Longmont City Council – Regular Session – November 14, 2023

Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – November 14, 2023

Read along below:

Unknown Speaker 0:00

Speaker 1 20:03
With us getting this meeting started tonight, I would like to call the November 14 2023. long months City Council regular session to order due to a family emergency councilmember Martin is requesting to participate remotely in tonight’s meeting. To do that, I would ask to have a vote I mean and a motion to permit her to do so. And council will vote on that.

Unknown Speaker 20:29

Speaker 1 20:30
Okay. Councillor waters moved that motion and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded it. We are going to have a handout tonight because we are having some technical issues with the voting. So all those in favor. All right. All those opposed. And that passes unanimously. We have a Mr. With Councillor Yes, I’m sorry. That past six to one with Councillor McCoy absent. So, for the public the livestream of this meeting can be viewed at the city’s YouTube channel, or at Longmont public media.org forward slash watch. It can also be viewed on Comcast channels eight or eight ad. May we have a roll call please.

Speaker 2 21:25
Mayor Peck presents councilmember Hidalgo fairing Here. Councilmember Martin. Here. Councilmember McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Councilmember waters, Councilmember Yarbro. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank

Unknown Speaker 21:42
you. Let’s stand for the pledge.

Speaker 3 21:48
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

Tim Waters 21:59
justice for all.

Speaker 1 22:10
As a reminder to the public, the rules for providing public comment are as follows. Each speaker must give their name and address and is limited to three minutes. Only longer residents and employees of the city of Longmont may speak during first call public invited to be heard. And you must sign up on the list prior to the start of the meeting. Persons wishing to speak on a specific second reading or public hearing item or asked to add their name to the speaker list for that specific item prior to the start of the meeting. And anyone may speak and no signup is required to speak during the final call public invited to be heard. We I need a motion for the October 24 minutes.

Speaker 3 22:51
I move approval of October 21 2020. Regular Session minutes.

Speaker 1 22:57
It’s been moved by council. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor waters. Is there any discussion about the meeting? minutes from Council? Seeing none, let’s vote all those in favor? All those opposed? And that passes six to one with Councillor McCoy absent? Do we have any motions from councillors to add agenda items to the next agenda? Councillor Hidalgo faring.

Speaker 4 23:29
Okay, thank you, Mayor. And I don’t know how many were approached on council in regard to this. But at our last it was our October coffee with counsel, we had a chance to chat with a member from the lhsaa. Who who does the senior grocery shopping route. And one of the things that we in our discussion is that it has not been adequately funded. And they’re running the risk of not having appropriate funds to continue with the program that has been very beneficial. So the request was, and I can break it down to have to use Council Council contingency funds to help fund the program through 2026 in the Amount total amount of 45,000 5000 for the remainder of this year 20,000 For 2025 and 20,000 for 2026. So I would like to request of our counsel if they would be amenable to

Speaker 1 24:42
Is that a motion? Yes. Okay. Can I have a second?

Tim Waters 24:47
Second motion? Can I just clarify? Yes, your motion to bring this back as an agenda.

Speaker 4 24:56
So I guess I need click verification. If we are bringing if we’re voting on a council contingency item, does it need to be come back as a motion? Or is this something we can approve and allocate tonight? Because I will do either

Speaker 5 25:12
Mayor Council will probably be better to bring it back on an agenda. Okay.

Speaker 4 25:16
So I’m moved to bring this item back on an agenda.

Unknown Speaker 25:24
Council member Martin? Um, yes,

Speaker 4 25:28
I maybe misheard this. But what happened to 2024? You said, the remainder of 23. And then you had 20? Oh, yeah, you know, what, just it shifted. Nevermind, I was looking at her notes. So for the remainder of this year, then next year and the following year, so it looks like it would be 2020. Wait a second. So with careful reminder. For 2024, so they are short for I’m sorry, they are short 5000. For next year 2024. I was looking at two different nails, combining them together. They are short 5000 for 2024. So they are set for this year. So it would be the next next year 2025 and 2026. Does that answer your question? Yes, it certainly does. Okay.

Speaker 1 26:25
So I do want to make a comment. I think it’s a great idea. It’s been a very successful program. And Council has paid for this from the start, it is something that we have decided we would fund for the people living in the long run Housing Authority homes and via is offering the service. And like Councillor Hytera fairing said, it’s very, very popular, because a lot of a lot of those residents have absolutely no way to get to any shopping. So I’m seeing no one else in the queue. Let’s vote. All those in favor? All those opposed? So that passes unanimously, I’m sorry, that passes six to one with Councillor McCoy. Absent. Thank you

Tim Waters 27:18

Speaker 1 27:23
to zero. Thank you. And I do have, I would like to make a motion to direct staff to start research on the ability to have a drone fire show instead of fireworks this year. That is very popular. But it’s also it’s difficult to program, the drones that would be putting on the show. So I’m asking for it early so that we have time to research it, get funding and see if it’s anything that we want to do. Just as a different way of looking at our fireworks with all the fire contingency warnings, etc that we have in July. So I’m that’s my motion.

Unknown Speaker 28:17
I’ll second.

Speaker 1 28:20
Is there any discussion? Seeing none, let’s vote up. I want to make I want to say also that this is on your timeline, whatever. Whenever you need to bring it back to us. Do you have questions? I can see by your I just stepped in as I heard the word fireworks. Sorry, Mayor, the motion is the motion is to direct staff to start doing some research on the possibility of having a drone show in place of fireworks this year. So no timeline on to bring that research back or the cost. But I would like to get that research going. So counselor, Hidalgo fairing and

Speaker 4 29:06
one more thing that could be part of that research. I don’t know if it has to be amended in but look at the possibility of since it’s not fireworks, about bringing back bringing the show back to the Boulder County Fairgrounds.

Speaker 1 29:24
Okay, seeing no no one else in the queue with comments. Let’s vote. All those in favor. Aye. All those opposed. So that passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent. Thank you. So we are now on to city manager’s report.

Speaker 6 29:47
Mayor Council, I just wanted to inform you. I know as you all have said our affordable housing goal and what we’ve been trying to do in terms of projects. We did receive word late this afternoon. We were in a co developer application for developing the property that we own at 17th. And over adjacent to the suites and not the suites, the lodge in the Hearthstone, we submitted a project that was going to it’s an average income project, it’s going to have 30 40% 50% Ami units and 70 and 80. It’s the first family project that we’ll have that was submitted on the part of the housing authority. Since Aspen Meadows neighborhood, that’s going to include 123 and four bedroom units. We were selected as part of the tax credit process that also is going to include an early child childhood education component that we’re working on so I know that was something on your work plan and that we’ve been talking about for a few years. Just wanted to let you know we we did get selected.

Speaker 1 30:59
Thank you. That’s great news. And I also want to give a little bit of credit even though all council did it to Councillor waters, as he has pushed in a heavy advocate for the early childhood program within our city is a great place to start. So thank you very much. We now have a special report and presentation. This is a presentation honoring the Stewart Family Foundation for their support of Longmont museum. I would like oh there you are Eric Mason.

Speaker 7 31:44
Mayor Peck councilmembers. I’m Eric Mason director of the Longmont museum. And I’m here to present tonight about the support that the Stewart Family Foundation has given to the Longmont Museum. The connection between the museum and Stewart family goes back over 20 years when Bill and Lila Stewart contributed $1 million at first anonymously to help build the Longmont Museum at 400 quail road. Their generosity continued through the construction of the steward auditorium. The 250 seat performance performing arts facility that is used by many different groups in the community. Since both Bill and Lila Stewart have passed away, the Stewart family foundation now carries on the work that they began. The foundation has pledged $5 million dollars to support the capital campaign to expand the Longmont Museum. This expansion will improve the museum’s courtyard to allow for larger summer concerts, more room for summer camps. And another phase of the expansion will add gallery space, allowing us to create a dedicated children’s gallery for a year round educational play. Tonight, I have some very special announcements that have not been shared publicly. Previously. We are delighted to reveal that the Stewart Family Foundation has added a matching challenge on top of their pledge through the end of the year. All gifts to the Longmont museums campaign will be matched to a total of $100,000. This includes all gifts given on Colorado gives Day on December 5. So it’s a great opportunity that we believe will get us much closer to our $8.1 million goal for the campaign. And I’m also pleased to announce that the Stewart Family Foundation is funding another city program. The growing Longmont readers program at the Longmont Public Library, another $100,000 gift, which shows the Stewart family Foundation’s commitment to early childhood education and literacy in our community. The foundation is making a difference in our community today. We have with us two trustees from the foundation I’ll invite them up we have Jim Newcomb and Linda Schneider Crockett.

Unknown Speaker 34:21
You could please welcome them and thank them for their service to the museum and to the community.

Speaker 1 34:34
Welcome Thank you very much for your service. The museum is a gem a total gem in our community and we thank you very much for allowing us to partner with you to have that in our community.

Unknown Speaker 34:51
Would you like to picture Mr. Newcomen photo op, not a selfie never turned

Unknown Speaker 35:28

Speaker 1 36:03
now at first call public invited to be heard, and remember to give us your name and address and you have three minutes. Georgiana Johnston is the first person

Speaker 8 36:18
Good evening, Mayor. I didn’t want to be the first one but it’s okay. Georgette Johnston 320 homestead Parkway on what Colorado 80504 I’m glad you got back in mayor I voted for you different ones that you did. Thank you very much for letting me talk and, and doing a good job. Of course, I am very upset over certain things. It’s why I’m here tonight a good city. I’m not happy about the indoor skating rink yet that we need to build and ice hockey. And you know, I feel like the other ones a nice little thing I took my grandkids but we need a better one and Lord willing, I hope people are going to start in the council money spent there’s you’re gonna get busy doing it. And also the centennial pool, I don’t understand why it’s gonna die. It’s I took my kids and grandkids many many years ago. So it’s had its day and we knew we needed a different pool. Also, I’m not happy about the arts and entertainment center. That was wonderful listened in to that I also took my kids many times grandkids great grandkids to the museum. So it’s a good thing. I understand that. But also, it doesn’t work for the arts and entertainment for the long walk around different places that they can only use. They tell me they can only use a couple places like the schools that they don’t have a place big enough so this isn’t good that we have to go out of town for entertainment take our money out instead of some way. You Councilman the people in long man whoever’s listening to me all over the city that what do we do with their money? I’m thinking breweries and marijuana’s and I know you love me hear me say that. But that’s good for our young people. What are we teaching our young people? How are we supporting people I’m not happy about this. And I know that people need to work together and want these things for good entertainment in good situations for the people of long but our good city, also the buffet restaurants, I’m hoping we get some some of those in here. Better clothing stores, I do want to say that the streets and and roads are looking a little bit better. I’ve seen Third Avenue third and Gay Street and a few of them that are looking better, not so many holes, like where we’d be driving rattle traps, so that’s a good compliment, but also our affordable housing. I mean, I think that’s really nice. I’m an older lady and right now I’m glad where I’m at there’s but we need safe ones, affordable ones and situations that work for the seniors as well as all people I’m not against acting like we’re any better. But we’ve lived a lot of years I’ve been in there 70 Some years myself to support. So I want a good city that’s why I come and and talk and Lord willing people are listening besides good churches. You know, I just don’t understand but Lord bless you people and thank you for doing a good job.

Unknown Speaker 39:41
Thank you church Yetta Scott Cook

Speaker 9 39:58
Good evening, Mayor Peck and members of City Council. I’m Scott Cook, I’m the CEO at the Longmont chamber 528 Main Street. Our business owners are nonprofit organizations and all our all our employers are very aware of the cost of living challenges their employees are facing. The chamber appreciates, though the city council’s attention to the stresses businesses and our nonprofit employers are currently facing. Thank you to Mayor Peck and all the members of city council for the conversations that we’ve had and your personal outreach to business owners on the minimum wage question. It is our understanding that the engagement process is still being planned for next year. And the chamber requests this partnership that we’ve had thus far with the city elected officials and staff continue. At this time, the Chamber does not have a position on raising the minimum wage. I want to be clear that our only position at this time has been one of opposition to the Boulder County decision to move up the timeline to January 120 24. With our Boulder County Chamber partners, we have conducted our own survey and believe the best decisions are made with the best data. With that said regarding the economic analysis if Council decides to move forward with it, the chamber will be interested to assist. We however believe council should consider what information we as a community want to gain from it. The chamber has a list of questions that I will not read through in its entirety here. But for example, with the analysis, we hope that to get impact on housing, both with supply and cost. What will happen with employee movement? Will Boulder County attract more employees than surrounding areas? And what will again be the the impacts to housing, our services and our infrastructure? will lower paying positions be eliminated through technology? And if so at what pace? And will there be friction between larger employers and smaller employers? We are curious to gain insight to these questions and more. Again, I want to thank you for your attention to both our employers and to our employees. Finding solutions for everyone in the community is not an easy task for the council. The chamber looks forward to further participation on the minimum wage question. Thank you.

Speaker 1 42:05
Thank you, Scott. Martin orner.

Speaker 10 42:20
Mayor and council Martin orner 1417 Auburn court here in Longmont. Everything’s complicated. I was just, I wasn’t gonna speak to the arts and entertainment. But since it was brought up the high schools just this past weekend, had their plays and musicals. And I think there was probably more than half of the seats were empty. So if there’s such a need to go out and experience art and entertainment, I don’t understand why there’s so many empty seats, where our young people are working so hard to put on a performance to put on a Musical for the community. So that’s the arts and entertainment. What I did come here tonight to speak to is now that the majority of the voters who voted in Longmont voted against Council’s three tax increase proposals. I would hope that the city council would dedicate at least as much effort as they dedicated to those three proposals to ideas and initiatives to help make our city more affordable, rather than less affordable. Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 43:37
Thank you, Martin. l hundra. Bat.

Speaker 11 43:57
Hi, my name is Alejandra Beatty. I think I’ve talked with you all before it’s been a while though. I am Vice President for the boulder area labor Labor Council, representing about 22 different unions, many of them have either members who work in this district or live here, we’re both. Again, we’d like to speak again about minimum wage. This is something that a coalition of about we’re now probably 35 Different organizations have joined us have been working on for about a year now. And we would just want to continue to urge you to continue working within consortium continue focusing on supporting working families vote for in the economic analysis and the money that’s put behind that. While we feel that there’s plenty of existing data that would have been readily available to you. We understand that the working group decided they really needed to have that information. So we urge the council to help fund that so that we can put this work to bed and move on to bigger problems like again housing and the affordability crisis that many of these working families face and desperately need some help with. So appreciate your, your counsels work on that and thank you.

Unknown Speaker 45:16
Thank you, Ella hundra Lance Whitaker.

Speaker 12 45:30
Hello again mayor and council, my name is Lance Whitaker, Lu 1750. Collier Street, in in lung month. 45 years. Glad to come to you here today to tell you today is National seatbelt day. So very buckle up on your way home. It is also nice minerals, spicy avocado day. And national pickle day. It is also National Diabetes Day which holds a special place for my heart in my heart. Thank you, Ron, for you.

Unknown Speaker 46:14
Thank you Lance Stanley tall.

Speaker 13 46:31
name is Stan toll 2001 Terry Street. Reason I’m coming up here is to encourage the city council to give themselves as much as possible woke on traffic issues, and transportation. Woke is defined in the Webster’s Dictionary as being educated and aware normally on racial areas, but I would say woke could apply to lots of issues. One of the reasons I’m talking to the council about this was really something that happened years ago, where I was going to meet a friend after she had been at a religious group. And you know, we were going to touch base and then she kind of I couldn’t get ahold of her. And it turns out that one of their people in her that was going to the meeting, they were just driving in the local one of the lope local neighborhoods. And they missed seeing a stop sign and they had a serious injury accident. It was really because the person was basically wasn’t familiar with the neighborhood. And possibly, it was probably preventable with design of the traffic. Recently, the reason I’m kinda here is I had a friend recently that was very upset, because he had a longtime friend killed in as in a pedestrian, he was crossing a street. And again, this was probably a preventable type of accident. And when I say that the council should be woke, it’s basically what I paid with my friend with her compatriots that got seriously or hurt I pay started paying attention to traffic issues and how they can be handled. And some of the stuff I found that was educational, it was a couple of YouTube channels, not just bikes and strong towns. I would suggest the council’s to maybe when they have time to check out some of that stuff and other issues. One of the things that in both of these cases, I think the error that was taking place. Okay, thank thank you, Stan. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 49:43
Diane Crist. Congratulations, Diane.

Speaker 14 49:49
Well, thank you, Mayor Dianne Chris Stoney Ridge Longmont. I’d like to mention today I know what’s going to come up later about the inclusionary housing and attainable housing ordinances that Mr. Domingo Sen. Miss O’Donnell are going to present. And I just wanted to mention that I have some experience in those areas, both with attainable and inclusionary. And a framework that I think might offer some expertise and also some efficiencies that would affect those two ordinances. And Mr. Dominguez and Miss O’Donnell and I have are going to be speaking about that on Friday. So if there’s any way possible, maybe we could put off voting on that tonight, and maybe push it to the 28th I might be able to help make that more efficient. So too much to explain in three minutes, but on Friday, we can talk about it. All right, thank you so much.

Speaker 1 50:52
Thank you, Diane. See no one else on the list. That concludes first call public invited to be heard. We are now on our consent agenda and introduction and reading of title by first reading ordinances. Can you read those into the read those for us? Yes, Mayor into the record.

Speaker 2 51:16
Second reading and public hearing for the ordinance introduce it. ordinances introduced on this agenda will be held on Tuesday, November 28 2023. Consent Agenda number nine A is ordinance 2023 Dash 62. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for fiscal year beginning January 120 23. and M nine B is ordinance 2023 Dash 63. A bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance brand, municipal airport hangar parcel H dash 62 to Patrick Kapowski. Or Item nine c is ordinance 2023 Dash 64 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance brand municipal airport hangar parcel. H dash 72 Francis H Smith Jr. I’m 90 is resolution 2023 Dash 90 a resolution of the Longmont City Council adopting the permit fee schedule for the 2021 International Fire Code. Item nine E is resolution 2023 Dash 91 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city and St. Vrain Valley School District for a joint school resource officer program. Item nine F is resolution 2023 Dash 92. A resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the First Amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Longmont housing authority to provide funding for security cameras at Longmont Housing Authority properties through the 2022 Community Development Block Grant Program. Item nine G is resolution 2023 Dash 93 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Longmont housing authority to provide American rescue plan Act funding for the Longmont Housing Authority accessibility project. Item nine H is resolution 2023 Dash 94 a resolution of the Longmont City Council conditionally approving the LFM business improvement districts 2024 operating plan and draft budget. Item nine i is resolution 2023 Dash 95 a resolution to the Longmont City Council accepting a matching contribution from Longmont, Sister Cities Association to the Art in Public Places program for collaboration, collaborative public arts project.

Speaker 1 54:01
Thank you. Do any councillors want to pull an item off of the consent agenda? Seeing no one can I have a motion?

Unknown Speaker 54:11
I move the consent agenda.

Speaker 1 54:16
So the consent agenda has been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing. Let’s vote all those in favor. All those opposed? That passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent Oh, now we’re at the ordinances on second reading and public hearing on any item. We’re going to start with 10 A 10 A is 2023 Dash 59 supplemental information a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 4.79 of the Longmont municipal code on fee waivers for attainable housing. And we have a presentation by Molly O’Donnell

Speaker 15 55:09
Do I need to share for now?

Speaker 15 55:48
Mayor members of council, thank you for hearing this presentation tonight. I’m Molly O’Donnell, the housing director for the city. And we are considering the attainable housing fee waiver program on second reading of the ordinance tonight. So, this slide puts a year’s worth of work your plus work worth of work into one side. So it’s just a brief overview of everything that we have discussed with you to date in the past year, the real the overview of the program parameters, and then the scoring criteria that we have presented for determining the level of fee waiver that a project that provides attainable housing. So again, for the for the audience, that is housing that’s for sale, housing, affordable to households, earning between 80 and 120% of the area median income, the basic parameters, the scoring criteria, and the terms of the deed restrictions that we would be placing on units that benefit from a fee waiver, are all summarized here. We do want to bring two pieces of information to you tonight. One is a consideration that staff recommends that council consider this was regarding amending code language here at second reading. Really where this one comes down to is we’ve been using example projects throughout this process testing how they would perform under a proposed fee waiver program. And really using that as a gut check to make sure that this program would do what it is intended to do and also be used by developers so that we actually get these units out on an out there in our community. So what we have heard some feedback from developers that are considering fully affordable or attainable projects, so no market rate units included in the in the projects to help buffer the risk profile, and really the financial aspects of the pro forma that they are subject to such a higher risk profile, that the deal can be very sensitive. And the underwriting could result in it looking infeasible from the start before even gets off the ground. So there are certain flexibilities that they have indicated could be helpful. And because for those projects, qualifying for higher fee waivers, they’d be responsible for doing a development agreement with the city where certain terms could be negotiated. So a suggestion from staff is to consider amended language that would state what you see here at the bottom bullet. So when a development includes all the units that are below the attainable 120% For Sale limits, and at least 25% of the units are sold below the affordable maximum sales prices, developers may propose to council an alternative manner in which the development of can satisfy its obligations under the program, the language that we would put together mirrors almost exactly a provision that’s in the inclusionary housing ordinance where developers can come and propose something that meets the intent of the program, but and then Council could consider whether that serves the community and then serves the intent of Go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 59:46
Sorry, I was trying to get rid of this guy.

Speaker 6 59:56
So to try to Take this down a little bit. So one of the things that we were finding is that when you, when you limit the number of unit when all the units are below 120%, ami, and you have a significant amount of the units in excess of 25%, that are affordable, and those are permanently deed restricted when when we started looking at the financing component to this, and what I will say is, you know, these are things that we’re learning in this process. And one of the things is really how much of an impact the underwriting has to to a project. So when you think about anything that’s over 25%, permanently affordable, deed restricted. When you look at the world of buyers, for any home, it could look like this. When you go to permanently affordable deed restricted, it shrinks. And then in looking at information, one of the things that also comes along with that project, is the fact that the likelihood of those units remaining vacant, is much higher. Because even when you prequalify for a loan, there’s no guarantee that when you get to closing that you can close. And so people that have built these types of units, they remain it there will be some that remain unsold, which when you look at the pro forma and what you’re trying to do, but you just keep accruing interest cost. When you then slide over and you look at everything is below 120. In the attainable fee waiver project, again, you take the buyer pool and you shrink down because you you bring in things like deed restrictions and some other components that reduces the number of buyers that may be willing to buy it. So what we found in this is that when you combine those two issues, it creates significant underwriting risk. And it’s different for every project based on the mix of the units. And so it was a hole that we saw in this attainable housing ordinance. And we felt like we needed a similar similar language in this ordinance that we have in the affordable in the inclusionary housing program. That does give us the ability to bring. And these are rare special project rare projects where you have deep affordable, but we can bring something to the city council that you all have to approve via development agreement, but takes into consideration all of those nuances that come into play when you have deep affordable units and deed restricted, attainable units that can create some underwriting challenges. And so this is why we’re recommending that we put this language in, it gives us the ability to take those unusual projects that put a large amount of affordable and attainable units in our community.

Speaker 15 1:03:09
We’re gonna go for a second item. So this item is a request for consideration for Mexico language. The next item is a program clarification about income qualification. So the the way that we have the program written to date, really the developer qualifies for the fee waiver based on the price of the home that they commit to sell to. So that’s in those affordability bands. But the income qualification is a requirement of the program. But we don’t necessarily tie the the income of the person buying the home to whether the developer gets the fee waiver on that home. It’s that the disconnection time as well. So what we were thinking about and what we intend, with your feedback to implement in our policies and procedures, once we write out the procedures for what the income qualification piece means is that as long as in a household qualifies under the 120% Ami limit on their income, they can purchase within the several bands that we have in that attainable category. that’s those are 80 to 100 101 10, one 110 to 120. The reason we intend to work it that way, is that in reality, the buyers that we’re talking about, most likely will have debt to income ratios that determine their qualification level regardless of their income. The way that we set those maximum sales prices is assuming because it’s a maximum. That’s that, you know, it’s a totally free and clear debt situation. And so what could happen is A household can come in with 110% Ami income, but only qualified due to their personal financial situation for 110% Ami home. And if we did not allow them to do that, then they would be lost to the program. And there’s a gap there. So in real life, when you’re considering this, people’s personal financial situations are going to be all over the board. And we don’t want to narrow the number of people that can participate in this program. And, frankly, we don’t also want to require them to purchase at their maximum affordability price as well. So it’s, it’s not perfect, because there is, that does mean that a lower AMI family still above 80, but lower in the range would be potentially, you know, there could be an offer in from an an 85% Ami family and 115% Ami family. But the competition is still capped by those maximum sales prices that the developers committed to. So there is some level of competition that may occur. But we also intend, if there is a large amount of units coming, we intend to implement a lottery process anyway and try and prioritize people for to make sure our incomes and those are matching up well, and those at the lower end of the range still have an opportunity. So that is primarily a program clarification. It comes in the implementation side, but we wanted to make sure that that was clear and get feedback if you had it.

Speaker 1 1:06:37
So is there anybody on council that would like to give feedback? Sandy, can you see? Marsha?

Unknown Speaker 1:06:48
Are you okay? Okay.

Speaker 1 1:06:55
Seeing no one I am going to open this for public comment for the public hearing process. Is there anybody in the public? Oh, I do have a couple of people signed up. Parkhill Sam, Sam Wilson.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:17
Hello, Parker. Is it Parker? Yes, it is. Okay. Sorry.

Speaker 16 1:07:22
I have a comment on the affordable housing fee requirement for developments. Is this the right topic? Or is that the next one?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:29
It’s gonna be the next one. All right.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:31
I’ll be back. Okay. Is that okay?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:33
Yes. And I’ll pronounce your name correctly this time. Thank you. The next one, David Bell. David here, Daniel. Thank you, David.

Speaker 17 1:07:55
I think I actually want to be in the next thing as well as confused as to which.

Speaker 1 1:08:01
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this ordinance? Seeing no one I’ll close the public invited the public hearing on this ordinance and ask for a motion. Basically, what we want is direction, is that correct? or

Speaker 6 1:08:23
No? No. If, if you want to adopt the ordinance, as discussed originally, you would just approve that ordinance. If you wanted to adopt the ordinance with the amendments that Molly presented, then you would need to make a motion to add the amendment to the ordinance. If that motion passes, then you will need to then make a subsequent motion to adopt the ordinance as amended.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:50
Okay, Councillor waters.

Tim Waters 1:08:52
Thanks for your back. I should have asked the question this question. Before we get into the public hearing, give me an example here of the kind of proposal you might anticipate from a developer as the alternative right in our inclusionary housing ordinance, we have the alternative agreement that the developer can bring forward. This is different as an as an attainable housing project. I’m sitting here thinking what you know, what are the what are the degrees of freedom? What are the options? So whether the rather than trying to answer that question, What is your answer to what you might expect it to be expecting to see? So

Speaker 6 1:09:31
a in order to qualify for this section, the first threshold is, is that every home has to be under 120% ami. And at a minimum 25% of those homes have to be below 80% ami. So theoretically, you could see somebody come in with a project that says I want to build 35 40% affordable units permanently deed restricted And then the remaining 60 to 65% is going to be attainable. And that’s going to run the gamut of could run the gamut of 80 to 120%, ami different levels and things like that. As we’ve engaged in, we’ve been running model pro formas. With real time, construction costs and things like that, one of the things that happens is that to build affordable for sale units, there’s deep subsidies that have to occur, because in many cases, when you include, even if you can bring land to the table where land is free, in our fee waivers, when you just look at the cost of construction, you’re still seeing at times anywhere from 60 to $80,000 differentials below so it cost 340,000 to build the house, but you’re selling it at 270. Similar to what Habitat for Humanity goes through in talking to different folks, you know, it costs them more to build it than what they actually sell it for. So you have that piece in there. When you get lower into the attainable, you see the same thing. So when you’re working that pro forma, then you’re also looking at the underwriting side, and then you have to start figuring out are they all going to sell immediately what’s going to be hanging on? So you’re really looking at, we call them unicorn projects, because they’re so complex in terms of the depth of affordability. And, and, you know, true affordable housing and attainable, that it just starts. When you start looking at all the financial levers, there’s not enough levers to help incentivize that type of product. And so they do need some flexibility in terms of you know, that, you know, what we’re hearing is a to tenure deed restriction will work, but we may need a buyout of the tenure deed restriction at seven years. Because the underwriters need that to maybe expand the market of people who are willing to purchase it. So these are unique projects. But we know they won’t fit into the ordinance that we brought forward. Yeah.

Tim Waters 1:12:08
So most of what you described is kind of a restatement of the problem or the challenge, right? So is the only the only option or alternative we can imagine at the moment, varying the buyout, rather than requiring the 10 year affordability to provide the option of the seven year buyout, and limit equity that somebody takes as opposed to full equity at the end of 10 years is that those are the options? Well,

Speaker 6 1:12:35
no, there’s even more options. You know, you could have a 10, you could still have the 10 year deed restriction, but you can have a seven year buy, I’m just giving you examples. You could have a seven year buyout, but when they sell it at seven years, they have to pay a portion of the equity back into a fund, they bring this home, sell it or pay a portion of the equity back into the attainable housing fund. This gives us enough, this gives us the ability to at least engage in those conversations take into account the nuances on these projects, because what Project A looks like Project B won’t look like it when you have, you know, again, the depth of affordability. And it lets us negotiate that based on all of the parameters we’ve talked about need, you know, looking at the margins, open book, you know, that’s a key piece, once you get into this level of incentives is it it’s an open book process where we see all of the financials and really try to deal with the issues. We just don’t know how we can deal with them in all cases. And I just gave you one example of how we would potentially solve it. There could be different components that we would have to bring in, but

Tim Waters 1:13:45
it is the primary concern their underwriting to get past the underwriting the rest of the project, the pro forma pencils out for the proposer for the developer. Yeah, but may not be able to get underwritten and therefore it’s

Speaker 6 1:14:02
inherently the risk. Yeah. I mean, what you’re what it is, is a risk equation based on when I get that

Tim Waters 1:14:07
I just was curious if there’s any other options, right? How creative can a developer get I know we created which that’s an option in the inclusionary housing ordinance with a variety of possibilities, right that somebody can bring all of this seems pretty limited interest.

Speaker 6 1:14:21
Oh, no, I think you’d give us the ability to look creatively at a number of solutions. It just lets us deal with it in that way if we have to. It’s one component. All right. Thanks,

Speaker 15 1:14:32
if I may, Councilman waters. We also thought that this was the best thing for the future, understanding that future market conditions might be totally different with a different problem to solve and different solutions out there. So it just offered that flexibility to address at the time.

Unknown Speaker 1:14:57
Yes, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez

Speaker 3 1:15:00
Thank you, Mr. Peck. So I just would like to talk about the flexibility of income qualification between the 80.1% to the 120%. Being that you may be income qualified 220%. But is that partially looking at the income to debt ratio? For instance, let’s say that you might have borrowed to purchase a car, or you have a student loan or something along those lines, is that to help provide that flexibility, where you may have the 120% income, but you have a debt ratio, that doesn’t necessarily qualify you 220%?

Unknown Speaker 1:15:35
Exactly. That’s it,

Unknown Speaker 1:15:38
you know, is going.

Speaker 15 1:15:39
So as long as overall the cap is, if you’re participating in purchasing one of these homes, you can’t have income over 120. But you might have a qualification profile that does, yeah,

Speaker 3 1:15:51
II might have a debt ratio that brings your qualification down to 80.1%.

Speaker 6 1:15:56
Yeah, actually, when we talked about this, because we’re continuing to run scenarios, actually talked about my example, when I first graduated college and got married, had a kid and had significant medical bills, and student loans and everything else. And so while my income may very well have put me at 100, and between 115 and 120%, ami, at that time, I probably would not have qualified for that level of home, I would have qualified, probably something between 90 and 100%, ami based on all of those factors. And I think when you look at the market generally and you see the amount of student debt and things that people are carrying with them, what we said is, oh, that can be a problem, we don’t want to turn someone away who can afford this house, just because their income is in a different bracket. Look at the total qualification price.

Speaker 15 1:16:56
I should have also mentioned that when you look at the affordable for sale product, we just say cap it at 80, you’ve got movement in that, of course, that’s assumes that there’s prices, home prices out there that that are in there, but that’s what we’re trying to work on. But there’s that flexibility in there. It’s just capped. And so we definitely thought that we put in these narrow income bands for the fee waiver program because it was neared the middle tier incentive program. And so that’s helped us set those levels, but then actually restricting the people in those narrow bands might be overly restrictive, and leave people out.

Speaker 3 1:17:33
Sure thing and I know on the national level, the conversation about student loan debt is a big piece. I think this is a novel approach to allowing some sort of concept of homeownership to people with student loan debt that is not been considered at at the national level, even outside of the income to debt ratio. Just something I wanted to point out as well. Outside of maybe the concept of this some folks buy by vehicle because they need a vehicle for, you know, their everyday necessities outside of that. I think the procedurally where we go, is I would move the move to amend ordinance 2023 59 as proposed by staff.

Speaker 1 1:18:27
Okay, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem amended the ordinance and say it was seconded by Councillor waters. So let’s vote on the amended on the amendment. All those opposed? So that passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent?

Speaker 6 1:18:49
Mayor, if I may, I would also say I think this is going to be an we’re going to be going through ongoing evaluation on this program. And we’re gonna have to continue learning through it to what the Mayor Pro Tem said this is pretty novel. It is and as we’ve looked at other communities, there’s not many that are doing things like this. And so I do, I would anticipate us coming back within a year providing you a review, review and expect that in learning through it. We’re going to have to adjust as we continue moving forward.

Speaker 1 1:19:23
Thank you for all your hard work. This is I think it’s exciting. I can’t wait to see how it works out. So

Unknown Speaker 1:19:31
now we need to pass the ordinance.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:34
Do we have do I have a motion to pass the ordinance as amended.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:37
I moved to pass the ordinance as amended.

Speaker 1 1:19:41
All right. So that’s been Moved by Councillor Elgar fairings seconded by Councillor Yarborough. Let’s vote. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? That carries six to one with Councillor McCoy. Absent six to zero. I’m so glad I have all of you. We CRT. Okay. So we are now at B which is zero 20 2360, which is the supplement the supplemental information on that is a bill for an ordinance amending section 15.0 5.2 to zero of the Longmont municipal code on inclusionary housing. And we will welcome Molly O’Donnell back.

Speaker 15 1:20:51
Mayor, Members of Council longtime dosi Okay, we’re here to present the second reading of the ordinance for the inclusionary housing program updates. This is a brief overview of the code changes that are included. We removed the requirement for voluntary voluntary alternative agreement with council approval for on site rental projects, amended the credit compliance option to make sure that we included federal subsidies as well as the state and local subsidies that were already listed. We adjusted the middle tier incentives to right size with the attainable housing Fee Waiver Program and updated the fee in lieu methodology, which is shown here as a summary of what was selected by counsel. Well, direct the staff was directed by counsel to bring back and an ordinance in accordance with these numbers shown here. On that second item, it should be the third, the third selection, so $5.93 for rental and 1350 for the modified affordability gap looks like our square got moved. But I just wanted to note here that the existing code in terms of implementation, the fee, this is what the code says the fees shall be paid. In effect, the fee paid shall be the fee, in effect at the time of the final plat or site plan for the development, whichever is later. That’s what’s been encoded since 2018. At the October 24, first reading of the ordinance council did direct staff to write the ordinance with the implementation of the 10 days from approval on second reading that would bring it to November 27 of this year. And then we did get direction for future fee and lieu updates that happen every third year to notify Council by July 31. Notify developers in the pipeline right after that, and then making it an effect January 2 of the following year. So that is the summary of the direction received to date on this ordinates.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:55
Are there any questions from Council?

Unknown Speaker 1:23:02
Councillor waters?

Tim Waters 1:23:03
Thanks, Mayor pack. I don’t think I’ve questioned so much as a reflection on what we did on October 24. I think that was the date. I was one of those who spoke up and I think my my motion or maybe it was the Mayor Pro Tem his motion to make effective date of this change 10 days following this meeting or November 25. For me the thinking at that time was let’s be consistent with what we did in 2018. On reflection after that, I’m not certain why it felt like it needed to be consistent with what we did in 2018. And that it would make more sense to think about the projects that are already submitted, right? That are that are completed applications, which means they’re in the review process and extend the time for for effect of the new fee in lieu. So that the projects that are in the queue already, so long as they would have final plat site plan or PUD approval by the end of 2024. Those projects would pay the fee in lieu the existing fee in lieu or that which existed when the applications were submitted. And the proposals that are submitted after tonight. That would be new projects would be subject to the new fee in lieu effective 10 days following the approval of this ordinance, I would add that that’s a pretty fundamental change in the ordinance. And i my i think we what we would want to do is give direction to staff to bring something back and I’d be happy to make the motion when it’s the right time or I’ll listen to another motion to bring back to not act on this tonight other than to give direction to staff to bring back a revised ordinance reflecting projects that are already in the queue that have completed applications that received their approvals for final plat Pewdie or site plan by the end of 2024 to pay the existing fee and load not the proposed new fee in lieu.

Speaker 1 1:25:34
Other discussion? So the question is which we have discussed, and it has not been resolved that I know of if someone does make an application for a future development, and that application is in the queue. But the development isn’t going to happen for a couple of years. Which fee in lieu, would they be responsible for the pressing one? Or the one that would change in December of 2024? Or if we’re basing this only on application,

Speaker 6 1:26:24
are you referring it to the suggestion that Councilmember waters made? Yes.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:33
So, the way I understand it is any project that is in the system and has been deemed has moved in first review sufficient for review as of right now. Those projects

Unknown Speaker 1:26:57

Speaker 6 1:27:00
have to receive final site plan or final plat some, we need to work with them. Tap Joanie on the shoulder on this one, by the end of 2024. So to your question, in that piece of the equation is if they don’t finish by the end of 2024, then they will have the new fee. So essentially, it gives folks a year and two months to get to that end result. That’s the way I understood what councilmember waters just said. So if you get through it in the year, then you have the old fee. If it goes beyond the end of next year, then then the new fee would apply.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:45
Okay, so we have approximately 15 or 16 jobs in the queue. But we don’t know where they are

Speaker 1 1:27:58
at this point in the process. So they would have to be have PUD, final plat or site plan. And if they don’t have that by the end of December 2024, then they would revert to the new fee. And Louis, am I interpreting that correctly? Based

Speaker 6 1:28:21
on what councilmember waters just said yes. Okay. So

Speaker 1 1:28:26
no one can slip in a new application. Now it’s only the ones that are in the queue at the moment.

Speaker 6 1:28:33
First review that have gone through the first review. Okay. Tim

Speaker 18 1:28:45
and I may make a suggested amendment that maybe PUD is not be included, as pdds might allow for besting first a number of years. So currently sorry, Mayor, member of council, Tim Hall, assistant city attorney. Currently, you pay the you pay the fee in lieu of its effect in effect at the time of final plat or site plan, whichever is later. If used that as the approval triggered before December 31st. That would be more consistent with our past practice and more likely to have a development that’s actually going to get built imminently.

Speaker 1 1:29:23
So it’d be final plat and site plan. Yeah.

Speaker 6 1:29:27
If I may offer a suggestion. Yes. Please. If council wants to look at something like this and you want to use you want to give staff the direction that is that was talked about by councilmember waters, I would recommend that we table the conversation gives the attorneys in the planning staff the ability to come up with language that we think captures that and then bring it back for Second reading on the 28th.

Unknown Speaker 1:30:05
Okay, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Speaker 3 1:30:10
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I think as all of council knows, we’ve received extensive communication from, I would say, the public through email. As far as some certain ideas. We’ve sat in an executive session about this. I do think, process wise, that we should go ahead and hold the public hearing, because there’s folks who have spent their time to come down here tonight, and share with us to help also educate us into what their thoughts are. Based on whether we amend it tonight or table it tonight, but I feel that we should hold on motions until after we hold the public invited the public hearing on this item.

Unknown Speaker 1:30:58
Councillor waters?

Tim Waters 1:30:59
Thanks for your back. This will be I know this is my second time. My last time I would just suggest him I wouldn’t want I wasn’t offering an amendment with specific language, just the general ideas kind of set a general principle. So the last thing I’d want to do is offer an amendment that’s going to get us into legal trouble. So it was simply a suggestion to give direction. And I think you’re hearing from the public tonight’s a good idea, and that we would have a final draft to consider on the 28th.

Speaker 1 1:31:29
Thank you. But you did you did open up a good discussion with what you said. So any other comments from councillors? No, then I will open this up to the public hearing. I’m going to go with people on the list in the order. And then anyone who did not sign up can still talk to the public hearing. The first one on the list, I’m gonna go with the item TNA since they signed up, Parker Samuelson.

Speaker 16 1:32:05
Thank you. So, I am a landowner in Longmont with some commercial land that we own. And we have received interest from different developers for building multifamily on our property. And we have received significant levels of concern about the new fee in lieu that when you take into account interest rates being where they are and construction rates being where they are, we’re concerned that the new fee in lieu could have a significant deleterious impact on developers interest in building new product, which I think could potentially be a lose lose for everybody. product doesn’t get built, there’s this supply crunch continues to deteriorate. And the so I am supportive of councilmember waters proposal. And I just want my perspective as a as a commercial landowner to be heard. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:20
Thank you, Parker. Daniel bill.

Speaker 17 1:33:36
Hello, I am a renter in Longmont.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:40
Daniel, can you give your name and address?

Speaker 17 1:33:41
Give you my address? Yes, please. Yes, 600 Martin Street, thank you. No problem. And I’ve seen this happen to some of my other friends in other cities. And basically, it just ends up with him getting displaced from the city, because what happens is that ultimately their rent gets increased, and they decide to leave the city. And the last thing that I want is for my rent to get increased. I think what Parker just touched on makes a lot of sense is that the developers don’t see their developments get done. And then new housing doesn’t get built, and then it just decreases the supply of what’s currently there and then thus increases the rental rates of the current renters and just as someone who works in long line, I don’t want to see my rank increase in rehab to leave Longmont so I feel like it’s the job of the local government to take care of, you know, working people like myself and look out for the little guy and I would hope that you guys would be able to do that. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:44
Thank you, Daniel. Jack Bairstow.

Speaker 5 1:34:57
Good evening. My name is Jack pestle Excuse me, best all collaborative, we have several properties in Longmont and several projects in review. We’re concerned about the increase. But I think that we’re most concerned about how it’s staged, which was, I think the discussion it was held earlier, it needs to be staged in. So that doesn’t have an effect on the feasibility of projects that started off because of certain costs, analysis and factors. To begin with, oftentimes, when you’re making a, an application out investment, just to get to that level, and tie up the land and purchase the land, you’re carrying that. And this is another aspect of it, maybe the projects that are currently in process didn’t, you know, never would have been able to consider. So my, my suggestion would be to, I think it was good to step back and look at it. But I think also that staging, the way the increase comes in, it’d be important. I’m not sure a year is enough. Review takes longer than that, in many cases, even when you’re expediting it. And I also think that the first step of getting first review may be too much, it may just be an application heading towards sufficiency, because there’s a lot of give and take that occurs on what is sufficient, and what is not in terms of meeting meeting that standard. But you may have a 97% application and already investments there. And the cost analysis has been done to initiate that process. So I appreciate what you’re doing. Appreciate. As you know, I’m a big supporter of attainable and affordable housing. And I just think that this could be worked through so that it’s it’s doesn’t have some of the impacts that you’re that you’re concerned about. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:58
Thank you, Jack. Steve lane.

Speaker 19 1:37:14
Good evening, mayor and council Steve Lane 1013 Neon for circle. Also the co chair of prosper Longmont, which is a local housing authority. Not Housing Authority, sorry, advocacy group, you received a letter from the group. Previous to this, obviously, we would encourage some greater timeline to to allow the projects that are in the pipeline not to be severely impacted by this massive change. And I had sort of an imperfect analogy around that if you sat down at your kitchen table, and meal planned out your week and your grocery list based on a specific budget. And then you went to the grocery store, and you started rolling around in your cart and taking things off the shelf and noting the prices that are on the shelf, and then got your whole your whole grocery cart up to the front checkout. And the price was twice what you anticipated it being and we’re told that well, you know, by the time by the time you were walking around and you took long enough to get in the grocery store, get all this stuff in your cart, you know, the prices went up. There isn’t a single person in this room who would accept that everybody would would lose their minds and want to talk to the manager. And more than likely what you do is you leave the cart full of groceries and you’d go find another store to purchase it. And it’s an imperfect analogy, but it does kind of speak to you know, these things happen with some level of expectation that there’s always complex performance. And if we don’t allow for that to happen to for someone to understand that there’s time to plan, then they’re gonna take your grocery cart somewhere else, and they’re built in another time. So please don’t let that happen. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:09
Thank you Steve. Aaron Foster.

Speaker 20 1:39:23
Good evening, Mayor Peck members of council. Aaron Fosdick with the Longmont Economic Development Partnership at 1925 Pike road. As you know, we work collectively with our community partners, including the city to implement our comprehensive economic development strategy. As part of this strategy, we encourage residential affordability and housing diversity. We know that housing supply and housing affordability is extremely important not only for attracting industry, but also for attracting and retaining talent. We did provide a letter from our board outlining some of our concerns so I won’t cover everything again you have Are comments. I will say that while there’s varying opinions from our board and our investors on how affordable housing should be tackled, I think there is general agreement that it’s an important part of our community fabric. So there’s general support for the affordable housing fee, we do have serious concerns about the timeline of implementation. And I’m glad to hear that counsels considering that in your discussions tonight, as we continue to build out and have fewer and fewer easy development sites, the development review process becomes very complex. And so I appreciate what Jack was saying about the timeline. We would recommend based on our conversations with some of our investors, that any project that has been deemed sufficient be allowed to continue, you know, that’s in that final plat site plan or final PUD site plan be allowed to continue under the fee? Well, it may be an imperfect analogy. I think that Steve Lane’s comments about changing the prices midstream really hit home, that’s the feedback that we’ve received. Again, development is becoming increasingly increasingly complex, both in terms of our regulations here at the city and what we’re requiring, but also in terms of financing. Certainly, that’s not being reduced with the current time that we’re in. I think that people are putting a lot of time and money and I think we can all agree that the last thing we would want to see is projects pulling from Longmont or projects not coming to Longmont because we absolutely need the housing. So I hope you’ll consider looking at the implementation timing a year may may or may not be enough, it seems like projects are taking longer so potentially just allowing projects that are deemed sufficient that are in review to continue under the fee might be the most appropriate course of action. Thank you for your work. Thank you for your

Speaker 1 1:41:53
I know I’m gonna put you This is it Ron Heckman

Unknown Speaker 1:42:01
or car

Speaker 1 1:42:03
can Oh, I was way off. No

Speaker 21 1:42:07
problem can heckum and I’m development partner at mgL partners in Denver. And we have a project in the queue and it’s on Nelson road, just to the west in the mountain Brook subdivision part of the annexation with the Steven Tebow property, just to the west and adjacent to the noble West project just to the west of target. We’ve been working on this project since really late to 2020 identified the project with Steven Tebow. At that point, there were still a lot of question marks mountain Brook wasn’t built yet, et cetera, et cetera. So we began underwriting this project almost three years ago. And what’s happened since then is COVID, and the supply chain shortage, construction, Costco and crazy labor, right raise going crazy. Everything’s been thrown at us for the last three years to make this project not work. In fact, it was on life support as of April of this year, and we really didn’t think we’d get it financed. And this was before any knowledge of any fee increases in the city of Longmont. So it’s been on life support, we luckily we found a joint venture partner that you’re familiar with who’s building Rockefeller group building the Martin project here in town. And as you may know, mgL partners is obviously involved in the Christmann projects to the north of town on the affordable side. So we build affordable housing, purely affordable housing, and we build housing like this for moderate income, which as we know, here in Boulder County is as every bit of in need of supply shortages as the deeper targeted affordable housing, people making 60 $80,000 a year that live and work at Google in Boulder in these places. They can’t afford to live in Boulder, you know, it’s four or $5,000 a month for an apartment. So where do they go? They go to Lewisville, Lafayette Longmont, right? So we’re trying to supply 300 units of housing at this location. We’ve been underwriting this thing for three years. And we we just, I mean, this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, really, because it’s a million dollar cost to us at 300 units. And the grocery store analysis is not doubled as tripled. And so we’re again in support of the increase we think is needed. We think that it’s going to be long term, a very good thing for the city to get this fee more up there. The as the staff has pointed out, it’s been many years since they’ve increased it. So we’re not opposed to the increase. We just think it’s you can’t pull the rug out from underneath. You know, we’re at the verge of getting building permits. We’re within months of getting our site plan or plan approved. So I echo Councilman waters recommendation, allow you guys to make that decision on how to implement it and what the actual timeframe is, but it should go through the 2024 I support that there’s a lot of projects in the queue that are just going to get their their their stuff approved in like us in January, February, March April the spring into the summer that have been working and spending a lot of money and time trying to get these projects put together. And such a large increase really can and will stop some projects. So again, we appreciate your consideration for that. Thank you.

Speaker 1 1:45:05
Thank you Ken. Greg glade.

Speaker 22 1:45:20
Good evening, Mayor Peck and council members again, Greg glade. I’m a founding member of NGO partners, addresses 1936, West 33rd Avenue, Denver, Colorado. Obviously I work with Kent, you’ll recognize that name NGO partners. So you’re going to hear a lot of the same topics here. We are developer of affordable housing. As Ken mentioned, we’ve developed about 2300 units of affordable housing over the last 20 years. We have a joint venture right now with the Longmont housing authority. And we are supporters of the fee in lieu As Ken said, we understand how difficult it is to develop both market rate and affordable housing. We benefited generously through the partnership with the Longmont Housing Authority, frankly, of fee and lieu dollars that came to our project. But as Ken said, you know, we’re also market rate developers, and we’re facing a lot of headwinds right now. You know, we’ve, as he mentioned, we submitted our initial application, site plan, an informal site plan approval, but the actual first submission almost two years ago, now, about 17 months, we’re looking at probably receiving our permit at or plat approval, another seven to eight months. That’s largely dependent on volume, frankly, of projects that are coming through the city. City turnover, which we fully understand I was at the presentation two weeks ago, where there was a discussion on compensation for city employees, we’re certainly open to understanding the timelines and when they’re pushed back. But we feel that it’s unfair to punish these projects, again, that have been in the queue for quite some time to have the rug pulled out from under them in terms of additional cost increases, especially in light of cost, overall materials increases inflation, cost of interest, dearth of equity providers, etc. So once again, we’re very much in support of the fee in lieu, and I’m very pleased to hear that Councilman waters is looking to some other solutions, hopefully with councils support to push back either the timeline, or maybe to take the onus off the city, right now to control that process. Because as it’s currently drafted in from my understanding, the city plat approval is is the linchpin for the actual fee and lieu, that puts all of the control in terms of timing on the city staff. And if they’re pushed back because of volume, lack of resources, etc. It’s really going to expose the city to discuss having very difficult discussions with developers as to why those fees are going to be increased, due to something that they literally can’t control. And despite their best efforts to respond to those city comments, timely. Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:08
Thank you, Greg. Caitlin quandre.

Speaker 23 1:48:20
Good evening, members of council and mayor Caitlin quandre. I’m an attorney here on behalf of MJL partners and Rockefeller group. So you’ve just heard from Kent and Greg, we were coming in this evening to ask for a motion for an effective date of May 31 2024. And are delighted to hear the discussion this evening for potentially an even kind of longer timeframe. For those projects that are in the queue. Ken gray gave a great picture of the current mountain Brook project. Its work in good faith with the city for the last two years. And really that that that issue that that site plan and plat happens so late in the process, so you invest a lot of time energy money for that time period to that final end, is that that date? That doesn’t feel fair, and we want a community to feel fair. Actually, the Colorado statute on impact fees talks about that fairness and says, no impact fee or other similar, sorry, development charge shall be imposed on any development permit, for which the applicant submitted a complete application before the adoption of a schedule of impact fees. So with that, we really appreciate what’s offered this evening and encourage council to consider that because that would be a little more consistent with what the statute contemplates. The other piece I just wanted to note at your last meeting in October, the the other item that Molly covered is going forward, you you decided to include kind of a notice in July, both to the city county So into developers have an increase, and that would be effected that following January. And so it does seem like applying kind of a consistent idea to the one being increased now to match what would be allowed in the future. So that again, delayed effective date, you’re allowing that for 2026 2027. And to do that, again, here, as you implement this increase in 2023, as Greg shared, and Ken shared, this is a million dollar impact for this particular project. That is really significant. That’s why there’s three of us here tonight. That amount really, really matters to this project, it is quite tight. This is a workforce housing project at around 80 80%. Ami is the target. So really keeping those residents in the community and serving, serving them. MTL partners really wants to build this project. They want to see mountain Brook on Nelson road. So we asked for your partnership in the lane, that effective date. certainly defer to council on your discussions on the right timeline for that, but appreciate your consideration of that. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:04
Thank you, Caitlin. Don Macy.

Speaker 24 1:51:16
Mayor, Members of Council, I’m Don Macey Macy development company, our local offices at 8601. Nelson road. I agree with many of the comments that have been made, particularly on the implementation. The problem, as I see it with a December 31 2024 date is that we have very little control over actually getting through the process. I mean, we can make our submittals. But it takes a long time sometimes for the planning staff to get back to us. And just for example, we have one in process right now, for some additional senior housing. And this impact fee is about $700,000. for that project. Actually, it’s two projects, and one, two different types of projects. But typically, it’s taken two to three years to get through the process it I don’t think we’ll be able to possibly be able to get through by the end of 24, for example, we have a potential riparian setback issue. And that’s going to so we’ve hired consultants now to do the environmental impacts for that. We don’t have the report back. And that’s been over a month and process. When we get that we have to go back to planning and ask for permission to go forward. And then we can go to the pnz Planning Commission, then we’ll come to you folks and discuss this riparian issue, then we go back to planning to try to get approval. So these things take a long time. I know of one project here in Longmont that’s been in the process for years. And they have storm water issues and various things that these things just happen. That’s just the way it is. I’ve got another project, it’s been in process for probably three years. It’s not residential, but a long time. So anyway, I appreciate your consideration of making anybody that’s has an application filed, that’s been through initial BRC meeting to pay the current fees, regardless of when they get through as long as they’re diligently or, you know, processing it. I have a philosophical thing I like to throw out quickly, and that is, why is it that the owner developers have to bear the burden of affordable housing in Longmont? Why doesn’t the community it’s a community wide vote burden? Why hasn’t there been more consideration of a sales tax increase, for example, which would be predictable bondable and so forth. And the whole community then can help with the affordability issue, rather than just the new projects. The problem with increasing the fees and continuing to do it on new projects is it has a domino effect that you may not understand and that is that the more you increase the price of the new projects, the less affordable they are. So he just exacerbates the affordability issue for everybody. So I would like for you to give some consideration to possibly changing the whole manner in which you’re funding affordable housing.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:33
Thank you Don.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:34
Thank you. Window picket.

Speaker 25 1:54:46
Thank you Mayor pack and Councilmember Wendell picket 3813 Florentine circle and thank you for taking the time to consider all of our thoughts and ideas and we appreciate that you listen and and that you’re willing to engage and hopefully come up with a very workable solution. So thank you.

Speaker 1 1:55:05
All Thank you window. Seeing no one on the list, is there anyone else? Eric Wallace?

Speaker 26 1:55:20
Good evening, Mayor Peck and council members. I’ll be brief, I hope, I’m usually not, thanks for adjusting the attainable feel like we’re making progress. And I’m happy to hear that we’re gonna remain open to modifications, because this is a learning process. And we’re really trying to plow new ground here. I think it applies. Also, what you’re hearing here as well, you know, the willingness to actually come up with fair solutions is really important. And I’m grateful for that. The retroactive portion that you’ve got plenty of good ideas. I like the one where if you’ve, if you’ve already got a complete submission, that seems to be the fairest way to do it, because nobody has control over when run reviews come back, and how long that takes, and how many reviews are going to be, you just don’t. We don’t want to lose projects in the pipeline. I think that’s a major consideration. The $1 million impacting a development project. I just want to riff on that. Briefly. That’s $11,000 a unit. developers don’t pay these fees, the developers pay the fees to the project. But the developers either pay the fee and pass them on, or the developers go build outside of long run. That’s, I’ve heard so many times how the rich developer, I’m not a developer, the rich developers pay these fees. The owners, the buyer, the buyers of these new units, and the renters of these new units are the ones who foot the bill. So it’s new development that foots the bill to Ford to fund the Affordable program, the way we’re designed. There’s merit in exploring some of these other ideas. I’ve heard other people also talk about a sales tax or other funding mechanisms to spread it more equitably, because it really does impact the cost of housing and it’s one of the dynamics of why prosper Longmont ended up getting involved in addressing attainable because this dynamic has caused part of that hole that happens in the affordability spectrum within our city. Sorry, Eric Wallace, three through nine prep Street. I forgot. Thank you. Thanks,

Speaker 1 1:57:38
Eric. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to address this? Monday

Speaker 27 1:57:52
Mayor Peck and council members my name is JD Parker 9019 Longmont Third Avenue Longmont been a native my whole life. My father’s a builder and a developer here. I have a project in the queue. I’ve hooked up with a beautiful developer who has great projects throughout Colorado, brought in them to Longmont. We’ve been in the queue with multiple submittals over two years. We have a well, we have a while yet to go. There’s difficulties in our site, a lot of engineering, a lot of different submittals. A lot of discussions. So the timeframe for these projects in queue does take more than a year. And I would like you guys to consider that. And Councilman waters, thank you for bringing it up. I think it’s a very important point. And it’s made all of us developers talk over email and in meetings all month and for the last couple of months. And I’ve learned so much more than I what I didn’t know. So I appreciate you guys considering this. I do think we need to remember that we need to welcome developers and builders of our community with open arms, and we cannot scare them away from town. By raising our prices in our fees so much so quick. People will go elsewhere and they will not come back. And so we do need to figure out how to get this how to get the solution to our housing problem. But we need to spread the burden. I do like what I’ve heard, and I appreciate you guys listening and bringing it up. Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 1:59:29
Thanks, JD. Is there anyone else that would like to address this? Thank you Seeing no one else I’m going to close

Speaker 1 1:59:44
I’m going to close the public hearing. Oh we are now at sea which is 2023 61 a bill for an ordinance. Wait, we need to make direction so It was mentioned that we should perhaps table it. But Councillor waters, I’m

Tim Waters 2:00:08
gonna I’m gonna do two things, I’ll make an offer a motion. Okay? And then can I make three quick remarks? Very quick. So I’m gonna, I’m gonna move that we table this, this item, bring it back, hopefully for November 28, I’d love to have a chance to vote on this and bring back an amendment that reflects the general principles that we’ve talked about.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:31
I would like

Tim Waters 2:00:33
if I were going to be here a year from now, when the time came for any of the projects that we’re talking about in the queue, if they weren’t approved, I would want to add a clause to say that those ought to be reviewed by counsel with an answer to the question, why weren’t they approved within a year? Right? If I was a developer in this office office, in this office in this chamber, I would be saying to myself, haha, this is a way to create some accountability for the planning department and the planning staff that doesn’t exist right now. So for the developers, who are concerned about getting in the, you know, this, this finished in a year, another way to look at this to say, you’re on the dime, or you’re on the hook planning department to get these things finished, so it doesn’t drag out for years. That’s part of the reason for establishing the date at the end of December. The the only other comment I’ll make is that, I think the one way to, to avoid the cost of the fee in Lieu is to build the product. Right? So we’re talking a lot about fee and Lu, there is no fee in lieu if you build 12% of the housing units as affordable. That’s the other way to reduce the whatever the costs are, but have a fee low is to simply build the product that we need in town. So I’ve made a motion.

Speaker 1 2:01:50
Okay, it’s been the motion has been made to Councillor waters. to table the item and seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing. I would like to add that Councillor Martin actually brought up a couple of years ago that anything that was in the queue for over a year needs to be brought back to council. And so I think that’s a good idea. But I want to hear from both planning and zoning and the developer both sides as to what happens.

Speaker 6 2:02:24
So now and if I can jump in the direction was for affordable housing projects. I know we’ve answered that question a few times the Council of council wants to see that change to generally anything that’s there. I think it depends on what comes in. But we can have that conversation at a later date. To that point. That deadline is something that I’m going to be keenly interested operationally and I would say it’s not I think we tend to say the planning department. That’s only one piece. You know, we also have our Public Works review and those other sections. So I don’t want to just single out the planning department because there’s many other pieces that come into play. And, but that is that is definitely something that you know, to me certain deadlines create progress on both sides, and I would be more than happy if things don’t get finished to come in and fully vet why they didn’t.

Speaker 1 2:03:20
Great idea. So Seeing no other comments. Let’s vote. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? So that passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent. Thank you everybody. Now we are on to the next ordinance which is 2023 61. A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter Three of the Longmont municipal code on personnel rules. Are there any questions or comments from Council? Seeing none, I would like to open the public hearing on 2023 Dash 61 anyone in the public that would like to comment on this ordinance? Seeing none I will close the public hearing on 2023 61 Can I have a motion?

Unknown Speaker 2:04:14
Before just 20 2360?

Speaker 1 2:04:18
So 20 2360 one’s been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor Yarbro Let’s vote. All those in favor Aye. All those opposed? That passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent I think that is okay, we have d is a resolution are 2023 Dash 89 A resolution finding a parcel of land known as 11 386 East Rogers road annexation, generally located in the southwest quarter of set chine to township to North range 69 west of the sixth proof pm. I can’t say that tonight eligible for annexation. Prime Meridian. Is there. Are there any questions or comments from Council on this annexation? Seeing none, I’ll open the public hearing on 2023 89. Is there anyone in the room that would like to comment on this annexation ordinance? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on 2023 89. Can I have a motion?

Unknown Speaker 2:05:33
I move resolution 2023 89.

Speaker 1 2:05:37
So it’s been moved by County Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing Let’s vote. All those opposed? That passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent E is are 2023 96. A resolution to the Longmont City Council concerning implementation of amendments to the public utility regulatory policies act by Longmont power and communication. Are there any? Well, I would like to invite Darrell Hahn to the podium? Oh, Susan, Susan Bartlett.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:30
is driving me crazy?

Speaker 28 2:06:51
This one, all right, Mayor Peck councilmembers. Thanks for giving me the time. Tonight, I just wanted to bring an update on some new federal standards that have impacts to the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, and those impacts on online power and communications. So we’re required as a non regulated utility to review the new standards and to consider the new standards we’re not required to adopt them. But we are required to, to consider whether or not we want to implement them. Also, as a non regulated electric utility, we’re required to give public notice about the standards and collect any comment from the public on these into consider that is we determine whether or not to proceed with the standards. And then finally, we have to make a formal determination or council does whether or not to implement or not implement the standards. And so I’m just going to catch you up on where we are there. As some context, the public utility Regulatory Policy Act or purpose was enacted 45 years ago, the intent of of PURPA was to engage encourage conservation, efficiency, efficient use of our resources to produce energy and also to promote equitable electric rates among our customers. And then in 2021, Congress passed the infrastructure investment and jobs act, and part of that amends PURPA, with new federal standards that apply to retail electric utilities. And while most of the language in these standards really is directed at investor owned utilities like Xcel Energy or Black Hills, LPC meets the revenue threshold for non regulated utilities that need to consider these standards. And so that’s that’s what we’ve spent the past year doing. And then we have to make that written determination whether or not we’re going to implement. So the the full language of the standards is in your packet. But the simple variety is here, there are two standards that we have to consider. As a non regulated utility, the standard 20 is related to demand and flexibility practices, to promote those practices. And also, there’s a rate recovery component to the standard. Standard 21 is about electric vehicle infrastructure, and promoting and encouraging this in our community. There’s also a rate component that’s part of that standard, as well. And so I just wanted to share with you our staff findings, that we believe that we’re already implementing these standards, and we’ll continue to implement the standards but I wanted to give you that summary tonight. For standard 20, we’ve been working on energy efficiency and demand reduction for more than 10 years. We do this primarily through efficiency works, which is our customer engagement program that encourages our customers to install efficient equipment, and to operate their buildings more efficiently both on the residential and the commercial side. We also have a large commercial rate that encourages our biggest industrial customers to reduce their demand. When we have our peak periods. That rate is linked directly to the rate that we pay to Platte River for those coincident peak periods, and we believe that it does encourage those customers to reduce their demand during those times. A recent companion to that rate is a notification that we’re collaborating with Fort Collins utilities on, where we’re able to get a notification on predicted or forecasted coincident peak periods. And we share that with our large industrial customers, if they’ve shown interest, and then they’re able to use that to voluntarily reduce their load during those times. We’ve also tested at a very small level, we’ve tested some customer device based demand response programming, and we hope to continue to offer more things like that at a broader scale. As we collaborate with Platte River and the other community, the other owner communities to reduce our overall system wide demand in the future. Then relative to standard 21 This is the electric vehicle infrastructure standard. LPC with other city departments has installed five publicly available level two charging stations at facilities city facilities in the community. LPC offers electric vehicle charging rebates for residential and multifamily level two chargers, efficiency works offers rebates for infrastructure for commercial customers to install publicly available chargers. And we’re also working on understanding the impacts to Evie charging on our grid and how we can optimize and accommodate what we anticipate to be much greater adoption over time. And then finally, the city has been really involved in regional Evie planning. And what we’re primarily looking at is promoting charging infrastructure in areas where we really don’t have good access right now. And we’ve partnered with Boulder County and some of the other regional jurisdictions on some grant applications. We don’t have the results of those back yet. But we hope that that will help us to promote some of that infrastructure in our community. So as far as the cost recovery components of the standards, we’re a cost of service utility, we look at our rates every year. And that includes looking at the rates that we pay to Platte River for our energy, it includes the costs that we incur, to maintain and update our distribution grid, as well as to apply new technologies to make our grid smarter and optimized. It also includes our customer programming costs. So we’re looking at these all the time. And we’re balancing those costs against our kind of core services, our core core principles of safety, reliability, environmental sustainability, and cost effective electric service. And so we believe as a cost of service utility that we have right making authority, and we can meet the intent and accommodate the impact of these standards. I did want to let you know that as part of the requirement, we need to be sure and provide an opportunity for Republican engagement. So we notified City Council in November of last year about these standards. We’ve since that time, engaged in our consideration. And we’ve also provided notification on the website and through the times call so that folks could come and provide public comment tonight during this hearing process. We also gave them the opportunity to provide written comment. Today, we haven’t received any comment, but there may be someone that wants to speak yet tonight and we’ll consider that. And the action that we’re asking for tonight is one of these two things either to adopt the resolution that’s in your packet Now that demonstrates that LPC will, is and will continue to implement these standards or to provide some different direction for staff. And I’m happy to answer any questions you might have about the standards.

Speaker 1 2:15:16
Any questions from Council? Since Ms. Bartlett opened it up to the public I’m wondering is there anybody in the public that would like to have a question about them or have a comment? Seeing no one so can I have a motion then to what is happening here

Speaker 1 2:15:51
so can I have a comment for the water and wastewater system development? No, I’m sorry. I’m I’m robbing revenue. 20. Thank you. That’s what I wanted. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes six to zero with Councillor McCoy absent. Thank you, counsel. We’re on to general business. But before we go here, can we take a five minute break? Thank you

Unknown Speaker 2:24:29
Are back

Speaker 1 2:24:40
going to invite Raven Martin to the podium to talk about water and wastewater system development feeds.

Speaker 11 2:24:46
Green evening Mayor Peck and members of council I’m Raven Martin utility rate analyst with strategic integration. Tonight I will be proposing two ordinance for council to select among will due to water and wastewater system development fees, and we do realize that this is an unusual process for bringing ordinances however these ordinances were related or they are related to the fee waiver program initiated by affordable and attainable housing presented earlier. First, I will provide a brief overview of the current status of the ordinance proposals and then review the two ordinances we are bringing to council and allow for time for questions or discussion. So in November of 2022, we presented an analysis of the system development fees for water and wastewater, which changed the fee calculation methodology to a per bedroom basis. And at that time Council directed staff to prepare ordinances to make this change. However, staff was also directed to pause, bringing ordinances while the fee waiver program was being developed, and staff delayed bringing forward these updated fee ordinances to allow for continued discussion about the petition potential avenues to reduce costs for affordable and attainable housing units. A fee waiver program has now been presented in support of Council’s affordable and attainable housing goals. So in order to allow for developers to focus on the incentives associated with the attainable housing Fee Waiver Program and allow staff to monitor the impact of the fee waiver program for both water and wastewater staff is now recommending retaining the current fee calculation methodology and updating the fee based on the current value current system value. Retaining the existing structure will allow developers to focus on these incentives and allow the staff to monitor the impact of the fee waiver program. Staff has prepared ordinances for both fee calculations, and staff and council may choose to pass either on the first set of reading for both water and wastewater system development fees. Staff has prepared the following ordinances. Option one has changed the fee calculation methodology to the per bedroom basis for residential water and wastewater system development fees as well as update the fee amounts for non residential fees or option two, which maintains the existing structure, but updates the fee amounts for all water and wastewater system development fees. Additionally, option three would be to provide other direction to staff. That concludes my presentation.

Speaker 1 2:27:36
Thank you Raven, do counselors have questions for rude comments on on these fees? Seeing none, can I get a motion on 2023 65? It’s a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14 section 14.0 4.1 60 on water system development fees.

Unknown Speaker 2:28:05
I’ll move ordinance 2023 65.

Unknown Speaker 2:28:12
It’s been moved by

Speaker 1 2:28:14
Mayor Pro Tem seconded by Councillor waters. No, it’s going on down there. I

Unknown Speaker 2:28:24
need you all to pick A

Speaker 1 2:28:25
or B? Yeah, we do. Can we go back to that way

Unknown Speaker 2:28:28
looks like there’s two there’s two ordinances as well. Okay.

Speaker 11 2:28:37
Sorry, Council and Councilmember Rodriguez, there was two ordinances that were proposed, but you select among the two of them. Option one is to move forward with the per bedroom basis. However, the other one is the one that staff is recommending which is retaining the current current methodology for fee calculation and only updating the cost related to the current system value.

Unknown Speaker 2:29:05
Right, and I can go back like

Speaker 3 2:29:08
65 Was it and order ordinance 66 was for wastewater. So that’s why

Speaker 29 2:29:19
Mayor Peck and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez for 65 There’s a 65 A and A 65 B. And then for 66. Similarly 66 A 66 B.

Speaker 1 2:29:32
I move that we stick with the current system. So option two, option two

Speaker 1 2:29:45
again, right. So is there any is there any discussion on option two? Seeing none, let’s vote. I saw that passes.

Unknown Speaker 2:30:01
Councillor Martin is no longer with us.

Speaker 1 2:30:03
Oh, yes. Council member Martin

Unknown Speaker 2:30:08
just texted me and she had to drop off. Okay, thank

Speaker 1 2:30:10
you. So that passes with five to zero with Councillor Martin and Councillor McCoy. Not in attendance. So no.

Unknown Speaker 2:30:27
I assume there’s no other presentation. ordinance 2023 66

Speaker 1 2:30:40
Is there any comment on this? Here’s my confusion. Did we pet we did not pass 2023 65 Oh, that was it. It was my motion but I didn’t realize it was the same as the ordinance. Okay. So 2023 66 was met was moved by county by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez seconded by Councillor waters. Any discussion? Seeing none, can we have a vote? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? That passes five to zero with councillors, Martin and McCoy not in attendance. Oh, right now, Sandy cedars turn to come to the podium for ordered a resolution 2023 97. That was very confused.

Speaker 30 2:31:48
Thank you, Mayor Peck, members of council Sandy cedar assistant city manager and I am here with an inter governmental agreement for your consideration on the minimum wage discussions that we have been having over the last few months in the county. With me as Francie Jaffe, she is helping me on the economic side of this platform, there are two, the group from the consortium of cities is broken into two different groups. One that is working on the outreach and the public involvement side of this project and the other group that’s working on this economic analysis. So just so that you have some reference. So you may remember earlier in 2023, the Boulder County consortium of cities came to the city council and asked if you would like to participate with the other communities and taking a look at what data is needed to make a decision about whether you raise the local minimum wage in Longmont. At the end of this process, you’re welcome to raise the minimum wage, not raise the minimum wage and take a look at it for future years. But at this stage of the game, we are trying to bring together the data that you asked us for back a few months ago. So you may remember that you asked us for information about what businesses thought about the minimum wage increases, how it was going to affect employers and families and all kinds of different pieces. That’s really the public engagement part. You also asked what the economic impact would be. So the cities have gotten together from the economic impact team and have put out a request for information from firms that would be a third party group that would come in and do that economic analysis. So they received that information back. And the estimated cost is about $125,000 for that third party economic analysis. So the cities got together and determine a methodology to split that money. And they decided to do it based on general fund revenue, I think read just general fund budget. Yeah. So that’s why there are different amounts for each city in the IGA. But if you’re interested in moving forward with the economic analysis, and we would ask that you approve this IGA with the other cities to do so. And to use the funds from your council contingency to find long months apart.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:59
So I have a couple of questions.

Speaker 30 2:34:02
Have the other cities agreed to this already. So the City of Boulder has the largest contrib contributor, partially because they don’t require IGA to go their city council. So it was an administrative process for them, but they have already signed on and agreed. I think tonight is Eries at the same time as your meeting, so we’ll find out pretty soon, and then the other communities follow suit in the next week or so for their council meetings.

Speaker 1 2:34:25
Okay. And I noticed in the council calm that Longmont is going to be the manager or do all basically all the work on this. Do you agree to do that? I mean, how did that come about?

Speaker 30 2:34:42
Great question. Well, we have a really fantastic purchasing department and not all cities do. In fact, most cities don’t have have professional purchasing departments that can do this kind of work. It really is us in Boulder that have that. So boulder picked up a different portion of this work and leadership of the overall effort. And so I met with our purchasing and contract manager and they were willing to help with the RFP on this particular project. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:08
Sir, any discussion among counselors on this? Counselor waters?

Tim Waters 2:35:15
I didn’t I looked into it. Maybe I missed it. Is there a projected end date? A deliverable by?

Unknown Speaker 2:35:23
For the economic analysis particularly or for the whole project for

Tim Waters 2:35:26
the whole project? But specifically, so yes, for this economic analysis, and then for the whole project,

Speaker 30 2:35:32
we’re talking mid May? Yeah, so I believe we’re trying to get the economic analysis by mid May. And we’ll pair that with all of the committee involvement that’ll be done between January and May to be able to bring back information to the council in June in July, for consideration because if you did decide to increase the minimum wage, we would want some time to be able to inform businesses of what that’s going to look like prior to a January implementation.

Tim Waters 2:35:59
I think if it gets much later than mid May, it’s going to be trouble. So my, I would encourage, I’m gonna support this, I would encourage there to be a really not a hard stop, but a really push to get it done no later than mid May.

Speaker 1 2:36:13
Thanks. So am I looking at this correctly, that we need to votes? Really we does does accepting or voting for the resolution? Also include the council contingency that we agreed to that as well? Or does that need to be two votes?

Speaker 30 2:36:34
I believe it can be one vote because you kind of need one without the other but I’m looking at Eugene. Yes. So you could say if you wanted to approve the IGA and use Council contingency to fund that you could make that as one motion. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:45
Can I have a motion? I’ll

Speaker 4 2:36:47
move resolution 2023 Dash 97 That would include only 32,000 from our counsel. Just

Speaker 30 2:36:56
to be clear. 32,899 that’s just how the person is

Unknown Speaker 2:37:03
reading with deep

Speaker 1 2:37:06
Thank you. Okay. Councillor Hidalgo, faring a move that motion resolution and Councillor Yarborough? Seconded. Let’s vote. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? So that passes five to zero with councillors Martin and McCoy absent.

Speaker 30 2:37:25
Thank you very much, Mayor. I believe the next time you’ll see us we’ll we’ll have some data for you to be able to consider will be.

Speaker 1 2:37:36
So we’re now at final call public invited to be heard. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address Council? Seeing no one I will close final call public invited to be heard. Marin Council comments. Are there any comments from councillors that you would like to Councillor waters? Thanks,

Tim Waters 2:38:00
Mayor pack. And we were to comment this morning at this morning this evening. That we read over and over and over again, during the election season. And that is how could the City Council act to raise people’s taxes and references to our ballot questions and without, in my opinion, without adequate response in public spaces, not from us, because it was hard for us to do that. And we were one more comment. How many times I read why aren’t we listening to the public? Now obviously, you know, we were disappointed with the I was disappointed with the outcome. But to think that we didn’t listen to the public is simply misinformation. It’s not true. The only reason those got on the ballot is that we listened to the public. And we had members of the public come not just to present but lobby this council to put these on the ballot. We did two rounds of polling. And they were just under 60% support across the community for all three of the ballot, all three of the questions in the combinations that were on the ballot. So with respect to the concerns, I understand that went down and you know, with that thought in mind, I do hope I’m not going to be here for it. But I hope I get a chance to watch the staff and the council along with the the proponents from the community who who were so passionate about this, engage in some kind of an after action review the to answer the questions, what is there for what happened in this? What is there to learn? And how do we apply what we learn to get better next time out a little different than a post mortem, a little different than an debrief, that is looking for all the flaws. This is about what this is not blaming or shaming this is getting clear on what we could should have learned. Had we done this in 2019 Maybe we would have had a different experience in 2023 but we didn’t. And I hope I hope that happens. I think we owe it to the public. I think we owe it to the proponents in particular, to spend time, whatever time that is to answer those three questions, codified the answers, and then pull them back out the next time these things come around and the council is considering ballot questions. Thanks.

Speaker 1 2:40:26
Thank you, Councillor waters. I was also going to mention something about that, because it was frustrating when you try to explain that we this council is not taxing you. We’re asking you to you want to tax yourself for the things that you’ve asked us to do in this in this city. So that was very frustrating that it came back that we are raising your taxes, we never raise your taxes. We can’t. We can’t. That’s illegal. We ask you if you want there your taxes to be raised. But the other thing that I thought was kind of ironic, were the emails that I got after telling us there’s nothing in the city for kids to do. And I thought I don’t know what else this we’re giving you the opportunity to think of the future to get things for your kids to do and not just kids, all of us, all of us. So yes, we definitely need to do a debrief and see where we all went wrong. But I do think that we did try to have explanations, I knew I was talking about it all the time explaining. The other thing is that we had the IRP for Platte River party, Platte River Power Authority. I wish it was a party but it wasn’t the IRP was the Integrated Resource Plan. And I was very disappointed. You all know how many emails we got about don’t pass this don’t pass this there must have been over 100 Most of the people in that room were staff, either from the city or from Platte River Power Authority, I thought it would be packed. So I was very disappointed that this is a huge thing that we are doing in our in our power in our utility. It is it is as big as the industrial revolution. It is so I can’t even explain it. It’s so huge. It’s so breaking barriers and they’re doing such a good job that I want more participation from the public. I want the public asking questions, understanding what’s happening, going to 100% renewable, and we just don’t get the participation. So that was very frustrating after all the emails telling us what we shouldn’t do but not coming to hear what we are doing and how this is going to work. So I just had to get that I had to vent. Thank you. So city managers remarks. No comments, Mayor, council, city attorney.

Unknown Speaker 2:43:27
No comments, Mayor.

Speaker 1 2:43:29
Can I have a motion to adjourn? Thank you all those in favor say aye. Aye. And that passes. So that passes five to zero with counselors Martin and McCoy absent. We are adjourned.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai