim Waters 1:49:13
Molly real quickly. On back to my notes, on page two of the not the accounts communication, the document detach document, there’s a table that shows the $70,000 being added to this. But but there’s a there’s a total of 150,000 It looks like 70 added to 70 and then there’s $150,000. And I couldn’t make sense of that table with $150,000. Was that a typo or is it Did I miss something on the table?

Unknown Speaker 1:49:49
Nope, that’s a typo. We can go ahead and make sure that we get that fixed before this gets through it

Tim Waters 1:49:55
would be 140,950

Unknown Speaker 1:49:58
Well it’s it’s still 70 total. So 70 is being moved from COVID Recovery Center into freshstart. Utility billing assistance.

Tim Waters 1:50:06
Alright, so the it so it’s a big typo.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:09
It is alright. Okay.

Tim Waters 1:50:11
Second set I, I should have called and asked, I apologize. I should have checked this with you ahead of time. But there’s a related question. And just so I’m clear, what we’re doing with this is approving, basically we’re adding we’re moving to $70,000, which would allow us to provide support for 46 additional, correct beneficiaries, right. Of the add that to the 440. So it’s now 46. of the 1500. That are in arrears and are right, yeah. All right. Very good. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:47
It catch Councillor wires? Um, so is there anybody else from council that would have questions on this? Let’s open it to public invited to be heard. Is there anybody on the phone that would like to speak on this item? hit star nine. And to raise your hand and Alice will call on

Unknown Speaker 1:51:07
you? There are no more callers in the chat. Mayor Peck.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:10
No more callers. Great. I’ll close the public hearing. I would like to ask for a motion. Does somebody want to move

Tim Waters 1:51:18
on move approval of was that is that take that screen down? Is this a resolution? The amendment? Yes. 2024 To the CB DG action plan.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:32
Second. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:36
Was that counselor Martin that second? Is that okay, thank you. That was Moved by Councillor water seconded by Councillor Martin. All those in favor? Raise your hand. Those opposed? That passes unanimously. So now we go to items removed from the consent agenda agenda and it was item be removed by Councillor Martin. Councillor Martin, do you want to take that on?

Unknown Speaker 1:52:04
Yes, thank you, Mayor. I need to make a statement and then ask some questions. Mr. van Inwagen and Mr. Dr. Bell will need to address these questions, but I’m gonna read the whole thing first, and then they have a list of the questions so that they can answer them. Okay. This is my statement, I need to disclose that I failed to recognize that the matter of the Zlatan parcel rezoning is a potential quasi judicial hearing. Because of that, when I received an email from a member of the Historic Preservation Committee on the subject, I responded to it. I did not commit to supporting his position but asked some questions of him about parts of the packet that I did not understand or did not fight filled were not definitive enough. The email exchange is in the public record, but it needs to be part of the hearing on this matter. So I am now going to ask the substantially the same questions in this hearing so that the staff may answer them and all members of council and the public will have the same information. Here are the questions. One, do all the buildings from the former Dickens establishment have to be raised before the proposed new structure can be built to what buildings are on the out lots that the developer is is proposing or was considering to dedicate to the city? Three, are the buildings presently unsafe? And if all were preserved, how much would it cost to restore them to be fit for public use or inspection? For if one or more of the buildings were left standing on city property? What would be the city’s liability if they could not be restored promptly? And five? Is there or is there not any ongoing discussion about how the historic aspects of the property would be recognized? I do not feel that the dialogue I had with the resident has prejudiced me in this matter. I will not recuse myself voluntarily from voting on it. However, I remind council that any member may introduce a motion to recuse me instead. If anyone feels that I should withdraw. Then this motion would be appropriate after Dr. Bill and Mr. Van Nijmegen have answered my five questions. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:52
Okay, well, maybe I love Thank you, Mayor pack and Councilmember Martin I’ll take a shot at it and it’s If I get stuck, David can help out. And if I could ask Dallas and or Don that we have an exhibit that shows the 711 side on the with the existing conditions.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:17
Sure thing give me just a moment with fat

Unknown Speaker 1:55:31
perfect. So your number one question is do all the buildings on the former Dickens establishment have to be raised for the proposed development. And as you can see in the exhibit, they mark three and four, which is a shed and the residents and a garage would have to go away with the development. There are buildings, one is a large bar and two, I think is a building that’s basically collapsed. So to answer number one, buildings three and four are under the new facility and would have to go away. Question two, what buildings are on the outlook that the developers proposing to dedicate to the city, the gray area called out is how lot B is the area that is proposed to be dedicated to the city. There are no structures from the dickens area. Within that I do understand from David that I think there’s an old boxcar somewhere on the site. But none of the part of the Homestead of the dickens site is within the outlot. B. Are the buildings presently unsafe? And if all were preserved, how much would it cost to restore them to be fit for public use? So the applicant has provided a structural analysis of all the different buildings. And he identifies costs for number one just to make the building safe and keep it from collapsing. But then ultimately, the cost would be if we’re going to use all these buildings for a viable commercial use, what would that cost be, and he provided a range for all the buildings within the Dekins homestead to be safe for commercial use would be somewhere in the range of three and a half to $5 million. And again, each building is a little bit different as far as how those costs break out. But to answer your question, it’s three and a half to $5 million, if we’re going to preserve that site for for a commercial use. Number four, if one or more of the buildings were left standing on the city property, I think we answered that there are no buildings proposed in the area to be dedicated to the city. And then finally, is there or is there not an ongoing discussion about how the historical aspects of the property would be recognized? And how I would answer that is, as we propose in your ultimate motion, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, is that with approval that the applicant go back to the historic preservation commission, with a proposal for a plan for preservation of the site’s history through incorporation of appropriate references, which would be included in the site? I don’t read that. I don’t think the intent was that means preserving all the buildings but basically an appropriate telling the story of what’s at the at this location. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have. No, thank

Unknown Speaker 1:59:05
you that. That answers my questions. And I move item nine be second

Unknown Speaker 1:59:20
all those in favor of the motion to move ordinance? No. Well, what is that ordinance number? Hang on, I’ll find it. ordinance 0202202. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving this late and commercial center rezoning.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:42
All those in favor. Please raise your hand. All those opposed? That passes unanimously. We are now part of the agenda. That is our general business. Under the general business, there’s going to be a presentation about the American Recovery or ARPA update and funding proposal. Harold, are you ready to give us an update on that?

Unknown Speaker 2:00:16
Mayor, I don’t know if you’re seeing a hand raised.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:20
I’m not, oh, Councillor Martin, was just going to make a suggestion, and I will defer to the city manager on this. But it’s 1130. And we, earlier in the evening, we agreed to not have the public forum next week. Um, and could we continue this meeting next Tuesday night,

Unknown Speaker 2:00:46
these two items actually have to go because they’re this one is related to the Costco that I wanted to explain. What we can do is I’ll move through this one with some pace on this one, and then Costco, Jim can do an abbreviated presentation, and then we can do a much more in depth presentation. But timewise because of the the second meeting on the 25th we really need this, these two items to go.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:11
Okay, so can I enter into your Sep this a little bit? We do have a final call public invited to be heard. As we are having this presentation, I would like to pull anyone who wants to have a comment on this COSCO. Can we do this simultaneously? So we don’t have to take a five minute break to onboard those people.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:35
We have slides. Oh, we can’t share the screen at the same time.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:40
Okay. All right. Just a suggestion. Go ahead, Harold.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:44
All right. Now, can you pull my slide up? All right, excellent. So Mayor Council, this is just an update in terms of what the American rescue plan Act was. You will we’ve gone over this. And before you go to the next slide Dallas in this case are allocated 12 point 9 million to the city. And so we so we put that in as the place marker that we had to deal with. We received the first half in June and the second half is coming in June 2022. Next slide, please. When we presented to council the first time what we really talked about in in you all saw on your council com that the amount of money that was requested was significantly higher than when we actually had available. And what we talked to council about was really doing transformational projects. And that would really impact our community. And you all laid out some main some primary categories, affordable housing, healthy childhood environments, Whole neighborhoods, household and business and individual assistance and organizational capacity and data management. If you remember, go ahead and go to the next slide, Dallas. Alright, as we’re going through this, one of the things that we talked about was also utilizing existing funding that was going into other avenues via the ARPA fund. And I’ll talk a little bit about that as we move through, where you’re primarily going to see that is in the category of household and business and individual assistance. What we know is that there’s a lot of dollars actually out there via the county and state agencies in this realm. And so it would really be a duplication of the dollars going in. So what you’re gonna see on the second bullet point is that’s really going to be tied in with our organizational and capacity and data management to really get the staff in the organization so that we could really get in and tap into those other county state resources available for the individual and business assistance component. One of the things that also came into play is that there were two funding sources outside of ARPA, that that I used in this to balance it. One was the affordable housing fund. And then the other was what we’ve allocated in the general fund for early childhood education. And that was really when we looked at the scope of the projects, what we needed to do was actually we needed more money than we had when we were looking at this. And so this really let us get a more complete list of what we needed to do. And as I said, as we’ve said a couple of times we’re working to leverage those other funds to assist in this category. One of the things that we’re going to talk about when I go through these individual categories is you are considering given us permission to move within those those those respective categories. And we will obviously be coming back to counsel as we’re doing it. We just know that certain things may not take as much money as we thought or some things may take more, and we’re going to need some flexibility there. Excellent. So in general, you can see that we’re putting in 750,000, what we already have in the general fund, and 3 million for the affordable housing, adding that to the 12.9 to come up with 16 point 5 million, you can see how that’s broken out in these categories, obviously, with 11 point 8 million going to affordable housing next time.

Unknown Speaker 2:05:40
We look at affordable housing. A lot of this is based on some projects that we’re seeing, and actually some similar issues that you’re going to see in the Costco discussion pressing some current projects that we have. So sunset heights, which is really the element project, and that’s adjacent to the suite, which is fully supportive housing. What we’ve plugged in there as if you remember the sleet, the sunset heights project actually competed for tax credits and 9% competitive tax credits, and it wasn’t awarded, we’re going back in February, the 1.3 million is actually set in for this project, where if we don’t get the 9%, we can actually come in and fund it in a way where it would act like the 9% tax credit. So we can keep that project moving forward. Obviously, if we get it then we can move that 1.3 million to some other projects. The Chrisman development project, we’ve talked to you all about this and you voted on it. This is the one I was talking about that similar to the issues we’re dealing in Costco, because of labor, because of material cost and supply chain issues all associated with the current world and projects, we’re seeing increased cost on that, and this would allow us to develop that project. We’ve also talked about the need for affordable assisted living, really associated also with the work we’re doing with the housing authority. And this is seed money based on what we’ve seen in terms of finding development partners, what we think we can bring to the table to engage in some conversations with people who are able to do this 1.3 million is really again, seed money in what we bring into these other partnerships that we’ve been building to develop the vacant housing authority property of, we call it the hoever property, but it’s just west of the lodge in Hearthstone, you know, we talked about this before is putting in, you’re gonna see some changes at 1.3 million in this, we’re gonna put 1.5 in, that’s the cost of the land for Project Mustang. That’s what’s associated with the next item. We also know that many of our affordable housing projects you’ve known we’ve taken some bulk agreements, what we want to do is actually really work on the digital divide both for properties for older adults, and our family properties, cede the money, we know this is one time cost that we can then build that into the rent structure so that we can provide internet, you can also see 1.5 million for an unhoused option. This is we’ve been talking about a lot of issues related to our parks and in our neighborhoods. And in order to really start to, to do what we’ve we’ve been talking about with council, we also know that we need the money to really have an option for the unhoused in our community. Because without that option, it really limits in some cases, what we can do, and we’re gonna bring an update on that later for counsel. And we can go in that more detail, you can see a couple of things. And this is 1.5 million for the row mobile home purchase. But then we also had 1.5 million for the first thing, main steam area, we’re going to combine this to you in order to take 3 million to purchase that property from our stormwater fund. So we can develop affordable housing. And then finally, we need to see a position in here it’ll, and we’re going to have to fund this ongoing over time. Even though we know this is one time we’re gonna have to build into it. It’s really a staff a development and finance position for affordable housing so that we actually have a staff that can can do the work that we need to do we just don’t have the number of staff we need in this arena. We’re gonna We’re also limited we have to spend this money very fast. And so that’s a need for the staff on this. I’d be happy to answer any questions on the housing we have any questions?

Unknown Speaker 2:09:45
I don’t see any hands. I

Unknown Speaker 2:09:48
can’t see all of these. So we’ll go to the next one.

Unknown Speaker 2:09:51
It doesn’t look like

Unknown Speaker 2:09:52
questions. Alright.

Unknown Speaker 2:09:58
Early childhood you can see it Oh this sounds a little bit different this slide. So, oh, this is too. So you can see that we have 225,000 for data collection 500,000. for Early Childhood Health, we’re really seeing this in terms of potentially some mental health services, and then a half a million for childcare, in this case, and then in the whole neighborhood projects, 750,000 expanding programming support and current community resilience, programming support for the whole neighborhood for Neighborhood Services Department, community Resiliency and Recovery at 750,000. And then 750,000, in neighborhood and vapid enhancement, you’re seeing the connection to the housing, and also some of the issues that we’re talking about. Because we know we also need to spend the money in our neighborhoods, so we can really create resilient and sustainable neighborhoods so that when we go through pandemics, or any other kind of disaster in the future, the neighborhoods are stronger. This really is linked to some of the work we did after the flood, where we went in and started doing CERT training with different neighborhoods, because we know the stronger our neighborhoods are, the more resilient we’re going to be as we move through through future scenarios. Are there any questions on this? Next one? So that’s all the slides I have on this, obviously, we when we provided you all with more detail, what we wanted to see is if you were with councils supported approach and the allocation that we talked about, with ARPA funds in this case, I know there were some comments earlier, many of those things we actually funded through the budget process, for example, the ombudsman position in our planning and development services, that was actually funded in the ongoing budget as we I call it an ombudsman, but it’s, I think that’s really what it has a different title. So those things are still on our on our radar in terms of what we’re doing, obviously working the processes to ensure that we can continue that we can move with pace, and we’re actually having conversations now about the need to really move with pace, because we’re limited in terms of how we can spin these funds.

Unknown Speaker 2:12:35
Hey, Harold, I apologize. There are a couple more slides I was closing when you’re asking a question. So I want to make sure that Excel is asking. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 2:12:47
The organizational capacity projects. So in this, this is really where we’re seeing where we’re tying things together based on on what we need. And again, we think we may have some. So we’re looking at an a neighborhood engagement portal, we’re estimating that at 200,000. But there’s also when you see the next line of customer relation management software, that’s really what’s going to start connecting all of these things together so we can operationalize it, we’re going to look at whether or not the customer relation management system can do the work that we need for the also the neighborhood engagement portal, or we can combine the customer relation management with some of the software systems we have. So we’ve got some more work we need to do there. The also on the Longmont caring community, that’s the middleware project that we’ve been working on with the University of Colorado, I think they sent and right now where we are is we have the contract, we’re actually going to go tab, we’re going to start testing the system, hopefully, in the spring, and that’s the system that really starts connecting all of the service agencies to each other so that when we’re interacting with an individual we know who’s who else is interacting with a particular person and where we can come together. And we think we need about another 250 to take that to fill the earth to where we can use it on an ongoing basis. And then you’re seeing about another half a million in for programming staff. So when I talked about really tapping into these other sources of funding that exist in other agencies, that’s the Individual Assistance Liaison position. As you know, with all of these federal dollars, the accounting component becomes a major issue that we have to deal with. So we need a half accountant in so that we can deal with this. And then we’re also looking at self sufficiency, self sufficiency, county funding business assistance, so really working both on the individual and the business assistance side for self sufficiency in terms of tapping into some of those other programs. Next slide. So your options today counselor direct us to continue with the projects we presented or direct staff to adjust allocations that we presented today. I’d be happy to answer any questions

Tim Waters 2:15:21
I move we direct staff to continue.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:26
Okay. That was Moved by Councillor water seconded by Councillor Martin to move it into consideration. All those in favor?

Unknown Speaker 2:15:36
Raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:38
Opposed? That carries unanimously. Thank you, Harold. Thank you. We have one last bill for an ordinance zero 20 2203. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2020. Public Hearing and second reading scheduled for January 25 2020. I made a mistake. We have this other presentation which needs to go first, which is the Costco project. So forget that ordinance. Let’s go back to Carol. Jim and Gail on the they have a presentation on the Costco project.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:24
Mayor there you can go the presentation is for the ordinance. It is okay. Yes, it is for this this appropriation is associated with the Costco project. In the second hearing is scheduled for the next meeting on the 25th. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:16:45
so are you going to have the update to the project cost tonight?

Unknown Speaker 2:16:51
We have a presentation. Jim can

Unknown Speaker 2:16:55
do you want to do that before we vote on this? ordinance? Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 2:16:58
we need to do this presentation first. Okay. All right. Back to you, Harold. Jim.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:06
There was a hand up and

Unknown Speaker 2:17:09
Mayor, Council, Councilman waters,

Tim Waters 2:17:13
well, I was gonna move or it’s 2022 Dash oh three, right. If the staff feels like they have to do a presentation, but we’ve had a fair amount of information. We all understand, you know where we are and how we got here. So if if let me make the motion. If there’s a second, they can still do the presentation. At least we can get it on the table? Well,

Unknown Speaker 2:17:36
I’m gonna interrupt you, because that’s exactly the exact question that I asked you they need to do. Before the audience. Did I understand you correctly here all that you need to do that?

Unknown Speaker 2:17:47
No, you can go, you can go ahead and make the presentation. Jim. I mean, I think you can cover a couple of slides and just once they

Unknown Speaker 2:17:56
won. I wasn’t planning on doing any slides. At this point. I could do just the exact summary. But the council does have all the information in the communication. So if they would prefer we do that in two weeks. They can move the ordinance or three. All right, go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 2:18:12
Counselor waters, you’re gonna move that ordinance.

Tim Waters 2:18:15
I’ll move it again. Thank you. For Approval of ordinance 2022. Dash oh three.

Unknown Speaker 2:18:22
I have a second. A counselor Hinako fairing is seconded. All those in favor of moving this ordinance please raise your hand. All those posts that carries unanimously so are we going to have this Costco presentation tonight or in two weeks, two weeks. Thank you. All right. We are now at the final call public invited to be heard. I personally hate to give five minutes of our time to this at this point but let’s go ahead and put up the slide Dallas for the final public invited to be heard call in

Unknown Speaker 2:19:08
just a moment there it is not coming up for me. See if this works. There we go.

Unknown Speaker 2:19:17
Okay, I would like it is now time to call in for the final public invited to be heard. The information is on displayed on the screen. Please mute the live stream and dial in now. We’ll take a five minute break to give everyone time to get dialed in. Thank you

Unknown Speaker 2:22:36
How’s it looking Dallas? We are at about the three minute mark I’m currently seeing no callers in the chat Okay?

Unknown Speaker 2:24:27
Mayor Peck, we’re approaching the five minute mark. I’m still seeing no callers in the chat.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:33
Okay, let’s shut that down then. Sounds good when I have anybody. We are now at the mayor and council comments. Do we have any more comments from councillors? Looks like we have none. How about city manager? Harold, you have any other comments or comments?

Unknown Speaker 2:24:50
Mayor Council?

Unknown Speaker 2:24:51
Thank you city attorney Eugene. Oh, comments, Mayor. Thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn? You’re

Unknown Speaker 2:25:01
so moved. Thank you

Unknown Speaker 2:25:03
second. Thank you Moved by Councillor Martin and seconded by Councillor waters. Thank you very much. There will be no meeting next week. So, enjoy the time off.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:18
Good night.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai