Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – July 25, 2023
Read along below:
Unknown Speaker 0:00
Oh
Speaker 1 5:48
Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the July 25 2023, regular session of city council. Mayor Peck is out, testifying in front of RTD in our best interest, so I’ll be starting the meeting and maybe running it to its conclusion. So thank you all for attending. My name is Mayor Pro Tem Aaron Rodriguez. All right, I would now like to call the July 25 2023 Longmont City Council regular session to order the livestream of this meeting can be viewed at the city’s YouTube channel, or Longmont, public media.org backslash watch, or on Comcast channels eight or eight ad. Can I get a roll call please?
Speaker 2 6:28
Absolutely. Mayor Peck, as you noted, is absent. Councilmember Duggal Ferring. Here, Councilmember Martin Here. Councilmember McCoy, present. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, Councilmember waters, Councilmember Yarborough here. Mayor Pro Tem you have a quorum.
Speaker 1 6:45
We will now stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Speaker 1 7:08
All right. Just as a reminder, the public Anyone wishing to speak at first called public invited to be heard will need to add his or her name to the list outside the council chambers. We have closed that as the meeting has started. Only those on the list will be invited to speak at the first public invited to be heard speakers who do not place their names on the list will have the opportunity to speak during final call pocket public invited to be heard at the end of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak on second reading or public hearing items are asked to add their name to the speaker list for each particular item. We do have a list for that as well, which I’ve received. Each speaker is limited to three minutes, please give your name and address. Moving on to the next item in the agenda is the approval of minutes. But as the minutes were not added in time to the packet, we will be delaying that to the next meeting. Now we are on to Agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items for future agendas. Do I hear any agenda revisions for staff?
Unknown Speaker 8:12
I don’t have any agenda revisions, other than the minutes
Speaker 1 8:15
then the minutes. Alright. Thank you. Any motions from Council? All right, seeing none, we will move on to the city manager’s report.
Speaker 3 8:25
Mayor accounts. I do have a report tonight if you remember when we allocated the funds for our projects, specifically, the dollars associated with housing. We indicated and this was a couple of years ago, I believe. We indicated if there were changes that we were going to need that I would bring that back to you all in this report. One of the things that we’re seeing is if you remember we allocated 1.6 million to set aside for an affordable assisted living component. And I think when we started this, we obviously didn’t understand the complexity of that project and how it relates to Medicare and other issues. At the same time. You all know that we’ve been looking at working on a for sell, affordable and attainable housing project. And as we’re working through that, that project actually is more it’s ripe. And so we are looking to wanted to talk to you all about moving that 1.6 million into that affordable, attainable homeownership project because the gaps also becoming greater because of horizontal construction costs. And that would allow us to fully capture the land associated with that project. And then also create 200,000 that we could put back into the recovery Cafe project that we’re talking about that’s associated with the sweets and Zinnia in that location. So wanting to know if Council is okay with that. If it is we’ll bring a formal item. But we didn’t want to necessarily start down that road without getting a touch point with you all. Thank you, Harold.
Speaker 1 10:10
Is there any specific comments on this? No. I assume just general direction would be fine. Not a not a formal motion. Yeah,
Speaker 3 10:20
general direction, because obviously there’s formal actions that occur with that. But sure, I just didn’t want to outrun counsel on this issue, because it was something that we talked about, it doesn’t mean that we’re not going to work on the attainable, or affordable assisted living. It’s just the horizons longer. And now we’re starting to be careful with reCAPTCHA based on time requirements that are associated with the ARPA dollars.
Unknown Speaker 10:44
All right, thank you, Councilmember Martin,
Speaker 4 10:47
I was about to say that very thing that I think we should put the money where it will yield the most housing units the soonest. And we don’t have to abandon the other project, we just have to go ahead with the one we’ve got in hand.
Speaker 3 10:59
And if I can add, one of the things that we have seen is through federal budget adjustments, there have been a lot of conversation about utilizing unspent ARPA funds and balancing budgets and other things. And so that’s something that we’re really in tune with. And this is a good opportunity that can really help us move the other project forward.
Unknown Speaker 11:23
All right, very good. Can we just go with a simple thumbs up, thumbs down. Thank you.
Speaker 1 11:28
Thank you. Next up, we don’t have any special reports and presentations this evening. So we’ll move on to first call public invited to be heard. Please remember to provide your address and you have three minutes. First up tonight is Kim Zimmer.
Speaker 5 12:14
Hi there, I’m Kim Zimmer, I live in Longmont and you have my address there. I’m just here to talk about the bill the HR 3557, the American broadband act of 2023, which you probably already know about. But the United States gov Conference of Mayors is opposing this hr 3557 bill, and I just wanted to read their resolution. So whereas hr 3557 American broadband act of 2023, was introduced with little notice and without full text on May 22 23, and was approved by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in order to be reported following markup only two days later on May 24. The bill’s introduction only a single hearing was held on the eventual content on April 19. Before the House Communications Subcommittee the testimony before which consisted exclusively of that from witnesses supported, supportive of federal preemption into which not a single state or local government representative was invited to testify. The bill would preempt local governments rights of way compensation and management authority, zoning powers capable franchising authority and property rights. The bill would be still upon broadband providers and unprecedented federal grant of access to state and local public property, but impose no obligations on those providers to serve unserved and underserved Americans. It would mandate that sitting decisions be deemed granted, if not denied by local government within 60 days, which is as little as 25% is the time that the federal government gives itself. It would make virtually any government decision not to allow the installation of a proposed wireless facility at a provider’s request a prohibition preempted by federal law and would require local governments to draft and publicly released a written explanation for the decision to deny an application on the same day its votes, it votes on the decision, which is basically impossible. The bill would substitute the FCC for the local federal district court as the reviewing body for challenges to local government decisions regarding wireless facility applications, thus breaking the promise made by Congress in 1996 that local governments would not be required to travel to Washington to defend local decisions. It would also eliminate cable franchise renewals, thereby restricting the ability of state and local franchising authorities to enforce franchise obligations, such as public education and government channel capacities and facilities government service requirements and system build out requirements. It would affirmatively grant cable operators the right to use local rights of way to provide non cable services while prohibiting localities from imposing any fees on non cable services for use of those rights of way. And so they’re now for be it resolved that the United States Conference of May ours opposes hr 3557 and urges the House and Senate not to pass this legislation. So we ask you, Counsel for your support on the opposition resolution to support that. Thank you.
Speaker 1 15:15
Thank you very much. Next, we have Lauren rombach.
Speaker 6 15:28
My name is Lauren rombach. I live at 11687 West Coleman drive. So I am here to ask for an ordinance to ban the sale of puppies and kittens and pet stores in Longmont. The public unknowingly funds puppy mills through their purchases. According to bailing out Benji the definition of a puppy mill is a dog breeding operation, in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits. And according Merriam Webster dictionary, the term puppy mill was first used in 1973, and is a commercial farming operation in which purebred dogs are raised in large numbers. And we have pictures from an aerial photographer over there so you can see what those large scale operations look like. And he also has a map of Colorado there are at least 45 Puppy mills within the state of Colorado. And that information was also collected by bailing out Benji in 2022, nearly 5000 puppies were imported into local pet stores in Colorado. shelters and rescues are in crisis right now and have had to stop intake. There are at least a million dogs euthanized in the United States each year due to lack of space while puppy mills are turning out 1000s and 1000s of puppies. Imagine if your life came down to a lack of space. The 2021 pet store Consumer Protection Act was passed and it requires puppy selling stores in Colorado to be more transparent with their customers by posting information about the breeders they use both in store and online. Unfortunately, we know that several stores are not following the spirit of the law and are finding ways to get around disclosing who they buy from. The current law does not prohibit ordinances from being passed 12 towns in Colorado have already passed them. And sourcing information for pet stores in Colorado can be obtained at bailing out benji.com They have the largest database in the country and you can go to any state in the United States and find all that information. I have provided an example to everyone on the council. That’s from perfect pets in Centennial they sourced primarily from nebraskaland pets and Atkinson, Nebraska, their large scale broker with an average of 300 dogs on site, and they also have their pet stores source from them. There are a multitude of pet store pet supply stores with two main business models. For example, wagon wash is one of those and I happen to be in the store and ask them what they make on a daily basis and they said four to $6,000 per day, and that’s only through grooming and pet supplies. So pet supply stores grooming those kinds of things are very profitable. stores don’t have to sell live animals. an ordinance to ban the sale of puppies and kittens and pet stores in Longmont would only affect brick and mortar stores from opening and help to shrink the puppy mill industry. People can still buy their pets from reputable breeders and reputable breeders don’t sell their dogs to pet stores and third parties because they want to know what happens to their dog. They want to make sure it’s in a good place. So I think my time is done. Thank you very much.
Unknown Speaker 18:39
Thank you. Next we have Thomas McBride.
Unknown Speaker 18:49
Thomas McBride. Okay, very good. Thank
Speaker 7 18:51
you. Thomas McBride 4875 South Balsam away. Lauren has covered most of what I want to talk about. But I do want you to know, if the clerk has not handed him out. I left a packet of information for each of you. And in that packet are one article that talks about 7887 complaints against pet stores that have self sold puppy mill puppies. 90 up to 90% of the puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills. Also, as she said there’s 450 communities in the United States. There’s also seven states, the bar, the sale of puppies from pets through pet stores. Also, one of the articles talks about the financing that they use. Many states allow up to 188% interest if you finance your Dog through a pet store. And when lady bought a dog for $3,000 The dog did not survive a year. She now owes $7,000 for a dog that has passed away. And the last thing is just an information sheet on our organization bailing out Benji talks about our goals. And what we would like to do is see a more humane way for people to get their puppies and, and dogs in Denver, there, there are many shelters, rescues that have max out, they cannot take any more dogs. And we euthanize a million dogs a year in the United States. And now these puppy mills are pumping out 10s of 1000s of dogs every year. And we don’t need them. They’re sick, they spread disease. They have genetic issues. They’ve never been socialized. They can be take up to a year to socialize them into a family. So thank you, and I hope you will consider a ban on selling puppies in pet stores here in Longmont. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 21:22
Thank you Darrell Kelly.
Speaker 8 21:44
Good evening City Council. My name is Joe Kelly and I live on Barbary drive. Um, first thing I want to say is I continue to support a moratorium on the smart meters plus an opt in program instead of an opt out with the choice to keep our trusted analog meters at no charge, especially to people like me with sensitivities to EMF, and people with multiple chemical sensitivities who may all be triggered by wireless smart meters. Tonight, I’d like to ask my city council to help stop the proposed takeover by big government of local control by calling or contact contacting all local, state and federal officials you’re connected with to lobby against this very bad bill. HR 3557, the American broadband act of 2023. I’d like to read to you part of a recent blog post from Katie singer, author of an electronic Silent Spring with a site of the same name. Her post is titled first comes love then comes unintended consequences. Why we need due diligence. I’m going to skip to the bottom after Katie’s described several publicly acknowledged incidences of unintended consequences, including the tearing down of 5000 houses in Colorado and Utah in the 1950s because the building materials contained repurposed uranium tailings. I quote from Katie, when a child gets a smartphone or a laptop, they also get instagram snapchat and or Tik Tok. They’re daily exposed to sexualized photos and suicide and eating disorder related content. How do today’s parents refuse to allow tweens and teens smartphone access with tax breaks supporting more electric vehicles charging them overheats the nearby transformer and can shorten its life from 30 to 40 years to three. Our grids Transformers were designed to cool down at night not to charge multiple EVs. An la friend recently told me that the transformer 50 feet from his house exploded on a Saturday morning, typically a time of low demand for electricity. But what happens if multiple Evie owners charge on Friday night. And to the crux of this matter? Congress is now fast tracking the American broadband deployment act of 2023. If it passes hr 3557 will allow unrestricted proliferation of cell towers and small cells near homes, schools and playgrounds. Telecom facilities will be exempt from local and state regulations. The National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. preventing unintended consequences is much easier than remedying them and quote please City Council do whatever you need to do today to stop this very bad bill from becoming law. I have a draft municipal resolution opposing it that I’m going to leave for you there is a proposed
Unknown Speaker 24:56
Alright, thank you very much. Kimberly Edmondson.
Speaker 9 25:13
Hello, I’m Kimberly Edmondson on bittersweet lane here in Longmont. I still oppose your meter plan. But you’ve made it quite clear through some of your public steps here recently in the local newspapers that we are going full speed ahead with this plan. That being said, I hope that you do consider people like myself and DOE who are already sensitive to radiation and come up with the solution for us speak live in this community without having our health impacted more drastically than it already is. Why can’t you leave our current meters alone? Why would we have to be punished and penalized if we don’t go along with it. And I noticed in some of your stuff here in the newspaper that about health impacts, there’s not you’re still going along with it safe despite us trying to share many articles and stories and from experts in the field about potential harm. recently about 1000 Plus experts on EMF got together and petition who to change the classification of EMF radiation or RF radiation from a class to be possible cardio carcinogen to a class to a definite carcinogen. And I also noted that in this article here, I think it was from the Longmont leader about this update you recommended people go to the Smart Energy Commission collaborative. I went to their website, I looked up some of their stuff about the who and human frequencies and they talked about some really bogus stuff here. I like to read that RF emitted by meters as well below the limits set by the Federal Communication Commission’s FCC. Well, here’s the thing with FCC, the rest of the nations in the world are down here somewhere. And the FCC standards for what safe is way up here 10 to 100 times above what the rest of the world says is safe. So take that for what you will. It says here, it’s below levels produced by other household devices like cell phones, baby monitors, etc. In fact, you would have to be exposed to the RF meter for 375 years to get the dose of coming to that one year of 15 minutes per day cell phone use. Well, if that’s the case, why are we still using cell phones? Why aren’t we banning those if it’s so bad? I mean, really, it makes no sense. And then they call it neglect the fact that children are way more susceptible to the effects of this radiation. Their bodies absorb way more due to the lack of mass and bone density. They don’t have the fat to absorb it most kids, it just goes right into him. Again, I think what the city needs to do is when people go to opt out, or when you send a notification or meter is going to be changed need to put on there. There could be potential health effects. If you experience insomnia, headaches, and abnormal heart rhythms like I’ve had from EMFs, the Wi Fi router. Please notify the city immediately so we can swap out your meter. Act like you care about your citizens for Pete’s sake. Because I feel like we’ve been here for three years squawking at you like Hey, hold on, this stuff is questionably not safe. There needs to be more science. There was the FCC case you’ve been all made well aware of about how the science hasn’t been done yet. So please consider possible solutions for people like myself.
Unknown Speaker 28:23
All right. Thank you, Jessica. No.
Speaker 10 28:35
Hi, my name is Jessica NAB. I’m at West 62nd. Court. I’m here to ask you to please consider a preventative pest or ordinance. As you’ve heard 12 municipalities in Colorado have already done so. And the majority of these are preventative and that’s because it’s not affecting a business and we don’t want long one to ever be associated with puppy mills. And the reasons for enacting an ordinance to prohibit the retail sale of dogs and cats include stores are preying on customers emotions to get the highest sales price possible. And then they push in store financing with extraordinarily high interest rates. Stores are selling sick animals burdening customers with vet bills on top of their purchase price stores have been known to sell a mixed breed purebred price. And the most pressing issue is that stores are sourcing from puppy mills. And it’s not saying that these puppy mills are in your backyard or in anyone’s backyard. They’re primarily coming from out of state and then they’re being shipped in to Colorado and I can send you documentation on that. And so the state does not cover this issue. They do have something called PAC FDA and what pack for does is they have information that needs to be on cage cards of existing pet stores. And so they go in and they make sure that the information is on those cage cards, but is up to your animal control to go in and monitor these pet stores. There’s no need to have Animal Control have anything else on their plates. And there’s also no need for shelters to have to compete with that sort of selling puppies. Pet Store ordinance would only prohibit the retail sale of dogs and cats it does not encourage on pet supply stores. nor would it prevent collaboration with local shelters for adoption events. It would also not affect responsible breeders as they do not sell to pet stores they sell to the public and they care about their animals and passing on accurate information. This is not affect reptiles or any kind of livestock or anything like that either. Our concern is that a store selling dogs and cats will open here and create problems for the city and surrounding city. The sale of puppies and kittens brings controversial attention at best, resulting in all of these pre emptive bans in cities that don’t have pet stores yet. We just want to keep them out. pet supply stores do not sell dogs and cats and they remain lucrative businesses that do not draw negative attention and controversy such as protests that sometimes happen as frequently as twice a week. And we just want to ensure that Longmont does not become involved in supporting the puppy mill industry by allowing a pet store to sell dogs and cats to open here and I can send you sample ordinances or documentation or anything like that. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 31:19
Thank you very much. Kara Thorson.
Speaker 11 31:32
Hello, my name is Kara Thorson. I’m at 2703 Brush Creek drive. I’m here to ask for an ordinance to be passed to prevent pet stores from selling cats and dogs. They these pet stores primarily get their cats and dogs from puppy mills Kent Mills, which means for the breeding adult animals which they have hundreds of they were talking about very large scale commercial breeders. For those animals who spend their life in a cage, they never get their paws to touch the ground. They live a life of neglect and suffering while they’re forced to produce litter after litter. So I asked you to please pass a ban on the sale of cats and dogs. Thank you. Thank you,
Unknown Speaker 32:30
Jeremy Martino’s.
Speaker 12 32:43
Thank you for having me. Esteemed leaders of our city. Today I stand before you to address real quick and say your name and I’m sorry. I’m Jeremy Martinez and I live at 919 Cane drive here along so stand before you to address some pressing concerns several concerns that have kind of gripped our computing community is our shared responsibility to confront these challenges head on and pave the way for a brighter, more equitable future for all our citizens. Firstly, we must acknowledge the looming shadow of large companies monopolizing apartment complexes in our city. This monopolization not only restricts housing options, but also drives up rental prices, leaving countless families struggling to secure affordable homes. Reports from reputable sources such as Bloomberg and Forbes have shed light on this troubling trend, urging us to take action immediately. In tandem with this concern, we must address the adverse effects of wealthy homeowners purchasing inexpensive properties and land. Their actions have led to inflated property taxes, making homeownership for myself and others an elusive dream for many hardworking families. The wealth gap widens everyday and social inequality deepens as a result, the Wall Street Journal and the National Association of REALTORS have highlighted this trend calling for an intervention to ensure fairness in our housing market. Furthermore, the rental crisis and the lack of adequate compensation for American workers have become a stark reality for millions of Americans. It’s basically turned into a dystopian society practically. The Pew Research Center and Bureau of Labor Statistics have documented the struggle of hardworking individuals who despite their toil, their hard work, their sweat and blood, into their their work, are burdened with exorbitant rental costs that consume a substantial portion of their income. This financial burden hampers their ability to prosper and achieve a better quality of life for themselves and their families. Moreover, we can’t ignore the alarming disparity in how the justice system has been corrupted by how fines and penalties have different economic strata, while the wealthy perceive these consequences and as mere inconveniences, the poor and working class suffer from disproportionately from their way of the fines they receive from speeding tickets, parking tickets, anything like that. A wealthy millionaire or someone with with a high amount of wealth can pack a park in a handicapped spot, just $100 mere inconvenience to them. While the wealthy perceive these consequences, I’m sorry. To overcome these challenges, I am being constructive. I do have a couple of solutions here. So a rent to own solution for apartments and condos, we can break the chains of monopolization by legislating that large companies offer rent to own options for their apartment units, by empowering tenants to gradually build equity in their homes with create a path to homeownership, and promote a sense of community and stability for for the long term.
Speaker 1 36:01
Thank you. And you might consider also sending your comments to us since you didn’t quite get through them. Thank you, Clark Allen.
Speaker 13 36:18
Clark gallon of the greens. The reason I wear a mask tonight is a bit of a demonstration about the poor air quality that we have in the Front Range. I could not ride my bicycle here tonight, because I cannot take the air quality that’s out there. But what I really want to do is bring your focus back to all of the things that seem to be left undone in Longmont. And that we don’t seem to focus on we seem to spend a lot of time talking about affordable housing, but not these unfinished projects. And let’s talk about one really simple one, the bicycle trail over by left hand Canyon has been unfinished since 2013. And I know you always have excuses of why they don’t done the noise and lead pollution that exists in this in this town. Specifically the noise we have no quiet zones, yet, we have good excuses of why we don’t have them. And the lead pollution produced by the airport is the simple fact is is the airport industry is the largest pollute contributor to lead pollution in the United States. Now, we could solve that problem by simply not selling leaded fuel gas. Now that means some of these planes could not take off anymore, but we could sure solve that problem. The next thing is we don’t have any light rail. Why we have lots of excuses of why not we spent 10s of millions of dollars towards this. And we hear lots of talk from politicians about the fact that we are going to move forward and get this solved. And every time I turn around and vote for one of you for this reason, it never gets done. The next thing is What about the money we got from the Broncos seems like we’re still sitting on that and haven’t done anything with that watched a lot of programs about what we could do what we might do, and it went by the wayside. And now we find out that we have no money for the seniors. Now granted, I’m a senior I don’t use that facility, but there are a lot of people that I personally know do and are part of it. Now one of my favorite movies is Rudy, and I love the priests statement which says after 35 years of being studying in the priesthood, he came across two hard undisputable facts. Number one is that he is there is a God and it’s not him. I actually think he got it wrong. There’s a third one. Doesn’t matter how many facts you present to a politician. They will never change their mind. Doesn’t matter how good your facts are. And it also anything that’s on done. There’s always an excuse on why it can’t be done. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1 39:00
Thank you. As that was the last name on the list, I will now close the first call public invited to be heard. Let the record show that Mayor Peck has now joined us in council chambers. And I will as such turn over the meeting tour to start on Item nine the consent agenda.
Speaker 14 39:29
Thank you Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez for handling this meeting starting as I was at the RTD board meeting, testifying to get our LX one bus pack as well as our LD buses, because we definitely need them in long run. I was it was received quite well actually. So I was pleased at that. So we are at the consent agenda. Can you don Would you mind reading the consent agenda into the record?
Speaker 2 39:55
Absolutely. Mayor Beck. The ordinances on first reading tonight will be on second reading and public hearing on August 8 2023. Item nine A is ordinance 2023 Dash 31 a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2023. Nine B is ordinance 2023 Dash 32. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of one irrigation ditch easement to waterline easements and two utility easements. generally located on two parcels south of east Rogers road east of Martin Street and north of east Second Avenue. Nine C is ordinance 2023 Dash 33. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a portion of public right of way known as second East Second Avenue generally located at the eastern terminus of East Second Avenue, south of east Rogers road and east of Martin Street. 90 is ordinance 2023 Dash 34. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a portion of public right of way known as East Rogers Road, generally located east of Martin Street West of Lashley Street and north of east Second Avenue. 90 is resolution 2023 Dash 59. A resolution of the Lamont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Colorado Department of Transportation for grant funding for high visibility impaired driving enforcement. Nine F is approved amendments to City Council’s rules, rules of procedure and nine G is approved five capital improvement program amendments.
Speaker 14 41:25
Thank you Don. See, Councillor waters.
Tim Waters 41:29
Thanks my back. I’d like to pull item F and nine f off the consent agenda.
Speaker 14 41:34
Or would you mind making a motion to approve?
Tim Waters 41:42
I’ll move the consent agenda minus or with item F withdrawn for consideration layer. Thank you. Second.
Speaker 14 41:51
All right. That’s been Moved by Councillor waters seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing Let’s vote.
Speaker 2 42:04
And Mayor councilmember McCoy’s remote I’m not seeing his vote at all. He
Speaker 14 42:08
has a thumbs up a thumbs up. I can’t see. Is that a yes. I’m in support. Thank you. Thank you. So that passes unanimously. Thank you. We are now at turn is over. We’re actually we’re on ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any manner tonight. I’m a little amazed because this was short agenda and I expected a presentation in the middle of it, but we do not have one. So 10 A is ordinance 2023 Dash 28. It’s a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2023. Do we have any questions from councillors? Seeing none, I will open up the public meeting on this ordinance. Is there anybody in the public that would like to speak on ordinance 2023 28. Seeing no one I’ll close the public hearing and ask for a motion to pass an adopt 2023 28
Unknown Speaker 43:10
So moved.
Speaker 14 43:13
It’s been moved by Councillor waters seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Let’s vote
Speaker 14 43:25
is that a thumbs up from you? Councillor McCoy. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 43:29
I do have a vote from councilmember McQuaid not seeing councilmember Martin’s crashing. If you’d like to verbalize There we go. Thank you.
Speaker 14 43:42
That passes unanimously. 10 B is zero 2023 Dash 29 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the 150 Francis street annexation, generally located in the southeast quarter of section four township to North range 69 west of the 6pm and zoning the property are in in residential mixed neighborhood. We looks like we do have a presentation. Are there any questions from councillors on this? First of all? No. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 16 44:14
Mayor pack I do have a presentation great. It’s kind of hidden behind Zoom meeting so
Unknown Speaker 44:21
help me because you know I need it
Unknown Speaker 44:34
not
Unknown Speaker 44:40
where is it? It’s one that says it’s up here.
Unknown Speaker 44:56
Thank you
Speaker 16 45:17
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor pack members of the city council Don Bucha with Planning and Development Services. I’m here tonight to talk to you about a proposed annexation of the 150 Francis Street property. The city council has already considered the first and second resolutions finding the statutory compliance and finding that the property could be annexed. Tonight you are going to consider the annexation ordinance along with adoption of the concept plan and the annexation agreement. So I’m here tonight to give you a quick overview of the annexation, get you up to speed on some of the concerns from the neighbors. And then the applicant has their consultant here tonight with a brief presentation as well. And then if and then the council can have the public hearing on the item. So I will begin. The proposal itself is an annexation of 2.26 acres of and consists of the property that’s known as 150 Francis Street, the area that’s going to be annexed which I will show you a map here in a second contains one acre for the actual property where two existing homes are located, as well as 1.26 acres of right of way which includes a portion of Spruce Avenue, and then the Francis street right of way. No development is currently proposed on this property at this time. Again, there are two homes that exist on the property. The applicant is asking that the property be annexed with the RMS zoning district which would be residential mixed neighborhood, which is our medium density land use. The way that the concept plan and the annexation agreement are written is that if anybody were to try to do any development on that property other than the two existing single family homes, they would have to come back to the city council and asked to amend the concept plan. So there would be a public hearing and notice to the neighbors. And then the council at that time would decide whether or not to approve any changes to the use of that property from the existing two single family homes. Up on the screen right now you have a vicinity map on the left and then a blown up copy of the annexation map itself on the right hand side. The property is located in the bond Farm Neighborhood over on the historic west side of town with south of Spruce again It includes a portion of Spruce Avenue right of way that is currently in Boulder County. It includes all of the Francis street annexation, or the Frances street right of way. And those rights of way on the right map on the right are shown in red. There is also a little bit of a an old street that was identified back in the late 1800s On the south side of the property down as we get down here along the bottom of the blue here. The blue outline shows the one acre that contains two lots that are in Boulder County that have the two homes on them.
Speaker 16 48:25
Jumped out, again current conditions to existing single family homes one built in 1930. The other built in 1971. Both of the existing homes are on septic systems as well as the other areas that are developed along that street along Francis. There’s several small sheds fences and other outbuildings accessory buildings on the property. Some of those are located in the existing right of way. And as I will talk about at the end of my presentation, there are requirements within the annexation agreement that those buildings and those improvements will be removed at the city’s request when we when we asked for that to be done. So that’s a condition within the annexation agreement. Again, the the map is the annexation map that you saw before a little bit larger view of the entire area. The DRC review, this is the design development review committee with the city made up of the various city departments that check this for conformance to the state statutes as well as to our annexation review criteria and the general review criteria of land development code. We found that those all were met. And that was explained previously when we looked at the resolutions for compliance with state statute. The annexation also included some environmental analysis as well as we looked at utility drainage and emergency services provisions for this through the DRC review. The annexation review process. The first thing that I want to Uh, again remind the council is that annexation is discretionary. There is nothing that requires the city council to annex this property. This is completely the choice of the council, whether it meets the review criteria, whether it’s eligible for annexation or not. It’s totally up to the city council and your discretion. Back in February of 2021, you heard a referral for this annexation and told the city staff that we could process this through our DRC process. So we held a neighborhood meeting in June of 2021. To kick that process off, we had our formal annexation application was submitted in October of 21. We began the DRC review process and as we started to near the public hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission, we re noticed the neighborhood, since it had been almost two years since we had told the people of the application so we wanted to give them a heads up plenty of time to be able to know about it. And then we also noticed again for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing in February, and we are here tonight with City Council for the public hearing to decide whether or not to annex this property. We have received some neighborhood concerns at your Dyess tonight I included five copies of information that was submitted, three came in late this afternoon. One came in closer to around noon this afternoon, and then another one after the packet had been issued. All of them speak about various things that they have concerns with. I’ve tried to summarize those as well as some of the others that we have heard through this process on the screen. One of the questions is the need for this annexation. One of the reasons that the applicant noted that they would like to be annexed as they would like to tie into the sewer when it becomes available with the development of the pond farm. This property is adjacent to the bond farm development, the bond farm development is to the east of this property and adjacent to it, they will be bringing in sewer to that property when it develops, they would like to have access to it. The neighbors have pointed out in incorrectly is that there is not necessarily a requirement to annex to get a sewer tap from the city we do allow outside sewer tap agreements, those also have to be approved by the city council. But that is an option which the neighbors have pointed out. The neighbors are also concerned about if redevelopment occurs, the traffic impacts to the neighborhood to spruce, as that’s the only way out is to come up Frances to Spruce Street. And then another item is the question of is this development is this property related to the bond farm annexation. None of the information that we have seen relates to the bond farm other than they are adjacent to each other and they hope to benefit from the extension of the source up from First Avenue up to the north to the bond farm. The current Frances Street is a dirt road. They’ve raised questions about concerns for the cost to the city to maintain that, as well as some of the concerns with emergency services and provisions of services on their road. The final item that was raised is been some of the questions about code violations on the property and whether those would be cleaned up and whether or not that would be something for the city that we would inherit. I currently do not know of any violations other than the non conforming structures that we noted earlier that are built in the right of way that we have addressed in the annexation agreement to have those removed at the city’s request. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this in February of this year, they voted six to one to recommend approval of the annexation to the city council. And tonight the city council needs to hold a public hearing on this annexation and consider ordinance o 2023 Dash 29 the annexation, which would include the concept plan approval, and then the annexation agreement. I’ve also pointed out five of the items that are spelled out specifically to address some of the concerns that the DRC identified. The first again is the removal of any non conforming structures from the property at the city’s discretion of when that happens. The second is that the non conforming property cannot be conveyed prior to development. So it could not be sold in pieces to somebody, they would have to go through a process through the development process which would subject them to our regulations. Third is that the owner must maintain the septic system until the sewer is available and when they do connect they need to remove that per the Boulder County requirements for removing that septic system up private waste management will continue on the property as that’s a deal. that road and there is currently no turnaround at the bottom of that street. The DRC has identified that private waste management should continue to that as it currently is. And then finally, the property is subject to the city’s affordable housing regulations. So any future development that would occur on that would be subject to the regulations in effect at that time. That is the end of my presentation. I’m happy to answer any questions that you have now. And again, the applicant does have their consultant here, who does have a brief presentation for you?
Unknown Speaker 55:34
Councillor Hidalgo? fairing?
Speaker 17 55:37
Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, this one was a tough one for me. Because the location, you know, I’m generally in support of annexes annexations sorry. However, considering the area and just the fragile nature of that particular area, the narrowed streets, the infrastructure in that place, you know, I’ve been, you know, kind of mulling mulling it around for quite some time. And then, you know, just kind of analyzing the emails, we’ve gotten the calls, you know, expression of concern, you know, so if I heard you correctly, the owner would be able to tap into a would be able to tap into the sewer line without an annexation.
Unknown Speaker 56:24
Councilmember Hotaka, Ferien? That is correct. Okay.
Speaker 17 56:27
And then the other piece in our council communication, when that we were looking at the natural resource assessment, and the environmental assessment assessment, it looked like one It wasn’t done was not conducted on the property. You know, so looking at the environmental impacts, so that one Khadem II kind of concern it was on on my page five of the council communication at the very bottom. So even though it said it would not adversely affect surrounding properties, there wasn’t an environmental assessment done on the property. And then the natural resource assessment would only be done if future development would occur. So
Speaker 16 57:26
Council Council, council members without referring. So there’s, there’s two, two items here. So the first is that we’re required to do an environmental assessment, which is looking for contamination in the property, the phase one, and that’s at the bottom of that page. So the environmental assessment that’s required was completed. But you’re correct, the natural resource assessment from the standpoint of, are there any endangered species or, or what’s going to happen are the trees needing to be saved at this time, since there’s no proposal for development, we have pushed that off until development would occur. And the reason that we typically do that is that when there is no development proposal currently proposed, those reports are going to have to be updated after about six months anyway, with a development application. So while we could have asked for one, based on its location, and just knowing the results of the bond farm, which again, just about touches this property, other than the alley right away that’s between there’s nothing been identified by staff in that area for us to to look at so and then you would have to look at it again. And then we’d have to redo it again. So so you’re standing in a manner of we did not identify a reason to require that at this time, knowing that we could get it again at time of proposed development, and then we would evaluate it on those current circumstances. Okay,
Speaker 17 58:54
thank you. And I didn’t miss misspeak on the I knew that was one of your guys. I just throw them all out there. You’re good.
Unknown Speaker 59:02
Counselor waters.
Tim Waters 59:04
Thanks, Don. Are there health and safety concerns? With what with the current status of a dirt road and occupants in homes along that dirt road? If there’s a fire, who would respond with our fire department respond?
Speaker 16 59:22
Councilmember waters if you want to herald so. Well, how about I do this? I’ll start and we’ll tag if we need we have Assistant Chief Goldman. Chief gold here. Yeah. And so she’ll throw something at me if I mess up. But the city has a mutual aid agreement with Mountain View fire. So currently, while it’s in Boulder County, if Mountain View fire could not get there, the city of Longmont would respond to that in its current situation, whether it’s in the city or knocked
Tim Waters 59:56
in. I’m sorry,
Speaker 16 59:59
and So whether the property if the property were annexed, it would become, obviously ours to always respond to first because we would, it would be within our city limits, we would still have the same concerns or issues that we do today with all of the homes that are along Francis street with that not been.
Tim Waters 1:00:20
So it would we prefer what our public safety department, both police and fire prefer that we have dirt streets that are narrow, they can be accessed by safety, vehicles and personnel. whose interest is that in?
Speaker 16 1:00:36
Councilman waters, I’ll let the Assistant Chief answer that one. I’m not gonna speak for her on on that
Tim Waters 1:00:41
it’s a wise response. I wouldn’t either.
Speaker 18 1:00:56
Mayor, Peck Council Assistant Chief Michelle Goldman, I function as the fire marshal for the city. I can’t speak for police on their preference. We have not had that discussion yet. But the dirt road situation would not meet current code in our city as part of an annexation, it would be it would be okay, because it said as is situation. But if development were to occur, that is the time we would evaluate and remedy the street situation. It doesn’t put us at the best advantage to fight a fire or to you know, afford a medical call. But that is the existing situation. And as Don mentioned, we do have an auto aid agreement already with Mountain View fire in place. So the closest unit would go Yeah, which would be ours, which would be ours wouldn’t be right. It would be us in whether
Tim Waters 1:01:45
or not this is annexed? Is it? Is health and safety a concern for you to send firefighters down that road? Under the current conditions?
Speaker 18 1:01:57
I would probably say yes, it’s It’s definitely like said doesn’t put us at a position of good advantage to work from. And I know there’s area down there to work with to give us some better advantage. There are some easements that we could possibly use as a turn around or as a hammer head down there. So we will be looking at some of those if it were to annex or even probably have those discussions with Mountain View first because it’s your it’s right now it’s theirs to tell us what we have to work with. Thank you. Thank you.
Tim Waters 1:02:25
So before I give up the floor, I guess back to Don if we choose not to and if we choose not to act on this, on the recommendation from planning and zoning, we leave a situation in that part of town that sounds to me like is a health and safety concern. And the only way for the city of Longmont to address that is through the annexation. Is that correct? It say otherwise, it’s County. It’s county property. And that’s up to the county.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:56
Councilman waters. I think you’re correct.
Tim Waters 1:02:59
That’s all I just all I needed. Thanks.
Speaker 14 1:03:06
So I do have a couple of Oh, Shawn, Councilman McCoy, you’re on?
Speaker 19 1:03:13
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I just had similar questions of that Councilmember Hidalgo fairing had, and what were brought that and what was brought to us from some of the neighbors in regards to that, but you answered most of them. The issue is just reiterating that we could go ahead and provide them a sewer tap and anything else like that without annexation? Now, right now, the status quo in regards to health and safety has been this way for decades. Right. In regards to that, there’s there’s been no change in that. We’re, we always had it had a dirt road there. And it’s and that and that was something that we were going to address if there was an emergency at that location.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:14
Councilmember McCoy, you’re crying?
Speaker 19 1:04:17
Thank you. That’s all I needed to know. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor pic.
Speaker 14 1:04:21
Sure. So I have a couple of questions. Based upon this to these two conversations. We could with the county works using to address the size of that road with the easements that the deputy chief brought up. So to me, those are two separate issues because the annexation from what I’m reading up here, the concern is about bond farm but we don’t know what the concept plan for bond farm is going to be at this point do we because it was put on hold through the Planning and Zoning Commission. So if we’re basing a on that decision upon the concept plan that the developer already put in for bond farm, we’re not sure if that’s what it’s going to be the next time they come before planning and zoning. I think that regardless of whether it’s annexed, we should actually get with the county and ask about widening that road if it’s concerned whether it’s annexed or not. So my vote is going to be that we wait number one, to see what is going to happen with bond farm concept plan and development, they can get on the sewer system, as you have said, it doesn’t need to be annexed to do that. And perhaps look at the safety of that road in a different discussion. Because it has to be safe, regardless of what we do in the annexation process. So I personally would just like to put this on hold until some of those questions are answered. Councillor Martin?
Speaker 4 1:06:01
Thank you, Mayor Peck. It was my understanding from what Mr. Burchette said that that the bond farm concept plan doesn’t have anything to do with this annexation. Other than if it’s, if it’s developed, it will make it easier to give to provide sewer lines.
Speaker 16 1:06:24
Mayor Peck councilmember Martin, you’re correct. The development of bond farm brings the utilities up through that corridor between the two properties that would allow them to connect. So the but it is dependent upon the development of bond farm, bringing that utility from the south up to the property.
Speaker 4 1:06:46
And so is it also true that on less bond farm is developed, there would be no opportunity for these two local residents to get city sewer? Whether we do the annexation or not.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:07
Mayor pack councilmember Martin, I know Jim is in the in the audience demand
Speaker 16 1:07:15
from public works. And he could maybe add to this. But if they were to lose their sewer, their septic system, then the the state requirement of being within a certain distance would kick in, for them to have to tie into the sewer system, which is down at the end of First Avenue, which is I would guess quite a few 100 feet away. So I don’t know that they would be within that required distance to have to tie in. But they could work with the property owner that’s directly south of them between First Avenue and their property, to acquire easements to be able to build and construct that sewer line up to their property. So it’s not beholden only on bond farm, they are trying to benefit from the development of the bond farm. But if push came to shove, they could to develop that sewer line and bring it up to their property.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:23
Who pays for what under these circumstances,
Speaker 16 1:08:26
they would be required to pay for any of the extension of that utility, including easements, acquisition construction.
Speaker 4 1:08:33
And so that’s that’s true, regardless of where the connection comes from.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:39
That’s correct. It’s
Speaker 4 1:08:40
just cheaper if it’s on farms, infrastructure, correct,
Speaker 16 1:08:44
because then you’re only usually paying back for the your adjacency for that portion that is adjacent to your property when you tie into it versus the entire length of the line.
Speaker 4 1:08:55
Okay. I think that I mean, to me, that’s the crux of the matter. I don’t really much like the idea of having septic tanks right in the middle of the city and, and in the in the watershed as it were. So I’m certainly going to vote yes. But thank you for that clarification. You’re welcome.
Speaker 3 1:09:23
Yeah, I want to add, I think there’s a nuance to this. The septic system has to be failing for them to connect into the system. And so only under a failing condition, can they connect into the sewer line? And we just looked at it in the ordinance. I think there was some information. I wanted to clarify with you all on that. So if it’s not failing, then per ordinance we reject those applications. So it will have to it has to be in a failing condition to connect to the sewer system. Right For the outside, so, yeah.
Speaker 14 1:10:08
So I would like actually to have the public hearing on this and listen to what the public has to say. First. The other thing is that for clarification, Harold, even if the bond farm septic sin system came up to that house, would that septic system that they have have to be failing before they could. So it doesn’t matter. That has to be failing regardless
Speaker 3 1:10:39
if it’s, if it’s in the counties and the county, if it’s in the county, it has to be. It says applications for sewer service for properties that will not be developed beyond the existing use of land have a failing septic system. Section B says the council presumes that other applications for water or sewer service outside the city limits will not clearly benefit the inhabitants of the city upon receipt of such an application staff shall reject the application and shall not process it process or consider it further unless directed otherwise by the council in this and so it really is the failing condition that will allow them to connect into our sewer service.
Speaker 14 1:11:20
Okay. I’m going to open up the public part of this. Oh, go ahead. Sorry.
Speaker 16 1:11:26
The applicant does have their representative here. Oh, that’s right. tations Great.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:30
Thank you. Let’s do that
Unknown Speaker 1:11:56
perfect
Speaker 20 1:12:07
so Hi, everyone, can you guys hear me okay, we can Sharon Procopio 13th 19th Spruce Street and Boulder. I work for jva and I’m here today on behalf of Tanya Pulver and mark on Wagner who are not with us, but they are watching from afar. So they are waving virtually. And we are just going to give a brief overview. I think a lot of what you’ve already heard from Don is kind of repeated here. But I’m available for questions as well. So 150 and 150 and a half Francis Street. They’re both residential properties with two dwellings on the property. Both the dwellings are currently two bedroom one bath houses. They have the shed carport and some tool shacks. And as Don mentioned anything that’s a noncompliance as part of this annexation is going to be addressed. Just from an exhibit standpoint, I think Don had these pulled up as well. We’re basically talking this is the surveys you can kind of see the existing two houses in this area if my mouse is showing up is and then the septic system is basically to the south of the two homes. Oh, can you guys not hear me? Oh, sorry. So the the two houses are right here on the screen. And then this area down to the south here is the septic system. So that septic system as I think mentioned they’d like to eventually discontinue it. It is an older septic system but it is functioning right now. They did dedicate easements to Bon Bon farm as part of their development to allow that future sanitary sewer line to take place. So there’s already easements dedicated on the property for when that will happen. And that was one of the things that precipitated them wanting to have this ability to be part of the city as among other things, but that was what precipitated some of that. Their eventual goal is to retire their 50 year old septic system and connect to the city sanitary once they have it mean they understand that they can’t do that until that meaning exists. They did dedicate the easements as I just mentioned to pass through the property. They’re adjacent to the alley. So if I go back for a moment, oops, can I go back previous There we go. So effectively, this is the alley on this side. And they have dedicated a portion of an easement to allow sanitary through their property down towards the bottom of the property to their self as well to Hildebrand Park. Pretty. So they’re looking forward to finalizing this process. And they’re fully prepared when it’s time to connect as feasible. And they’ve been working on this process since 2020 21. And, you know, here we are a couple of years later, finally getting through that process. So they’re very excited to be at this point to hear counsels questions and the public comment. And your your decision. They are not proposing any development. And I think that’s an important thing to emphasize. This is really just them thinking for long term for the property. Do you guys have any questions?
Speaker 14 1:15:40
Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. I’m gonna open up the public hearing at this point. The first one on the list is Mark Danielson. Oh, I’m sorry. Counselor, McCoy. Did you have a question? Or comment? No. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:00
Did I get my hand up? No, no, I’m sorry.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:02
Someone in the
Speaker 14 1:16:09
Okay, I see what I see. Thank you for pointing that out. Charles shilling.
Speaker 21 1:16:17
Hello, my name is Charles Schilling and I live at to do for Francis Street. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you tonight. I’m speaking about the annexation, and forgive some of the overlap. But shet got some of my comments and very covered them very nicely. So you’ll you’ll see a little bit of overlap here. So the property owners asking for annexation for a sewer tap. The fact is the city does not have to annex the property to provide a sewer tap. The city can just give them the right to a sewer tap on confirm this. And also, some of this discussion here was a little confusing because the city engineer Chris who for Huffer confirmed that there are over 100 sewer taps, serving county residents today. So I don’t know if all those failed and they came in. But there’s a ton of precedents for this idea of providing a sewer tap without being annexed over 100. So I understand the property owner has done a lot of work to get to this point. But that should not be part of the decision to annex. There’s no need for an annexation just to get a sewer tap. And there’s, as I mentioned a lot of precedent here. I mentioned the ordinance. The annexation is discretionary. It’s up to you all. It’s a legislative act. The city should never be compelled to annex unless otherwise required by law. In fact, two council members voted against it in the first review of this and one of the pnz commissioners voted against it because they said the property was a mess. The city council Communication Forum for this ordinance shows no fiscal impact or fund source for this annexation. There’s a big fat na on it. Yet the city’s taking on the challenge of a dirt road the steep grade. And the property has other risks that we really don’t know that much about right now. The city can’t provide city services efficiently to this property. If annexed it’s immediately probably code enforcement time in dealing with new city issues causing the city money harm with no budget for it is the fiscal problem problem for the city. Regarding the neighbors I was able to speak with most of the neighbors down in that section of the road on Francis Street and none of them that I was able to speak with want this annexation. So we realize this property and others like it will be annexed in develop sometime in the future. But this one seems to be overkill and not harmless. We’re asking the city to provide only a sewer tap at this time for sewer tap right at this time, so the city can figure out how to properly annex this property while also addressing compatibility and traffic issues for the broader neighborhood. In summary, the city council is well within their right to vote no on this and provide only the sewer tap permit, or whatever you call it. The annexation will cause harm to the city and cost us undue financial burden that’s not budgeted. cities don’t want it. I ask you please vote no on this annexation. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:13
Thank you Mike. John Pillman.
Speaker 22 1:19:29
John, one 1303 spruce Avenue. Thank you for allowing me to talk this evening. According to traffic study commission by a developer with a property adjacent to 150 Frances 70. unit housing development would increase daily trip volume on spruce avenue by 32%. And if the city annex is 150 Francis and the owner provides a concept plan for 80 new housing units that’s another 8% increase in daily trip volume on spruce Avenue. And when the four remaining acres and south on that South Franciscan annexed and developed under an RNN zoning designation, that could be another 72 units, resulting in another 33% increase in traffic volume on spruce Avenue. You add it all up those examples above 73% increase in traffic on spruce Avenue, and for over 75% of the length of Spruce Avenue. So that’s the section of Spruce between grant down a sunset. There are no through streets that goes south. For those streets, the only option is spruce Avenue. And what about the 86 homes that exists on Vivian and Jetson south of Spruce whose only exit point is you guessed it spruce Avenue. What happens to traffic volume when a significant percentage of those homeowners decide to build an adu duplex or triplex on their arm and designated properties. Further development in that area could move the needle to over 100% cumulative increase in today’s traffic volume on spruce and surrounding streets. We should all be concerned that the projected traffic volume increases for this and other annexations will push traffic levels past the safe limits of spruce and surrounding streets. What is not a production however, and is is that the city has already given legal rights to the 86 homeowners on Vivian Jetson data vetting green place to expand the number of units housing units, which will add significant traffic volume to spruce Avenue and surrounding streets. So here’s my question. As the city done any analysis of the cumulative impact wrought by these projected traffic increases in the bond Farm Neighborhood, keeping in mind that the streets can’t be widened. In many cases don’t have contiguous sidewalks, and already are narrower than city standards on local for local streets. I’m asking the city to hold off on any further annexing in the bond firm neighborhood or approving any further infill development until a comprehensive study can be completed to determine the potential impact of these traffic volumes to the safety of our neighborhood. As others have noted, you can grant the owner of 150 Frances a sewer tap without requiring annexation. It’s been done in the past and should be done in this situation as well. I recommend that you vote no on the 150 Frances annexation. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:24
Thank you, John Mark Danielson.
Speaker 23 1:22:34
Good evening, Mayor council members, my name is Mark Danielson. I live at the corner of spruce and Lincoln and I urge you this evening to vote no on the annexation of 150. Frances. As you know, we’ve been said multiple times tonight annexation is discretionary. It’s up to your individual judgment whether this is a good idea for the city at this time, you are not bound by the recognition mendation of pnz. What you are bound by is ensuring that any annexations that are approved will not cause the city any harm, do no harm. Unfortunately, this annexation is ill timed and ill conceived and brings serious financial and liability risks to the city. If you’ve not personally seen the stretch of Francis that gives access to this property, you probably should not be voting for this annexation this evening. envision a steep narrow dirt road descending from spruce that can only handle one direction at a time and has no outlet and no turnaround at the end. Because of the steepness at the top of the hill. It’s nearly impossible to see traffic as you’re entering spruce from Frances private trash trucks wanting to service this addressed currently have to back down the dirt road for several 100 feet since there’s no room at the bottom to turn around. This application cobs together a workaround for this homeowners will continue to use private waste service until the road is improved. Clearly this is a tacit admission that the city is unable to provide services efficiently to this address. But if it can’t even provide trash services, which need just a single truck, what about emergency services, a series of fire trucks, police cars, ambulances, they’re responding to an emergency. It’s a recipe for disaster in summer, but imagine it in winter when the steep road is icy. If this doesn’t sound like a monstrous liability for the city, then you’ve not seen this street. If basic services cannot be provided effectively today, then today is not the time to annex this property. If you do you’re merely accumulating liability risks with no clear offsetting assets. As the fire marshal has clarified this evening that liability is currently borne by the county. Why take it on unnecessarily. This property has what’s been acknowledged as an ancient septic system that could turned into an environmental hazard at any time. If the owner were to declare bankruptcy before the sewer connection is made, and there’s no saying when that connection will be made. The environmental liability belongs to the city. Longmont has enough liabilities to manage without adding frivolously to the risks we take on. Do no harm. Please say no to the annexation this evening. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:25:26
Thank you, Mark Jeffrey Rogers.
Speaker 24 1:25:39
Mayor, Peg city council members. I’m Geoffrey Rogers I live at across the street from the property in question. I live at 177 Francis Street. I’m here with my neighbor, Marsha, who lives next door to me at 179. I have moved there in 1981. It was always a dirt road, a very narrow one at that. Spruce Avenue is also a very narrow street. years ago. There is a property at the end of Francis Street, four acre parcel of land that was under consideration for annexation back in around the turn of the century. It was a four acre parcel of land of developers tried to build 28 dwelling units on it. And our neighborhood group fought this development for a period of almost two years. With the result being that the whole entire neighborhood that was in question was rezone from R two to it. What was then R M D? The question here was a question of density. The r1 neighborhood to the north of Spruce Avenue, had an R had a density of five units to the acre. Our two had a density of 10 units to the acre. And at that time, we got a review of the neighborhood zoning, which was then changed to RMD. Now I don’t know where this other zoning when that happened. That would allow a huge increase in density to the neighborhood. But with narrow streets, with Francis street being you know, way less than what the city standard was a city standard Street is 60 feet wide. There is no way through Francis street could accommodate that kind of with spruce Avenue doesn’t even have that. So just to echo what some of the other people have already said. There’s the liability issue that the city would take on will not give you any benefits. With regard to some point in the future. The city will take on all of this area. You will have a problem with Francis Street. I have four wheel drive. Most of my neighbors have all wheel drive. And that’s how we negotiate that road. So thank you for your consideration.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:01
Thank you Jeffrey. Tom Walther.
Speaker 25 1:29:19
Hello, my name is Tom Walther. I live at 1305 spruce Avenue. From my perspective, annexing the property at 150 Francis Street at this time, will only compound a series of unsound decisions that can only lead to unwanted consequences for the city and degrade the quality of life and the neighborhood and outcome. No one who cares about life in the city wants? It has been increasingly apparent that the city decision making process capable of making decisions in the development of special locations like the RMM zone in the bond fund neighborhood south of Spruce Avenue No. As long as the RNN zoning parameters permit enormously an enormously wide range of density possibilities, without consideration of the unique infill challenges. In this in an established neighborhoods, giving permission for dramatically increasing density without facing the on the ground reality of the place, and the quality of life in the neighborhood is short sighted. What is special about the AR m en zone and bond form neighborhood. Access to approximately 75% of the AR m en zone region of the neighborhood can only be accessed by spruce Avenue with no outlets to the east, west or south. It is surrounded by railroad tracks and residential property on the south side. And on the other three sides, it’s all residential. There’s no way for traffic to gracefully gracefully flow through. There are no plans designed or funding for creating such access. Given this reality, there’s no need or justification for ultra high density development in this location. The problems we have today are part of our legacy of of the legacy of people doing their best to enhance the quality of their lives as best they knew how the decision making and social structures of our city are not working well. Perhaps the council should prioritize investigating sound decision making that includes opportunities to test proposed decisions, a mechanism to reevaluate actual impacts to the neighborhood. As new data and new data emerges from neighbors and the planning process, some of this new data could be completely unanticipated and unforeseen. This new data testing, learning and evaluation would then allow for making adjustments as necessary. The power of adjustment is an important step toward creating anything, including an outstanding future. Perhaps a good place to start is with a conversation that includes the institution of the city and community about the possibility of changing the RMM zoning south of Spruce Avenue or developing a new zoning entity, perhaps called infill zone that takes into account compatibility with the established neighborhoods, a place to start so Council can make decisions that are socially, financially and environmentally sound short and long term about annexation of property and development in this area. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:07
Thank you Tom Polly Christensen Polly Christensen.
Speaker 26 1:33:23
name is Paula Christensen I live at 410 Jetson street Good evening mayor and councillors. This proposed annexation of 150 Frances first came before Council in May 2021. When I was serving on council, I voted against it but nevertheless it moved forward. The recent hearing by planning and zoning also resulted in non unanimous decision yet here we are tonight. Lower St. Francis Street is a unique part of this neighborhood, unpaved, peaceful, full of independent people. Over the last 30 years I’ve spoken to probably everyone on this street at one time or another. And I’ve yet to meet anyone who wanted the street annexed, rezoned and paved to imagine that the New York State landlords only want to annex this so they can get a sewer tap is nonsensical. They can already do that, as has been confirmed, as have over 100 other properties in Longmont. This is this annexation and the accompanying rezoning to residential mixed use. Our m n will add enormously to the resale value. The rezoning to Mr. N is inexplicable. This rezoning is only possible because of the adjacent bone farm property, which was rezoned as our mn in error. This was illegal spot zoning. Our m n requires that the property be contiguous with other mixed use property on farm is completely surrounded by modest one or two storey residential homes. The original variance was granted to create a suit load of new housing in Longmont cohousing at that never happened nor did the project actually unfold to meet any of the criteria of genuine cohousing community. This rezoning to m and n was an error this error needs to be corrected, not made worse by expanding it. Long lines deeply flawed and vision Longmont Complan says the area quote, has been planned for urban development since the 1970s. Unquote. This is shocking news to those of us who have invested our lives and our life savings in our modest homes in quiet neighborhoods. We now realize that all areas of the town not only not under the rule of ancient ways, especially old town, east side and West Side, are expected to bear the burden of neighborhood destruction while the newer wealthier neighborhoods are untouched. It is not Council’s job to improve the profitability of Newark landlords at the expense of and to the detriment of those of us who live here. Please do not approve this annexation and rezoning. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 1:36:09
Doug Jones.
Speaker 27 1:36:26
Good evening Mayor pack and councillors. My name is Doug Jones and I’ve lived at 243 Sherman Street for the last 22 years. I’m asking you to vote no on the annexation of 150 Francis Street, and the Frances street itself south of Spruce Avenue. As neighbor I deeply care about what gets built in my neighborhood and what’s going to be what it’s going to look like in 50 years. To better understand the process. I’ve learned about the annexation process zoning ordinance planning concepts, Rogers rules, attainable versus affordable, the list goes on. And in order to visualize to do this, in order to visualize a potential for what your decisions tonight can bring to bear on my neighborhood, it’s a lot to take into consideration. Originally, I thought that by annexing 150 Francis, it would pave the way to a much needed path to connect the bond farm with the creek pass system. What I did not realize at the time is that it would match the RM in zoning in that area. There was another project underway adjacent to this one, which has created much concern it’s it’s become a crisis that the developer neighbors and city are trying to work out. As you’ve heard folks living on this section of Francis Street, were shocked to hear that they because of the zoning change to RMM. This annexation can bring up to 18 units on just this one property on their quiet street. And it’s a shock to anyone to hear because the current zoning is wholly out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood. Envision Longmont describes the part of the neighborhood south of Spruce as a stable area of change in an RMS zone that should serve as a transition. This is in quotes, a transition between single family neighborhoods, higher density corridors, centres and employment areas. That does not describe this area whatsoever. This is not a transition area to dense employment. In reality, this section of the bond farm neighborhood is an edge to open space parks and no businesses. The point is we don’t get all the information we need to make the best decisions. To get that information you need not only listen to all the evidence but hear what the community is saying and weigh it against what envision Longmont says about at all. And the community is saying tap the brakes on infill development. I walked by 150 Frances this morning and noted again the overgrown noxious weeds that debris piles, and it’s in stark contrast to the well kept owner occupied properties to the north and west on the same street. In fact, you have an out of state landlord, hiring a team of design professionals to bring a small acreage into Longmont saying he needs some sewer services, fine, give them the sewer services, but don’t open up the floodgates to more incompatible development and vote no on 150 Francis street Thank you
Unknown Speaker 1:39:07
John Lofgren.
Speaker 28 1:39:25
Good evening, mayor and council, thank you for the opportunity to for us come and present to you and also for your listening and considering all these disparate points of views and problems that are, you know, often in contrast and all over the map. But I had some prepared remarks, but I’m not I’m going to go off script with that. And the interesting thing about living in bond farmers we have a sort of a long memory, the historic bond Farm Neighborhood, we have a little bit of memory in the community. Now, I just heard the representative for Mr. Wagner saying that all the non conforming buildings were going to be removed. So when I first met when I first moved along, but before I bought my home on Sherman, I had a little bit of negotiation with Mr. Wagner about purchasing that property. And at that time, I talked both to the people in the city and to the people in the county. And I was told that the building to the west, now it’s building to the east, there’s two units back the back, the one closest to the bond farm is non conforming, it was never issued a permit. It’s encroaching upon the right away. And if you looked at the map that she had shared to you, you could see that thing is right on the line. And the reason why Mr. Wagner did not want to give the path right away before because if for the council, people were going to walk down the path proposed path, they will be scraping against the corner of the red building, which is their rental building. So in order for me to rehabilitate the older, original property, I was told by the county and by the city, that that building would have to be removed. And I haven’t heard any mention of that today. So not only was Mr. Van Wagner not very forthcoming at that time, but I think that we haven’t heard all that information here today. Secondly, at that time, when I considered the options whether to bring it into the through to county or to bring it in through the city, I was told I was told by the county it couldn’t happen because of the the nonconforming building, that building was built in 1971, illegally without a permit. Okay, Mr. Wagner’s own that place for 30 years. Not only is he not cleaned up the buildings, he’s not done anything to bring the building into conformity with the existing rules. So I would ask you, are you going to give a septic to a non conforming property? So you know, we’ve had a similar instance, with the bar up the street, I want to go there with that. But they just got a permit for a roof. For addition, that didn’t never had a permit. So it seems like you need to rope it in a little bit. But finally, oh, so the other thing is that when I was in negotiations, I was told from the city, that I would have to pave that road at my expense, and provide a turn around at the bottom for a fire truck. Or I would have to request an easement from the neighbor to the south. I don’t have that mentioned today. So I would ask you to bring the applicant up to speed. And I would also ask that being that we do not know, at this point, what the impact of urban farm development will be whether it’s going to be 60 or 75 units, and we have the narrow 20 foot wide streets, we don’t know what that impact is going to be. So I would ask that you not approve the annexation, which could perhaps allow more impact on the neighbors, and wait until the bond farm thing is settled. And then perhaps that could be reconsidered at that time. So again, you don’t have to bring it into annexation at this point. But once things settle, that might be a time in which to consider and that would give Mr. Wagner time to bring his area into code. Right, which he has not done. And the other thing is his neighbor up the street. He’s the one who cut the weeds on air the other day. So, so much for the he should get a citation instead of accommodation for his concern for the ecology. Thank you.
Speaker 14 1:43:38
Thank you, John. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to have a voice on this ordinance? Please come down.
Speaker 29 1:44:10
Hello, my name is Dan woods. I live in the neighborhood I live on green place. And you know, in terms of annexation, I think it’s a real big mistake to move ahead with that. I live in the neighborhood and spruce cannot handle more traffic. It’s you go down spruce, and you have to always let a car go by because if there’s a car parked on the road, there’s not enough room for two people to go by. And if we get annexation, which is a prelude to more development, which is higher density. I think we’re going to have even more of a problem. I don’t see this as a feasible thing. So I you know, I encourage you to vote against the annexation.
Speaker 14 1:44:51
Thank you. So seeing no one else I will close public hearing on this item. Can I have a motion? On on the 2023 Dash 29 ordinance Councillor Martin,
Speaker 4 1:45:14
I move in favor of annexation. And if there was a second then I have some questions brought that I still need clarification on. So I’m going to retain the floor
Speaker 14 1:45:31
okay, it’s been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor waters, open it up for discussion.
Speaker 4 1:45:41
I still have nowhere. Okay. So my first question is just to clarify, I think some of the things that have been some of the statements that have been made by speakers have contradicted the statements made by the staff. So first of all, unless those septic systems fail, or those homes are vacated, and there is a development plan, instead, those residents cannot get septic, you get new sewer connections, even if there was a line right up that easement. Is that correct?
Unknown Speaker 1:46:25
Councilmember Martin, could you say that one more time? Okay. Ask me there in the middle.
Speaker 4 1:46:29
Sorry, a number a number of people have said that we could just give them a sewer connection. But I finally understood the city manager to say that we can not unless the systems are failing, which is true.
Speaker 16 1:46:45
So councilmember Martin, there’s two scenarios that are possible. The first scenario is that you don’t annex them.
Speaker 4 1:46:56
That’s the scenario I’m talking about. If we don’t get an excellent,
Speaker 16 1:46:59
then the way they get an outside sewer tap would be if their system fails. And it’s approved by the city council, that they would be allowed to have an outside sewer tap. The requirement of whether or not they would have to ask for that is based on the distance. They are from existing sanitary sewer that could serve them if they’re outside of the distance, let’s say and I can’t remember the number. But if the state statute says 500 feet and they’re 600 feet, then they do not have to tie in because they’re outside of that distance away from this,
Speaker 4 1:47:40
but we already know that they want to tie in. They want to tie in. Yes, yes. Okay. Um, the next question that I have is, do we get to presume that? I’m sorry, there’s so many questions, I’m having trouble stretching them out. We don’t have any, any ability to cause the outbuildings that are non compliant to be removed. While this is in Boulder County, so we’ve got a bunch of s somebody, somebody mentioned, a bunch of messy buildings, that we have no authority over there that are messy, and they’re going to stay messy unless this annexation happens and then we will be able to get them removed.
Speaker 16 1:48:36
Mayor Peck councilmember Martin, so there’s there’s two areas of nonconformity. One is in the Francis Street, right of way area. So that was on the west side of the property. The Alley area that is on the east side of the property is already in the city limits. So that right of way is technically the city of long months. Right of Way. The question then becomes whether or not we want to go through enforce or require people to remove improvements.
Speaker 4 1:49:13
So some of the messiness we do have the ability to enforce removal already. And some we don’t, I just need simpler answers.
Speaker 16 1:49:26
So I don’t think I’m the person to tell you whether or not we’re going to tell someone to go out there and tear down uh,
Speaker 4 1:49:32
oh, I didn’t say whether we are or not I said we would have the ability, some of them, some of them that are already in this city right of way we could do something about now, but others that are on the private property, we don’t have any ability to do something unless they’re in the city of Longmont say yes.
Speaker 16 1:49:54
So, I think that’s a legal question beyond something that I should answer for you Have I from the standpoint of whether or not the city is going to make somebody go out there and tear down a building in our right of way?
Speaker 4 1:50:08
Don, I didn’t ask that. I did not ask that.
Speaker 16 1:50:12
Okay, so if you’re the second part, as I understood your question, then it’s was, can we make somebody who’s in the county tear down a building that is not performing?
Speaker 4 1:50:22
I didn’t ask that either. And I’m not understanding your question. Okay. While the non conforming buildings are on county land, is it true that the city does not have any ability to do any code enforcement on
Speaker 16 1:50:39
that? That is true. That’s no Kansas Pell.
Speaker 4 1:50:43
And the non conforming structures that are in an easement? If the city chose to do code enforcement there, we could do it now. Yes or no.
Speaker 16 1:50:58
So you stated the easement? Well, this right of way,
Speaker 4 1:51:01
right of way, excuse me. Okay. I have to admit that that that distinction is elusive to me. But right of way, we could the city of Longmont could if it chose, improve those buildings or require that they be removed as it stands?
Speaker 16 1:51:25
I want to say yes, but what I would tell you is that going in that direction of requiring somebody or taking down someone’s building in our right of way, is has challenges. Let’s put it that way that I would want to depend on the person to my right, both of those people before we would move forward with taking down a building,
Speaker 4 1:51:50
right. But that’s not where I’m going. I want this annexation, I’m just trying to draw the distinction, because a number of speakers have made false statements such as the city could just give them sewer connections anytime it wanted to, and it can’t. And so I want to make sure that I understand the whole situation, because a number of people have cited these non conforming buildings. And I want to understand the whole picture about the non conforming buildings.
Speaker 14 1:52:26
I do want to say that they didn’t say we could give them sewer connections, what I heard was that permits, permits for for sewer connections, which they would have to pay for it.
Speaker 4 1:52:39
I beg your pardon. I didn’t mean give them for free. But nevertheless, the city manager stated that the city is not permitted to allow sewer connections to the city sewer system, unless they are annexed, or their systems are failing.
Speaker 3 1:52:59
Before I can jump in. Within that code. There’s two different issues. And I think what we see in other areas of the community, in terms of services we’re privately providing outside are also regulated by different section of the same code. So the code very clearly states that an area outside of the city, unless the septics they can’t connect unless the septic system is failing. Very clear on that. If it’s not failing, then the code says we will reject those applications. Some of the other areas that and I was made aware of an email the request what do we have outside of the city and there are areas but there are actually exceptions within that same code that allows other areas to connect to sewer and I’ll read those for council right now. It says the following shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. sewer service outside city limits, if required by the IGA intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County concerning transfer development rights included in the appendix of this code, as it may be amended or extended. So where you have transfer development rights, I think a couple of examples of where we did extend sewer related to that is actually the portico development on the west side of town. And then I believe, the development on the northwest corner corner of hoever and 66. But there was an exclusion in the chapter of the code based on the IGA with the city.
Speaker 4 1:54:30
The IgA, the let’s call it let’s call the Super IGA that’s being renegotiated. Now, is that correct?
Speaker 3 1:54:39
It’s the TDR. So unrelated to TT RS, but it’s a TDR is transfer development rights. Okay. Point to water service pursuant to a tap trade agreement between the city and a water district and so we have brought tap trades before were left hand water in the city. We’re trading haps point three water or sewer service to city facilities as we find that it benefits the inhabitants of the city, water sewer service outside of the city limits as required as a result of a city construction project. So when we see that we connect outside of our jurisdiction and other areas where there’s not a failing septic tank, it is under Section D and the provisions that allow us to do that. And I think that’s where some of the confusions come in as to where we do connect outside of the system. So
Speaker 4 1:55:34
what I just want to get down to not you know, I don’t care whether somebody made an error or not, I don’t care whether it was you or whether it was them. What I want to understand is, is would we grant up permission to give these people accept a sewer connection, if their sewers if they’re not annexed, and their septic tanks are not failing? No, thank you
Unknown Speaker 1:56:10
Councillor Hidalgo ferry?
Speaker 17 1:56:13
Thank you, Mayor. Um, you know, I’m, I’m not in support of this. And, you know, I, as I said earlier, you know, I’ll be voting no, as I said earlier, typically, I am in favor of annexations. There are, you know, there are opportunities with that, you know, I think we need to tread carefully, as we’re looking at some of our older neighborhoods, I used to live on the corner of near Bowen and spruce. And I remember, in my little Ford Focus, when I first moved in the area, taken a wrong turn in the snow in that street, I couldn’t get out, just sliding down. And my husband had to come and rescue me. So, you know, I under I understand, just from my own personal experience, as well, as you know, we’re voted to represent our community. And I know that there have been several things that have come to our table that received immense opposition. But additionally, I’ve also received comments of support. So you know, it’s trying to try to balance that and look at the greater good. I have yet to hear anyone who lives and breathes. And, you know, that whole, you know, living in that area, coming up and saying this is a good idea. You know, I feel like there’s we need to take a step back. And it does seem like the annexation is premature, considering they’re wanting to tap into a development that hasn’t that’s been put on hold. So and I’m not necessarily talking to you, I’m talking to everyone. I just happen to be looking at you. So you know, there are some concerns that brought up, you know, the RMM zoning, you know, I I’d like to have an opportunity to chat with staff personally, and just kind of weigh that out as well. So I I feel like I’m not ready to to move forward on this.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:03
Councillor waters?
Tim Waters 1:58:05
Thanks, Mayor peg. Dawn, if we were to table or pass on this tonight? What are the options for the applicants? How long would they wait before they could resubmit an application?
Speaker 16 1:58:20
Mayor pack councilmember waters, the land development code states that if a project is denied, a similar application cannot be submitted for a year. So it ultimately would come down to whether or not the proposal was similar. And there so if they came back in with the exact same request, they would have to wait for one year.
Tim Waters 1:58:44
So and just to just to confirm or remind me, there is no proposed infill development here is that that’s correct. A council would have to approve. We’re halfway through pnz as well. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. If I’m not mistaken, all of our pnz members are members of the community. Yes, sir. Right. So we represent a lot of folks, including folks who we asked to serve in the interest of the city and residents here and in other places. Just to clarify, again, Harold. I understand the questions that Councilmember Martin was asking in your answers. If this is if this is denied, or it’s tabled. It remains in the county and the conditions under which an application would be approved, right only if it’s failing correctly. If it’s annexed, then what are the conditions?
Speaker 3 1:59:45
Don, you’re gonna have to help me on this one. But if it’s annexed and they chose to connect to the sewer system, they could connect but they would have to pay for all of the cost. So they
Tim Waters 1:59:56
they would cover the costs of that connection. Oh, wait, does it require a failed septic system to be connected to the sewer if it’s in the city? Correct. My last question. I want to I want to clarify one more time I heard a speaker make the comment, that it’s up to the county to respond to emergency on that stretch of France is if there is one, I think I heard Assistant Chief Goldman say that’s not the case. It it’s our firefighters, or public safety, fire or or, or police who are going to be on that street responding if there’s a call. So the risk isn’t a mountain view is not to somebody else, the county is that people work for us.
Speaker 3 2:00:40
Correct. And I want to give you some I want to give some context to this. If there’s an emergency. And if there’s a fire if there’s a health emergency, based on our interoperability agreements, it’s closest service. And so that’s pretty clear on fine. I’m
Tim Waters 2:00:56
just I got it. I’m just saying there was a statement made. That’s not an inaccurate statement. Correct.
Speaker 3 2:01:02
In an emergency situation. And so I wanted to go to police if there were an active police issue. That was an emergency. Again, the IGA comes into play. But if let’s say there was a burglary, that’s not an immediate emergent situation, then Boulder County would respond. I get that. And then even in the emergency situations, we will transfer it over to Boulder County or Mountain View rife. Once we’re able to do that,
Tim Waters 2:01:32
but the initial responders, first responders, our people work for the city of Longmont, who we also represent. I think that’s all my questions. Thanks.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:45
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.
Speaker 1 2:01:47
Thank you, Mr. Peck. First of all, a question. Don might be able to help but I’m pretty confident that assistant city manager Marsh will really know. When was it that we talked about enclaves and the possibility of force annexing?
Speaker 30 2:02:10
Don, and I collectively, we’ll use our minds, but we think 2017 Maybe where we went and looked at. Right, you brought forth? Yeah,
Speaker 1 2:02:17
so. Right. And that was pretty early in my first term. So to say that we haven’t been considering these kinds of annexations. until just now. And to say that it’s premature, I think is incorrect. We were looking at this many different parts of the city. But also we decided that we weren’t going to force annex, we’re going to allow people to petition to annex. And this is an example of somebody in an enclave petitioning to annex, which, at the time I felt the council was amenable to I would like to second the statement that Councilmember waters made. Sorry, I lost my train of thought on that one. It was it was the first point he made when we were talking about oh, no, nevermind, I’ll just move on. So the other thing that is of utmost importance, is the housing crisis facing the city. Oh, no, I remember what it was. It was councilmembers councilmember waters talking about the procedure of having to change the concept plan. So I wanted to bring that up again, city council will have to address that, should they actually decide to bring forward some sort of development to that property. That’s another quote unquote, bite at the apple that we possibly wouldn’t have if we didn’t annex because I’ve always stated that I believe in annexation for the concept of jurisdiction, jurisdictional purpose, allowing us to have power for code enforcement for things like, for instance, what’s in my opinion, hyperbole about the the steep grade of that area have been down there. And there’s multiple streets in Longmont that I feel have a more steep grade that can be accommodated. So again, we only have jurisdiction over these things. And I am not of the opinion that the city and the county works together in any sort of efficient manner. That’s just my opinion. So I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t necessarily want to try to go into some laborious process of negotiating with the county to talk about widening a dirt road, rather than just annexing it and having that part of our jurisdiction to create a more safe environment for emergency services or waste services, or even just the folks getting in and out of the neighborhood. To me it would be much more safe if it was widened and paved, which would again be under our jurisdiction if we added Next. And so, for these reasons enumerated, I will be in support of the annexation.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:06
Councillor McCoy.
Speaker 19 2:05:10
Thank you, Mayor Peck, I will be voting against this. I hear all those other issues that have been brought up about safety and, and cleaning up the property and other things like that. But this property has been there for literally decades. In use as is and and though we may have to defend a fire and in some off chance there, I think the real issue here is that we could have, if the sewer fails, we can deal with it at that time. Otherwise, I think it’s best to just to not support this today. And and listen to the community members, I grew up in that neighborhood. And I wrote around Bond farm as a young person. And I can tell you that Spencer street cannot take the capacity of traffic that that and the whole problem with that whole area there is that this is a slippery slope that is going to open up other opportunities. And I think it’s something we should avoid.
Speaker 14 2:06:31
Thank you. One last comment. I know that Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez doesn’t think that working with the county in any capacity is a good thing at times. But if we are concerned about that road, from my perspective, annexing one property is not going to take care of that entire road, it’s still a county road. So in IgA, possibly with the county to fix the road, if there is true safety issues there, we could look at that. That’s because all of the people living on that road. It’s not just this one property. So also, the property bonfire and property’s not going to be developed within this year, it just isn’t going to be what the presenters said was that they wanted they gave some of that easement for the sewer connection when Bond farm is developed. So that is the connection that they want to for their sewer system. So I don’t see any problem waiting to see what happens with bond with the bond farm development, and just putting off the annexation, to see what the whole area is going to do. And I do think if it’s a safety issue, we need to talk to our fire department, to the county and figure out what we can do with that road. Regardless of whether it’s annexed or not. If it if it that is truly a fire department the issue with fire trucks and emergency vehicles, it’s been that way forever. So we do need to address that it’s been brought up. So now I think we need to address it. So Councillor Yarborough?
Speaker 11 2:08:17
Thank you, Mayor pack. Really good conversation. I’d like to say thank you to all the residents in that area for coming in and speaking up for your area and you know, what you have to deal with every day. So I appreciate that. There are a lot of safety issues. That’s what it sounds like, to me, there are a lot of safety issues that need to be addressed either way. However, I do believe in us having jurisdiction over that area as well. So I’m kinda the way I feel is in also I really don’t care for I mean, listening to the speakers. How do we address the owner of that property? Because they are they need to be held accountable for some of those safety issues and how that property looks. And so can we make sure that they do their part as the owner of that property? And I understand that they will pay for the the sewer system. I guess for me what I want to know, I know I’m kind of just talking all over the place. I do want us to have jurisdiction. But at the same time, I also want to make sure that the residents are that area is safe for them. So I know you look at me like Chiquita, what do you want? That’s a good question. So what can we do to make sure that the home Got the owner of that property isn’t compliant first. Before we decide to annex that property, I don’t know who am I talking to? Is that Johnny or don’t? You didn’t get a question? Did you?
Unknown Speaker 2:10:14
I’m sorry. I was talking with Harold. Apologize,
Speaker 11 2:10:16
Harold. What do we need to do to make sure that their property isn’t compliant first from the owner before we annex it? Can we do that?
Speaker 16 2:10:29
That’s a great question. Councillor Yarborough and what you could do is that could be a condition before we could record the annexation was that any of the problems that are on that property that are identified be cleaned up before we would record the annexation? It could be a condition. So that is that is one thing that Council could do the way the annexation agreement is right now is that once you are in we could force compliance on the buildings and the structures that are non conforming, but it doesn’t really speak to any of the other items right now that you know may be of concern to some of the neighbors like some of the state of the property but that’s how you can address that
Speaker 11 2:11:16
okay. And we know there is not a proposal for development at this time i
Speaker 16 2:11:22
that is what we have been told through this entire process. So that is the only information I have
Unknown Speaker 2:11:28
okay hey well you got something to say
Speaker 3 2:11:34
was talking to you I was talking to him about the answer to your question Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:39
Okay thank you
Unknown Speaker 2:11:45
Seeing no other comments Let’s vote
Speaker 4 2:12:08
daughter having trouble with my screen button so a button on the bottom Yeah, I can get this screen
Unknown Speaker 2:12:25
Oh, you want to wait to make a motion to amend
Unknown Speaker 2:12:47
counselor McCoy, were you able to vote
Unknown Speaker 2:12:51
yes, it was
Speaker 14 2:13:03
so that fails with Councillor Martin councillor, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and Councillor waters in favor and myself, Councillor Yarbro Councillor dunkel fairing and Councillor McCoy again opposed. Thank you. Thank you everybody who came to testify I’m sure this will come back to us next year.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:38
condition was too late
Unknown Speaker 2:13:48
All right.
Speaker 14 2:13:55
So the next thing on our agenda is 10. See a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance brand, municipal airport hangar parcels sh one, t sh two T, sh three T sh 40 and sh five t the premises. Two two v two condo association incorporated tenant. Are there any questions from Council on this ordinance? Seeing none, I’d like to open up the public hearing on ordinance 2023 30. Is there anybody in the auditorium that would like to comment on this? Seeing none, I will close the public comment and ask for a motion on 2023 Dash 30
Unknown Speaker 2:14:43
I’m going to 2023 Dash 30
Speaker 14 2:14:46
Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor Martin. Let’s vote
Unknown Speaker 2:15:09
I have to refresh every time
Speaker 14 2:15:15
do you want to give give a voice? Counselor? Oh. Okay, great. Thanks. So that passes unanimously. Thank you. We are now at the general business portion of our agenda.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:28
One item. Thank you.
Speaker 14 2:15:32
Oh, we did have one. I’m sorry, Councillor waters. The items removed from the consent agenda was nine F counselor wanted to remove that. Or pulled it.
Tim Waters 2:15:43
Thanks for PAC. Yeah, I have just some questions that that I I need to have answered. I think others do as well. But Mayor pack you are here this evening during public invite to be heard. But the rest of us were. And given my understanding of what was is proposed now is the rule. I guess maybe I’ll ask the Mayor Pro Tem. How many of the people who spoke tonight would have been eligible to speak with the rules as they have been proposed rule change as it’s been proposed? Well, none of them spoke to an item on the agenda.
Speaker 1 2:16:21
As far as the residency requirements,
Tim Waters 2:16:25
so so just so I’m maybe I’m maybe I’m not understanding residents who want to speak on things that are not on the agenda can do that. They don’t have to be speaking to something on the agenda.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:40
Correct. We’ve not made that stipulation.
Tim Waters 2:16:42
So they can speak to any topic on the agenda or not if they’re a resident, correct. Now, what the wording in the in the change in ordinance, the word is not resident at citizen.
Speaker 14 2:16:54
And I thought, Do we have a consensus on that word citizen?
Tim Waters 2:16:59
So just okay, go ahead. So anybody who, who would want to speak to the council and is not a citizen of the United States? No. Then what’s the definition of citizen?
Speaker 14 2:17:12
It is, we were told that and it is a municipality, a city, the state, in this sense, it is of the municipality,
Tim Waters 2:17:22
are you suppose every mayor is going to interpret that the same way? I have no idea. I’m gonna vote. I’m gonna vote no one just on that basis as we get into this because of because that is pretty simple as changing to be resident,
Unknown Speaker 2:17:34
do you want to amend it?
Tim Waters 2:17:37
Well, let me I have a few more questions. Okay. The changes, there are three changes that we’re considering tonight. The third of the three changes, is the is about public invite to be heard. The first two changes at least one of the first two changes in terms of how we appoint board and commission members came up. You know, we did a first reading a year or so I mean, more than a year ago, it came back to us as a reminder that we had not finished the work on that there was a second reading. And I was personally anxious for us to get that done before we went through this last round of board and commission appointments. Now we we went ahead and use that procedure. But the response was, we wanted to wait. The mayor, Mayor, you wanted to wait to deal with changes in rules and procedures until we could deal with all of the rules and preachin procedures at one time. So we wouldn’t be doing it piecemeal, or one off. And the strongest argument at the time, was about ethics. came up during a council meeting. We spent two pre sessions I’ve got the some of the materials you shared with us. In front of me. We spent two pre sessions talking about ethics, ethics committees, ethics, standards, ethics doesn’t definitions, that conversation just went away. So we delayed changes the rules and procedures, because we wanted to address that issue in the context of rules and procedures is that that’s no longer a concern
Speaker 14 2:19:11
that it is a concern and and the ethics did not go away. It was in.
Tim Waters 2:19:16
We haven’t discussed it in months. Well, I
Speaker 14 2:19:18
know. I had said at the last meeting that we pre session that we had that the city attorney and myself and the city attorney of Fort Collins discussed the rules of procedure and the legality of adopting phrases or portions of another one. The reason that we didn’t get into that, even though it was on the agenda was because we got into a larger discussion. What was that discussion about? I can’t remember but it went too long and social media, it was about social media. It went it went over And then I cancelled this last one because we had too much on the agenda, and that it has not been dropped. It’s going to be picked up again at our next precession. So. And for me, I’m sorry if I did not interpret or say that correctly. These are not all in one thing. These are three different things.
Tim Waters 2:20:22
They’re all ballpark rules, council rules and procedures,
Speaker 14 2:20:25
know, the ethics, the ethics is not necessarily council
Tim Waters 2:20:29
was the reason it was delayed when when we, when I brought the list? Well, when the question came up, about finishing the job that we had started on how we appoint board and commission members, the reason for not doing it, then was the the issue or the topic of ethics, and what to do with it. And I’ve been wondering, I’ve been wondering, since is that going to come back? How’s it gonna come back? Obviously not going to come back in the context of rules and procedures? Now, I think the question my response to my other question would be, yes, we’re going to deal with these on a kind of a piecemeal basis, on maybe not one off, but we’re going to go ahead. Based on what’s on tonight’s agenda, we’re gonna go ahead with changing rules and procedures, knowing that there’s more work to do.
Speaker 14 2:21:17
Oh, and the other thing, from my perspective, in the pre sessions, and this is a, for me, it is a learning process, because we’ve never done the pre sessions before. But when I did ask for input, on the rules of procedures are on the ethics, I didn’t get much feedback at all. So that was one reason that the city attorney of Fort Collins, I reached out to her and then Eugene, I said, Let’s go talk to them. And because that was the one that resonated with a lot of the things that we were talking about, but I didn’t get any feedback on who wanted to work on that, or, and
Tim Waters 2:21:59
so if there were other changes that since we never had, we haven’t had a question as a council or conversation as a council about. So are there other rule changes, rules and procedures that we would like to see?
Speaker 14 2:22:12
Sure if you see any in there, please speak up. What I’m trying to get counselors to
Tim Waters 2:22:18
do I just, I just thought we might have had a conversation before we had something on the agenda about is there anything else we’d want to be addressing? So the only other related question for me is the topic or the question of are people required during public invited to be heard, to give their address of residence? Based on what we heard tonight? I think the answer is no. Which part the residents will not be required to, to state their address of residence in order to speak during public invited to be heard?
Speaker 14 2:22:58
I wasn’t I wasn’t here during the first did they stated?
Tim Waters 2:23:02
I don’t know. Some did some did
Speaker 1 2:23:05
not direct street numbers, but their street streets.
Speaker 14 2:23:09
And it’s written and it’s written down. For the record, it’s all written down. But yes, they do have to do that now. Do they have to do what state their name and address
Tim Waters 2:23:22
as if they’re going to speak to us? Yes, then somebody’s going to have to enforce that. Because it wasn’t enforced. And it hasn’t been forced in other meetings.
Speaker 14 2:23:32
You know, counselor waters. Part of that’s true, and part of it is not true. Um, there are meetings, and I’m sure other people would when I see a name on here, and I know that person and their addresses on here, I will ask them, but if I forget, anyone else can say we need their address. It isn’t. Anybody can jump in here and ask
Tim Waters 2:23:59
our protocol. I mean, you’re running that part of the meeting. So are
Speaker 14 2:24:03
you let’s get back to this ordinance. Are you going to
Tim Waters 2:24:07
Well, it’s part of council rules and procedures. We are the it either either is or isn’t part of council rules and procedures. And it hasn’t been. And it isn’t what the proposed. But there has what there was a statement made some weeks ago when we were in this conversation earlier when we’re talking about a related issue, that people were going to be required to state their address of residence. But we’ve been pretty inconsistent with whether or not that’s a real expectation, expectation or not to be written into council rules and procedures, it seems to me because that’s where we that’s where we stipulate. Right, what the procedure, what the procedure is. My last question is this during public hearings, and I and I’d have to go back and look at the there it’s both in the in the charter and I we have language in the procedure and the council rules and procedures? Are people time limited in when they’re addressing counsel during a second reading in a public hearing?
Speaker 2 2:25:21
Mayor, and councilmembers I believe they are limited to three minutes. Under Rule five.
Tim Waters 2:25:27
I don’t know how many people went over three minutes tonight. Maybe nobody did. But we weren’t timing it. We weren’t timing. So it just seems to me if we’re gonna, if that’s if that stipulated, like,
Speaker 14 2:25:38
it was a it was a mistake. It was a mistake tonight, and I totally apologize to anybody that this has annoyed. Mayor Pro Tem usually does this. He left it over here, because I wasn’t here. It got a little confused. Okay, so I think we’re okay. I mean, it’s not you also have gone over three minutes or five minutes. Well, I’m
Tim Waters 2:26:06
not a member of the public seating out there. I’m on this side of the Dyess. I know I was elected him this,
Speaker 14 2:26:11
but you still have a time limit. And my point is, which is
Tim Waters 2:26:14
pretty random, sometimes.
Speaker 14 2:26:17
That is the point. So um, I don’t think this is an issue. And does anyone else think this is an issue?
Tim Waters 2:26:26
It really doesn’t matter to me? Who else thinks it’s an issue? If I think it’s an issue, it’s an issue for me.
Speaker 14 2:26:33
Okay, I get that. What do you want to do about it
Tim Waters 2:26:36
be I would like us to be consistent.
Speaker 14 2:26:38
Thank you. We’ll do that. Do you want to amend any of these rules?
Tim Waters 2:26:42
I didn’t, I didn’t propose them. I’ll leave that to you.
Speaker 14 2:26:51
So I do have a question, though. Before we move on. Does anyone else on this council have a problem with the word citizen being part of? Okay, Councillor Hidalgo? fairing?
Speaker 17 2:27:05
Okay. So in it is the web or I’m sorry, Oxford Dictionary. The second definition of so it is a definition of citizen is the inhabitant of a particular town or city, for example, the citizens of Los Angeles. If you go down to you know, then so I looked up at law definition, and that one gets into more a citizen as a person who by birth, by place of birth nationality, of one or both parents, or naturalization is full gray is granted full rights and responsibilities as a member of a nation or political community. So in looking at what law term, as well as the conflict of, you know, how it could citizen could be open to interpretation. There are a couple of areas on Rule five, including the title of citizen participation because of the title in and of itself. And if we take the first definition, are only people who are naturalized citizens, you know, people who are born in the United States, so that can be problematic. resident, I don’t even think resident participation is just public participation. I would propose changing the title to public participation instead of citizens within section A and C where we amended the word I would move to have that word stricken and put residents or residents of Longmont Yeah, only Longmont residents or residents of Longmont. Do you want to make an amendment? Yes, I propose to amend the word citizens to for the title to move it to public participation. And then for the two references to Longmont citizens in section A and Section B to change that to residents. Second Secretary
Speaker 14 2:29:13
so we didn’t have a motion yet to move these. So we have a motion to amend it Do you want to make a motion to move it as amended? The amendment Rule five okay then
Speaker 14 2:29:47
okay, so I move to I move, rule three amend Rule five. And then we so it’s a second amendment we’re doing on this we’re amending it to begin With and now we’re going to amend the wording on it.
Speaker 2 2:30:03
I think Mayor we have a motion on the floor to make that wording change. We would vote on the wording change and then vote to approve as amended. correct on that Eugene.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:14
Okay writing
Speaker 14 2:30:17
so we have a vote from I’m sorry, a motion from Councillor had dunkel fairing to amend the wording in in Rule five. And did you seconder. Councillor McCoy’s seconded that, so let’s vote.
Speaker 2 2:30:39
And if I can just make sure mayor that I’ve captured that to change the title to public participation. Yes. And then in paragraphs A and C to switch that out to say Longmont residents instead of the word citizen.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:51
Correct. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:53
So is there no discussion on her motion?
Unknown Speaker 2:30:58
Right, I’ll have a discussion on it. Councillor Martin?
Speaker 4 2:31:03
I have two questions. The first one is we have to vote on these as a group correct as they’re presented. So we either pass all of them or fail all of them
Speaker 14 2:31:18
I don’t think so. These are just three amendments. They’re not I don’t think it’s a slate
Speaker 2 2:31:27
Yeah, I believe you could mayor and council I believe you could put them apart if you liked
Speaker 4 2:31:32
Okay then I will have a motion after we vote on the current amendment
Unknown Speaker 2:31:46
and that’s all for now.
Speaker 14 2:31:47
Councillor Hidalgo very okay. So let’s vote on this amended amendment Rule five
Unknown Speaker 2:32:11
don’t know why this doesn’t work tonight
Unknown Speaker 2:32:25
Do you want to give a voice vote councillor.
Speaker 14 2:32:39
So that carries six to one with Councillor Martin in opposition.
Unknown Speaker 2:32:51
Let me move this back up here.
Speaker 14 2:33:00
So the second one, let’s go back up to the first one to remove reference to Friday work sessions from rule 25 meetings and replace it with monthly pre sessions from six to seven. I know you have your light on a counselor Martin. Let’s go back into your amendment for number three, what you wanted to speak on?
Speaker 4 2:33:25
No, that’s actually not what I want to speak on. I think since this was presented as a single letter, but the city clerk said that we could vote on them individually that the first thing we would do is to have we would need to have a motion to vote on them individually rather than as a single item. is Am I correct in that? Or can the mayor just decide to vote on them individually?
Speaker 2 2:33:53
Mayor Peck and Councilmember Martin there were three amendments proposed. I think you could consider each of the amendments individually. So we can make considered an amendment to the Rule five, which was the third item, so we could consider that amendment. Finalize that one and then move on to the other two. Right. What would make some sense to me. Okay, then
Speaker 4 2:34:14
I do want to speak about the amendment to the about rule about amendment five, which is didn’t we discuss at the lat the last time we took these issues up that if we didn’t leave the word citizen there then we would require a charter amendment because the charter uses the word citizen
Speaker 31 2:34:42
mayor and council using may city attorney you mentioned the word charter I turn on my light. So yes, the charter uses the term citizen and employee shall have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The rules mirror the charter language I think the term citizen, as councilmember Hidalgo Ferring pointed out is open to interpretation. I will note in qualifications of council members. Charter section 3.21 of the qualifications is a citizen of the United States of America. Under rules of statutory construction, the drafters of the charter are imputed to know how to say citizen of the United States if they wanted to, therefore, citizen would be a different term. I think resident of long mod is a reasonable interpretation of that term citizen. And so if council wants to put resident in there, I think that’s a reasonable interpretation.
Speaker 14 2:35:50
So Eugene, are you saying that we do or do not have to change the charter to match Rules of Procedure? That wording do they have to match?
Unknown Speaker 2:36:01
The wording does not have to match?
Speaker 4 2:36:04
Thank you. Okay, thank you. I am still going to vote no, because I love democracy so much. And even though some people that I vehemently disagree with have been weaponizing public invited to be heard recently. I will fight to the death for their right to do that. And so I think we should leave this alone. And I’m going to vote no. Okay. And I also find that when Madam Mayor has very strong feelings about something she tends to interrupt the speaker who has the floor, so I just like to say that I wish she wouldn’t.
Speaker 14 2:36:58
Thank you. So we need a motion to pass Rule five citizen participant participation as amended.
Speaker 17 2:37:10
Amendment five or Rule five as amended.
Speaker 14 2:37:13
I’ll second that any discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote
Unknown Speaker 2:37:20
let me just correct this wording
Unknown Speaker 2:37:27
I just want to be clear
Unknown Speaker 2:37:31
we are kind of all over the board here I apologize.
Unknown Speaker 2:37:59
So we’re waiting on to people unless you
Unknown Speaker 2:38:11
cancel you didn’t win
Speaker 14 2:38:36
so that passes unanimous No, I’m sorry. It passes six to one with our Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez sent opposition
Unknown Speaker 2:38:48
you voted yes.
Speaker 14 2:38:55
So thank you. Let’s go back to the other two amendments. Number one, remove reference to Friday work sessions from from rule 25 meetings and replace it with monthly processions. Okay, prior to the LH board of Commissioner meetings, I will move to accept the amendment for rule 25 Second any discussion on rule 25? Seeing none Let’s vote.
Speaker 14 2:39:49
Thank you carries unanimously. So the last one that we need to do is number two reintroduction and passage of board pre interview changes In rule 27 words that were introduced in March 2220 22, but not brought back for second reading, and thus not officially adopted. And it was both city attorney and city clerk that brought this to my attention that we had not. So counselor waters.
Tim Waters 2:40:21
Just clarification, when the when we saw this the first time it was a first reading. Yes. That would suggest it was in an ordinance. So
Speaker 2 2:40:35
if I might Eugene may have slicker wording for this, but council rules of procedure we do on on two readings so that the public has a fair chance to weigh in on any
Tim Waters 2:40:45
readings not an ordinance, but I can ordinance correct. So this would be the first of two readings, we would see both of these. Alright, thanks.
Speaker 14 2:40:57
So let me let me just make it clear. This is the second reading of something we’ve already okay. Oh, yeah, we’re doing it over. Okay. All right. Sounds good. All right, counselor, Hidalgo.
Speaker 17 2:41:13
Okay. Thank you, Mayor. So I do have so this would come back to us with an opportunity for public comment. Correct. Okay, so, yeah, you and I still have I have some concerns about how this has been working. So I would really love to hear from board and commission. People who are on these boards and commissions to have them weigh in before I proceed. So yeah, I’ll support this moving forward, but really, just to get obtain public comment on this issue.
Unknown Speaker 2:41:45
So do you want to move it?
Speaker 17 2:41:47
So I will move this change? Rule 27 rule 27 Thank you
Speaker 14 2:41:56
Okay, so it’s been Moved by Councillor Hidalgo fairing seconded by Councillor Shakira Yarborough that we bring back rule 27 For a first reading and officially
Unknown Speaker 2:42:10
second reading. This is
Speaker 14 2:42:15
got it? Because it’s not on the Consent Agenda. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:28
Councillor Martin?
Unknown Speaker 2:42:30
So that’s true of all three of these Correct. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:39
Seeing no other comments, let’s vote
Speaker 14 2:42:51
so you’ll have a chance to address that other one Councillor Martin on second reading
Unknown Speaker 2:43:02
and that carries unanimously
Speaker 14 2:43:13
here we are. So yep, under general business. Can I have a motion to recess?
Speaker 1 2:43:22
Remember resources alarm on city council and reconvene as general improvement districts?
Speaker 14 2:43:27
So that’s been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor Martin Let’s vote.
Speaker 14 2:43:47
carries unanimously. So under the excuse me in general improvement district number one we have a resolution, our LG resolution, our LG ID Dash 2023 Dash oh two. A resolution of the Board of Directors of the Longmont general improvement district number one, enacting a supplemental budget and making an additional appropriation for the expenses and liabilities of the district for the fiscal year. Begin beginning January 1 2023. Can I have a motion to move this? Thank you. So it’s been this has been moved. Our LGI D 2023. dash O two was Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor waters. Let’s vote
Speaker 14 2:45:05
passes unanimously. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Second, been Moved by Councillor water seconded by Councillor Hidalgo referring to adjourn as the board of directors, all those edits vote please. That carries unanimously. We have under general business, be our 2023 Dash 60 A resolution along with City Council supporting a grant application to the Colorado Department of local affairs for air quality analysis and climate resilience planning. And I see Jane Turner.
Speaker 32 2:45:53
Good evening mayor and council, you’ll be pleased to learn that I do not have a presentation about this grant application. I just wanted to take a quick moment to highlight for all of you that staff are actively seeking funding opportunities to be able to do more research on all this great air quality data that we’ve been gathering. And also that we’re working really closely with other communities along the front range that are also doing their own local government air quality monitoring. So fingers crossed for this if you approve it, and I’m happy to answer any questions if you have them.
Unknown Speaker 2:46:25
Great. Councillor Martin.
Speaker 4 2:46:28
Thank you, Mayor Peck, I vote vote passage of our 2023 Dash 60
Speaker 14 2:46:36
Thank you that’s been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor Hidalgo. fairing Let’s vote.
Speaker 14 2:46:56
Thank you. That carries unanimously. Jane, thank you for all the work you’re doing. I hope we get this grant. Be great. We’re now at final call public invited to be heard. Is there anybody from the public still here that would like to address Council? Seeing none, I will close final call public invited beard. We have Marin Council comments. Councillor Hidalgo fairing.
Speaker 17 2:47:20
So I have a couple of announcements. One is the on the Sunday, the July 31 Is the Nepali Yatra event at the museum. You can look up information on the website. As you can get get your tickets come. I attended last year for a brief period of time. And it was it was a wonderful event. And I learned a lot. And then the other thing I had kind of worked with what’s the July 30, Sunday, Sunday, Sunday the 30th. Thank you. My Calendar has starts with the Monday. So yeah, it throws me off because I look at and see it as Sunday. So thank you for the correction It is Sunday the 30th. The other I had been in contact with some businesses in ward three. And things got delayed because of COVID. And just opportunity to kind of restart it up with a community conversations with folks and more three, but again, you know, it’s open to the it’s open to anybody who wants to come. So I do have something scheduled a business did volunteer to to open their establishment on August 3 from 530 to seven to just come in and you know, it’s for me, it’s listening to our ohana. Want to hear predominantly what residents in ward three, you know anyone’s Welcome. Have some barbecue. And just let me know your concerns or just things that are pressing issues. So throwing that out there. It is at Dickey’s Barbecue on North Main.
Speaker 14 2:49:03
They’re good. Seeing no other counselors in the queue city manager remarks, Harold.
Speaker 3 2:49:11
I know you are anxious Stan and I forgot something in my first section on city manager comments. One of the things you know we’ve been providing counsel with information regarding West Nile in the traps across the community. Public health is this is probably the strongest worded recommendation we’ve had with from them in terms of West Nile. The the numbers that we’re seeing in the traps are the highest that we’ve seen since we’ve been collecting the data. And so we are going to engage in more spraying activities. I’m actually using $40,000 for my contingency to cover that cost because it wasn’t budgeted in you know going back in history. I think in the first six months that I was actually here in Longmont, we had a lot of conversation about mosquito spraying. We eventually allowed for shut offs and other components. But we set some criteria in terms of when we would do this. And as we learned from COVID, we do take our public health advice from Boulder County Public Health, and this is a significant issue. So we are increasing sprain and we’re continuing to work with them. I know we’ve sent this to you via email. I just wanted to say it in this session. So it’s on record.
Speaker 14 2:50:29
Thank you. City Attorney. Eugene.
Unknown Speaker 2:50:33
No comments, Mayor.
Speaker 14 2:50:34
Thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Thanks that’s been made by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor waters. All those in favor. Thank you. Good evening. Good night.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai