Longmont City Council – Regular Session – January 9, 2024

Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – January 9, 2024

Read along below:

Speaker 1 0:00
are the rules for providing public comment our each speaker must give their name and address and you have three minutes. Only Longmont 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 at an no signup is required at the final call public invited to be heard. We have three minutes three meetings that we need to approve minutes for. And I’m going to take them one at a time we have the October 3. Meeting. May I have a motion? Second, it’s been Moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor Crist. Are there any is there any discussion? Seeing none, let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 1:09
Sorry, America. Jeetu. Verbal vote on this one.

Speaker 1 1:12
Yes. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes unanimously. The second meeting is December 12 2023. May I have a motion?

Unknown Speaker 1:23
I move approval of the December 12

Speaker 1 1:27
minutes. Okay, it’s been Moved by Councillor Hidalgo. fairing seconded by Councillor McCoy. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, let’s vote. Are we ready? Crystal. Okay. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? And that passes unanimously. The third meeting was December 19 2023. May I have a motion?

Speaker 1 1:57
December 19. Was Moved by Councillor Martin. seconded by Councillor McCoy. All those in favor? All those opposed? Is there any discussion on that one? Seeing none. Let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 2:12
Oh, we don’t want to. We don’t move that one twice. Do we have any agenda revisions? Well, wait a minute. This is actually to see if this agenda is being read. And it’s comes from the city clerk. It looks like we

Unknown Speaker 2:35
may I don’t have any ribbon. Okay, great.

Speaker 1 2:37
Now, do we have any submission emotions to direct the city manager to add agenda items? Councillor Martin.

Speaker 2 2:44
Thank you Mayor Peck. The city council vision is updated and firmed last spring for 2023 and 24. identified early childcare and education is one of its primary priorities. We’re also committed to strong places and amenities and improving the transportation infrastructure. It was recently drawn brought to my attention that daycare facilities and also pet boarding and kennel facilities are either conditional reuse uses with restriction are not allowed or not allowed use at all in our employment zone definitions, which are N dash PE non residential primary employment. And also M that u dash e mixed use employment. I think many parents and pet owners will acknowledge that they’re more comfortable when they’re young children and their pets that require that can’t be left at home are close to where they work, rather than a long distance away in a friendly or zone. And additionally, rents are likely to be or to be lower in those districts, which means it would lower the cost of of daycare services in particular all the while so doggy daycare. Parents can visit their children more easily at lunchtime. And with fewer shorter car trips, reducing traffic. So there are all sorts of good reasons to do this. And for these reasons, I moved to direct staff to review the matrices of allowed use for zone types and P E and mu E to assess the feasibility of expanding these allowed uses in the two employment zones and bring to council an ordinance amending the matrices to expand the allowed use as much as is possible and safe.

Speaker 1 4:45
Councillor Barton? Before we get a second can you take that down to like a one sentence motion to go through or code and yeah,

Speaker 2 4:56
all we need is the last the last sentence right right As I move to direct staff to review the matrices of allowed use for zones and dash P E and M u dash E, assess the feasibility of expanding the allowed uses to include child early childcare and pet care candles and bring to council an ordinance amending the matrices have allowed us as expanding them as much as possible.

Unknown Speaker 5:29
Yeah, that’s a long sentence, but thank you. Thank you. Did you get that crystal?

Speaker 2 5:36
Yes, I can have I have a copy? I’ll bring you.

Speaker 1 5:39
I’m not going to try to repeat that. So that has been Moved by Councillor Martin, seconded by Councillor Hidalgo. fairing. Is there any discussion? I have a comment. I agree with you on the childcare. Absolutely. My problem and I guess, within this motion, we have to consider the allergies of pets with other children and in daycare, allergies to some of these pets unless I totally misunderstood. Did you want that? Yeah,

Speaker 2 6:13
I think you did. I don’t I’m not I’m not proposing that the pet care in the daycare be in the same business? Okay, that’s just a thing. Yeah. Okay. They’re just they’re both allowed uses that are really too hard to come by in those zones. It’s the best place for him.

Speaker 1 6:29
Okay. Is there any other Councillor Chris?

Speaker 3 6:33
Councillor Martin? Do you have a business that’s interested in this or that has someone that has contacted you with input more info?

Speaker 2 6:42
Yes, there is. There is one business that is interested in a UK candle zone and candles are not an allowed use at all, which is one of the reasons why we have a lot of those around the periphery of Longmont, you have to drive a long way to get there. And and then, you know, again, it’s part of the council policy to encourage or accessibility of daycare. And once again, it’s a conditional use with provisions in both of those songs. And I talked to several of the senior planners and nobody could figure out why it needed to be conditional use.

Speaker 3 7:27
Might it be helpful to per staff to have connection with that individual so that they could

Speaker 2 7:31
they’re in touch that? Very good. And so yeah, the the reason that I was when I found out about this, in fact, was because they had been told it was going to take a really long time. And when I got involved, it turned out that maybe we could do it a lot faster than that by amending the tables of use rather than rezoning a building, which is a long process. Okay.

Speaker 3 8:00
I look forward to more information. Yeah. And it’s pro business. It is.

Speaker 1 8:05
So this is direction to staff to research it. Bring it back with the resolution. Yes. Okay. I see. No more comments. Let’s vote. All those. Are you ready? Okay.

Speaker 1 8:26
Oops, it disappeared. But it looks like it was unanimous. So that passes unanimous. Thank you. Are there any other issues that you want to bring forth on a future agenda? Seeing no one will nothing we will move on to the city manager report.

Unknown Speaker 8:46
No report. Mayor Council. Okay,

Speaker 1 8:49
we do have a special report a presentation. It’s actually a process a proclamation. This proclamation is a proclamation designating January 15 through the 21st 2024 as honoring dark Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week in Longmont, Colorado, whereas January 15 2024 marks the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday on which we honor Dr. King’s unwavering fight for the absence of oppression and the presence of opportunity for all who sacrifice to sow the seeds for a movement movement of peace, equality and justice. And whereas across the nation in the state of Colorado, in the city of Longmont honoring Dr. King has become a week of service within our within our communities. events held throughout Boulder County are made possible by the commitment and dedication of many volunteers from diverse backgrounds. The combined efforts of these volunteers are fulfilment of Dr. King’s dream and highlight the importance of the civil rights movement and they need to take action and where as miscarry, Adams program program coordinator for the Silver Creek Leadership Academy Silver Creek High School Loma Colorado has given many years of steadfast support for the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Programming throughout Boulder County and has committed her life to developing 21st century leaders who could live off the value of Dr. King’s dream. Now therefore, I Joan pick Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me and the City Council of the City of Longmont do hereby proclaim the week of January 15 through the 21st 2024 as honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Week in Longmont, and invite all to attend this exciting program honoring Dr. King. So I would like to call

Speaker 1 10:52
though, I’m sorry Glinda Robertson, Carrie Adams, and Eric Finn stead to accept the proclamation and say a few words. I don’t think you’re

Speaker 4 11:05
neither here nor I don’t, either.

Speaker 1 11:08
Okay. We’ll take you to that, yes. Madeline, would you mind turning on the mic? Or Glinda?

Speaker 5 11:25
Thank you. Thank you. Obviously, I’m not carrying I’m not Eric No. But I’m honored to be here.

Speaker 4 11:36
So thank you. Thank you all so much for allowing us to designate this week as the week for honoring and celebrating Dr. King’s life and legacy. Some of you might know and remember that I was with Dr. King on the last his last deed on Earth, which was March 28 1968. In the IMI Man March, many of you have seen that, that sign and, and so we thought we were gonna kill the dreamer. But I think his dream is bigger than ever before. And all of us all of humanity literally are benefiting from him giving his life for the cause of the freedoms that we do. Enjoy. And you want me to keep going. So on on Monday, well, let me say this on Sunday, January 5 14th. We will be at the Jewish Community Center in Boulder, celebrating the life and legacy of Dr. King and then we bring it to Longmont on Monday. We have an exciting program lined up we have the legendary I don’t know some of you may have heard of him. Mr. Parnell Steen. He’s now Dr. Parnell stain. He just got conferred an honorary doctorate, but he too, was with Dr. King on August 28 1963. For the actual I Have a Dream March. And then he had a chance to celebrate and play. He’s He’s a musician. So he will be our musical guest. So he played for the four little black girls that were murdered on September in September of 1963. And then he was he’s just a legend. He’s been on a lot of places, and done a lot of things. And he’s from Denver. So he’s bringing our musical guest will be Dr. Pur nails, Steen and the five points, ambassadors. So we’re excited about that. And then you all heard last year, Dr. Raylan robotica, who is the founder and chair of the cause center, the Center for African and African American Studies on cus campus. Dr. Ibaka is pretty phenomenal in his own right. And so our theme is let’s see, I should know this. I named it fanning the flames of the dream, bringing the generations together. And so Mr. Steen is 82 I’m not sure how old Dr. Ibaka is probably 40 something then there’s me who’s who’s been around forever. Anyhow, it’s it’s our hope that we’re able to bring the generations together. And the the final thing is that we will be celebrating Brenda Ingram Lyle Renda lives in Longmont She founded the family learning center in Boulder started hoping for to be a stay at home mom and having she and her neighbor agreed to take in 10 kids. And on the first day, 43 years ago, when they opened the there were 43 children and parents lined up around the door. So anyhow, I could go on and on at better stop. But, but on behalf of Harry Adams who has really at Silver Creek, you cannot be CI and Eric finished Ed and the work that they do, and the Silver Creek Leadership Academy kids, and just the entire platform or venue that they offer for us each year to have this exciting program. And so I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. Well, you will, we’ll

Speaker 5 16:00
do our best we’ll be looking for you. For sure. And then we got the freedom fund coming up on March. I’m sorry, February 18. At that Mackay auditorium where I guess speaker is going to be the phenomenal, very, very, very, I can’t even I don’t have words that can describe this man who served 30 years. As he was Anthony race, Hinton served 30 years and he was freed by Bryan Stevenson and the initiative, the project initiative that freed him is our special guest on March 18. Mackay auditorium I’m sorry February and March February 18 At three o’clock pm macchiato please be there. Please go online to the and register yourself. It’s free. It’s open to the public this is our way of giving back to the community to our community. And we want you to be there you will not be disappointed I promise you I promise you thank you so much.

Unknown Speaker 17:16
Would you like a picture with us

Unknown Speaker 17:17

Unknown Speaker 17:38
Oh yeah, the year.

Speaker 1 18:01
You. Thank you I probably should have taken off my mask for that picture. But I am getting laryngitis as you can tell probably. I didn’t want to stand that close to people without my mask. But thank you, Lance. So now we’re first call public invited to be heard. Remember that you have three minutes and we would like your name and address please. The first person on the list is Sarah. Short, sharp. I know you Sarah. Good evening. SARAH

Speaker 6 19:20
SHARP 161 Hanson drive Longmont. First, I’d like to thank Harrell and city staff for the workable hearing device so that I could be present today. It surely is appreciated. I’m here as a member of the Early Childhood Alliance. And it’s interesting because I think we just heard the that so many years ago there were a lineup outside the door for for children’s services. There still is. We seek the Alliance seeks to have a dedicated funding source and for child care and Children’s Services. And as may You know, 40% of the, of the children in in the service area that we’re proposing are the only ones that have access to childcare, and licensed childcare. And so anything that is happens to increase the childcare in Longmont and the surrounding area is greatly appreciated. It also has just remind everybody that only 40% of our children are arriving at school at kindergarten ready to learn. And so we have a continuing, we have a continuing problem there. And apparently, the pandemic Dimmick has made this situation even worse, as we have a large number of small children who are having severe mental health issues. And so we all need to be aware of that. Every research shows that the child care high quality child care can help mitigate these the situation. And so Longmont is known for supporting child care, and we really appreciate it. I’m also here as the member of launch, for affordable, attainable housing. And if you want prime workers and young people to be able to live where they work. In addition to affordable, attainable housing, you have to have affordable, attainable childcare. So anything you can do to continue to support is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Speaker 1 21:32
Thank you Sarah. Jordan person.

Speaker 7 21:50
Good evening mayor and members of the council. My name is Jordan person and I have been a constituent of Longmont toward one 640 Buchanan lane for the past three years and a Colorado resident since 2010. Since moving to this state, I have maintained my license statuses as both a nurse and a massage therapist for now 23 years as a nurse and 18 years as a massage therapist. This year, the mobile spa service that I own celebrates 10 years in business. I am here tonight to discuss the opportunity of expanding that business to a brick and mortar location somewhere here in Longmont. As of this week on January 8, the code of Colorado regulations specifically six dash nine to six has been updated to allow spa businesses to apply for a marijuana hospitality license. More than a decade after cannabis massage oils and skincare products have been legalized. Colorado no longer lumps the topical use of cannabis with the smokeable vapable or other types of consumable products. Unlike most marijuana hospitality applicants I am not seeking the ability to consume cannabis inside other than by the use of topicals there will be no smoking or no vaporizing products at my intended brick and mortar location. There are spas all over the world none of which allow smoking of any kind and their treatment facilities and mine would follow that same protocol. It is my goal to open a non smoking topical cannabis spa here in Longmont that will provide infused treatments such as cannabis massage, infused facials, organic manicures and pedicures and more. As we have done for the last 10 years, we will be exclusively working with massage therapist esthetician and other licensed professionals. In order to comply with all regulations and requirements set forth by the state of Colorado. And the last 10 years of being in business I have seen firsthand the quality of life improvement that cannabis skincare products offers. And I want to share that quality of life with the city and community of Longmont. As the city of Longmont has not previously addressed a business such as this one that normalizes a plant while avoiding odor and smoking nuisances commonly associated I stand before you today to ask is this a business model that the city of Longmont would like to see or entertain? And will you be entertaining the licensing specifically for the updated updated hospitality laws? I have provided you the updated six dash nine to six and my contact information is at the bottom. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 24:25
Thank you sir and thank you for the law Jordan, Jordan Thank you Jordan Megan CROs.

Speaker 8 24:50
Hello, I guess I have three minutes I was going to kind of speak a little more on homelessness but I do have some comments that I want to make. I think it’s great. That that you’re trying to expand child care. I know that the Smuckers, the Smuckers plant actually has childcare built in. And I think that expanding that to include educational, childcare is a great idea, especially since we’ve gone through such women’s suffrage. And it’s so difficult. But in addition to that, maybe getting to the point where you know, until they’re two were able to stay with their own children, five, you know, like, sometimes, but until they’re two, they aren’t actually considered separate people, they think that they’re the same person. So it’s really difficult for them to go into this environment where they are, where they’re being invaded babysitting. So I understand the mental health issues. But I think offering statistically, if you offer support to the families, those mental health issues go down, especially a lot of people say it’s just monetary, but you also need the supports in the home because they’re working 40 hours a week, or they’re working 20 hours a week, or they’re supporting their other family members. So you’re going to need things like you know, house, adding house care to that, or you’re going to need decompression time. And I think I commented last time on the revolution. I personally don’t have an addiction. But I know a lot of people do that addiction time should be considered decompression time, so that we need to reframe that so that they can eventually let that fall away, because it’s being considered in the negative and we need to consider it in the positive which goes back to that child care time and having somebody watch them during that childcare during that decompression time. Because at this point, it’s a body need and they’re being considered criminals for it. So I think that if we’re kind of in a directly relates to the housing need, it relates to the child care needed, it relates to the homelessness issues, it relates to the whole circle of things. So we have to reframe that and be able to decriminalize it, we have to be able to accept that mothers need that time for decompression, whether that’s watching TV or or cleaning house or whatever that might be even make building that time into your day. If you assume that you’re thinking of Tanis that you’d want to build time for the mothers to clean a house. Because if you’re trying to give somebody 40 hours a week, they have to commute two hours a week, you don’t know whether there’s bus time, what kind of time that looks like they have to pick their kids up, there’s no hours in the day, and then they have to work double the time. So there’s so many issues that are associated with this, then that’s why half of the mothers turn back to drugs. I’m so fortunate that I don’t have an addiction. You know, my family didn’t raise me that way. But I do know the struggles that are involved with it. And so I think that it’s a complicated issue that we have to address holistically. So I think that I’m gonna leave it at that because I don’t need to address the homelessness as much right now. But that’s on point. So I appreciate your you’re listening.

Unknown Speaker 27:26
Thank you. Megan. Did you give us your address?

Unknown Speaker 27:28
Oh, it is 500 Kimbark

Speaker 1 27:31
thank you so much. Thank you, Brian Johnston.

Speaker 9 27:41
Hi, thanks for the opportunity to speak and been in a while so I want to congratulate those reelected and those newly elected to the council all deserving so I’m here tonight because first I recited nine to six coffin, which resides in between the loading dock and the corporate headquarters of Longmont dairy, one little house in between the two. It’s caused a lot of ongoing issues because they have 30 drivers that come twice a day to load and unload. They’re loud, really inconsiderate, they’ve done things like six. This happens six nights a week and often where they’ll block my driveway walk off, leave the truck running and I’m not able to exit my house. Four o’clock in the morning apart from the house prop the milk truck doors open blasting music, an ongoing issue for eight years. I’ve never brought it to Council’s attention. I’ve worked with code enforcement about it. We’ve even been a court over it recently. Then finally finally, in the last month things have been better the yelling for no reason at three o’clock in the morning and a blocking my driveway I stopped and today late this afternoon, three signs appeared in my front yard that said Longmont dairy parking only. These are the nice metal looks like they’re going to be put on made permanent. And that’s odd to me. Especially because in front of Longmont dairies business, there’s 10 or 12 spots, no signs being put across the street, there’s 10 or 12 spots. That’s where like Family Dollar is that shopping center, no signs, but just in front of the three spots directly in front of my house. Three Longmont dairy only parking only signs. I don’t know if this is just misplaced maybe. But if this is how it’s going to be it’s going to cause problems. The problem has been ongoing. If you don’t believe me, I have a letter from Red Line athletic stating the same thing how they obstruct the blue obstruct views where you can’t pull them out of your driveway, they pull up right in our driveway, leave the headlights on those big milk trucks, right in front of your driveway. So every time you back in and out, it’s really dangerous. And to grant them the three parking spots in front of my house that they and only they can use seems odd to me, especially when there’s 20 Plus spots right there with no restrictions that they can use at any time. It’s almost like I’m being targeted is what it feels like. Again, it’s been ugly between them and I there have been shouting, cussing matches, police have been there multiple times. Because these men three o’clock in the morning screaming, nonstop running heavy machinery at 11 o’clock at night things they’re not supposed to be doing the code enforcement don’t make them stop. They’ll they’ll call them be like you shouldn’t be doing this three days later they’re right back to it. Can we please address these three no parking signs and move them to somewhere to the to one of the 20 other spots on the block instead of directly in front of my house so I don’t have to endanger my life every time I back in and out of my driveway. It seems really irrational to do this just in front of my home and only my home. And I don’t understand the logic behind it. So any help is with getting this corrected so we don’t have further problems would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Brian. Thank you all for your time.

Unknown Speaker 30:56
Shaquille dilla

Speaker 10 31:05
Shaquille Delisle 219 Francis Street. Mayor and members of council I’m here tonight speaking in favor of expanded opportunities for childcare providers in Longmont. As you know, enrollment in long run schools has begun to decline and the city of Longmont is getting older. We now have a median age of 41.3, which is 10% higher than neighboring communities like Firestone and birth ID and Loveland and many other neighboring communities. This is happening because Long Island is rapidly becoming the kind of community where young families cannot afford to live. We squeezed them on the cost of housing and we squeezed them on the cost of childcare. After the cost of housing childcare is one of the most significant costs faced by young families, while the US Department of Health and Human Services considers 7% of gross income to be the affordable threshold for childcare. The Colorado Health Institute reports the typical long run family is spending 27% of their income on childcare. We need more childcare providers in the city. And those childcare providers need options for locations and across the city in order to prevent us from becoming a gated community filled with the old and the wealthy. While the problem is huge and can often feel insurmountable, we can make progress on housing costs and childcare through incremental change. One Small Change we can make is to provide more options for the kinds of locations available for childcare providers to set up. By creating additional options, perhaps more affordable locations will become available, which will help reduce the cost of childcare. Some of these locations might also be near employers providing significant benefit for families and reducing traffic by allowing childcare options near where parents work. I want to thank City Council for taking up this issue and to thank the city staff for what they’re doing to make this possible and hope that we find ways to grant greater flexibility for childcare providers in terms of their locations in the city. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 32:47
Thank you Shaquille Lance would occur.

Speaker 11 32:57
Balloon Ascension Day and being a balloon pilot. I’ll have you know that And rule number one is that takeoffs are optional. But landings are mandatory. So as you ascend in your balloon, make sure you go and I’ve been participating for House Bill 191230 for almost a year now. And glad to see it on the agenda today as an update to marijuana and liquor. Hope to see you soon. Thank you Mayor and Council.

Unknown Speaker 33:37
Thank you. Stanley tall

Speaker 12 33:52
that name is Stan toll 2001 Terry Street. And thank Council for letting me speak. What I was going to mention is that the city should really look into the use of re reusable bags in grocery and food areas and also the jet dryers. The reason that I am concerned about this is that when I went to college, I was an ag major and I studied how to use pathogens to control insect pests and how to produce virulence and stuff like that. And the problem with reusable bags in the grocery store is it produces this cycle where stuff goes to the grocery, the grocery store comes to a kitchen And, and then you have food items like meat and stuff in the kitchen is actually the most disease part of any household. And some households are worse than others, then it goes back to the grocery store. And then it produces a cycle that from my study in college, it produces what they call a pathway to increase virulence. This is what has been proposed what actually caused COVID to be a pandemic was during the wet market, a similar type situation was taking place. I also am concerned about the jet dryers that we are allowing all our fast food and grocery stores and gyms to use. And one of the things that I’ve gotten to try to get a couple of articles to you there’s been in the last four years has been this huge increase in gastrointestinal diseases. And I am aware of this because I’ve been in foreign areas I actually suffered intestinal damage from this and it’s hurting me presently. And this sort of stuff, jet dryers so many people take they basically wet their hands and then they put them on your to this dreht dryer. And that is what we use to spray to spread insecticides to control insects. And studies have shown that that’s a real danger. And this increase in the gastrointestinal and other diseases that we’re seeing up to 60% in the last four years follows Thank you these these developments. Thank you

Unknown Speaker 37:00
You’re welcome Strider.

Speaker 13 37:14
Thank you up, straighter, benched and 951 Seven teeth. I’d like to acknowledge and honor. We lost two of our best people in the last couple of days. Dan Bender Vedas, who was one of the founders of El Calma Tei and gave us at least 40 years of really dedicated service to all the people of Longmont and Mary blue. Just today, I think she died and she was a long term members of city council and one of the best listeners and responders that we’ve you know, had no just wonderful people in Longmont, we we miss him greatly. I didn’t know Glenda and Maryland with Madeline Yeah, we’re gonna be here. She mentioned 21st century leadership. The people of Selma, Alabama gave me this shirt. I just happened to find it last night, and happened to be wearing it today. And I didn’t know but the first time I came back after after the Battle of Selma was 1990 it wasn’t safe for me to go back to Alabama during that 2535 25 years. And so I happen to be wearing a t shirt tonight. And the next Monday, Martin Luther King, my guide my colleague and my friend is his 95th 95th birthday on his holiday so it meant nice to have a birthday on your own holiday. The we are still trying to live up to the life heat. He showed us and to the message she gave us and we are in severe straits right now. I need to speak who is the person who tried to kill me six weeks ago on your boat. I’m a 79 year old man I haven’t been able to speak hardly anywhere except here. So why would they bother but it was very dedicated effort to try to kill me. We had five by witnesses, but the person who is threatening our country is not worshiping Jefferson Davis. He’s worshipping Adolf Hitler. We need to wake up and save our democracy.

Speaker 1 40:19
Thank you. Thank you straighter. Seeing no one on the list. I’m going to close first call public invited to be heard. We are now at the consent agenda. Do we need a bio break? Seeing that okay, we are now at the consent agenda. Can I ask crystal to read the consent agenda into the record? Yes, Mayor.

Speaker 14 40:46
Second reading and public hearing for the ordinance introduced on the consent agenda will be held on January 23 2024. Item nine A is ordinance 2024 Dash 05. A bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 2.56 of the long lap municipal code on the historic preservation commission and amending chapter 2.97 section 2.9 7.101 Point B. Item nine B is ordinance 2024 Dash 06. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 15.0 to Section 15 point o 2.060. Point. I have the long white municipal code on review of variance requests rental agreement for collaborative transportation planning between the cities of Brighton to kono Thornton, the towns of Erie Frederick Firestone lochbuie made Weld County and the city of Longmont. Item nine F is resolution 2024 dash zero for a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the city to apply for the 2024 through 2026 Peace Officer Mental Health Program grant from the Colorado Department of local affairs to provide counseling services for employees of the Longmont public Longmont Department of Public Safety. Item nine G is resolution 2024 Dash 05 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Special Counsel contract between the city and Wilson Williams Feldman Dittmann LLP for special counsel services. Item nine HD resolution 2024 Dash 06 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving a land dedication as satisfaction of the city’s inclusionary housing requirements for a residential development at 1313 spruce Avenue. Item nine i is designate the city’s website as the official posting location for city council meeting notices for 2024 meetings.

Speaker 1 42:54
Thank you very much. Do Are there any items that councillors would like to pull from this consent agenda? Councillor crest

Speaker 3 43:06
I’d like to pull nine a and nine eight

Speaker 1 43:15
No, that’s great. But would you mind moving the Consent Agenda minus nine a and nine

Speaker 3 43:22
I move that the Consent Agenda be moved minus nine a and nine minus nine H

Speaker 1 43:31
that was made by Councillor Chris seconded by Councillor Martin. Is there any discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 43:45
Do we have a staff? We do? We have plenary Jennifer Hewitt Apperson. Good evening this presentation.

Speaker 15 43:54
Good evening, members of the council. Please let me know if you can hear me speaking clearly through my mask guy. I prefer to keep it off for a variety of reasons this evening. So yes, we’re here to discuss as a public hearing for proposed annexation of 113 86 East Rogers road in terms of its location. So this is this request is for approximately nine and a quarter acres on the south side of East Rogers road between Lashley and alpine Sugar Mill. So this particular parcel right there. So this property is part of a larger county enclave and it does meet the contiguity requirements established by Colorado Revised Statutes. Additionally, this area is designated as mixed use employment in the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan and the applicant is seeking the appropriate mixed use employment zoning district. One thing to note is that this property is immediately north of the sugar factory planning area. It’s currently used for outside storage that includes boats and RVs and such This council referred referred this annexation for formal application back in October of 2022. And so it has been going through the development review process since then, and we’re here tonight to bring this to you for consideration. So as I mentioned, this is adjacent to the sugar factory and steam planning area just for context, the red star is the subject property, the sugar factory planning area is immediately to the south. So the sugar factory plan as as you’re well aware, as we’ve discussed in the past, really emphasizes a mix of urban scale uses. So while this property is not directly in that planning area, it will under the current proposal be complementary in terms of use and scale as part of that larger this larger part of Longmont. So, just as a quick overview, the proposed use of this property is multifamily development, which is a permissible secondary use within the mixed use employment zoning district and envision Longmont category. This land use category does promote diversification of older employment areas, including incorporation of high density residential uses. The proposed development is permitted within this category and would meet these minimum minimum density requirements of 18 units per acre in this district. Additionally, this particular annexation is consistent with Envision Longmont, particularly the goals and policies relating to compact efficient and infill development, a sustainable mix of uses, as well as focusing infill and redevelopment in identified areas of change. So at this stage of the process, the concept plan is quite broad. Particularly because there’s only one use proposed, the applicant will speak in a little bit more detail about what their development concept will entail. Ultimately, future development of this property upon annexation would be subject to the requirements of the Longmont land development code. In any deviations from the adopted concept plan upon as approved through the annexation would require a concept plan amendment. So going through all of our various processes here. So the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this annexation subject to a condition that staff further investigate some environmental assessments, which we did so the condition of the Planning and Zoning Commission, approval has been satisfied. So we are not requesting staff is not recommending any conditions of that sort with our recommendation to council tonight. So in a nutshell, there are some questions related to an environmental site assessment on the property. We did some further investigation and concluded that the applicants environmental site assessment was in fact correct that there were no recognized environmental conditions on the site. So basically, the the conditions of that recommendation have been satisfied and staff is we are asking that this council approve this annexation as proposed. And with that, keep it brief for you this evening is fairly straightforward. I’m going to turn it over to the applicant for their presentation this evening.

Speaker 16 48:51
There we go. All right. Good evening, Council, mayor and council members. My name is Ryan mcbreen with Norris design 244 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. We’re grateful to be here tonight excited before in front of you this evening. Jennifer and rest staff did a great job walking us through this process over the last year plus on this. So we’re excited like I said to be here to kind of this next step so that we can hopefully get your approval this evening and move forward so we can begin the site planning process. I’m going to be brief. She did a great job kind of covering the major details, but we just want to get into a little more color going on on the project. First and foremost, the developer of this project is Cairo and they have a lot of they have a great reputation and a lot of great projects along the Colorado Front Range. Tyler Sibley is here this evening tonight and he’s available to answer any questions we might have you might have after we finish here. We’re familiar with the site location and won’t go any further on that. Just a little more color on what’s going on in the area here. As you can see, we’re right on the edge of development city limits of the town, excuse me of the city so it just makes sense to annex into the city and become part city a lot The current zoning the property, as mentioned, it is a storage yard for RVs cars and the like. Sometimes not necessarily thought of as an attractive use. But with everything going on in the area, it makes sense for this to kind of change us, right? We’re not part of the sugar mill or steam, but we’re in an adjacent area, which we’re going to take advantage of momentum in that area and be part of the momentum to help that area redevelop and in grow and prosper and become a great part of long. Few more pictures of kind of the current condition out there what’s going on in the area. As noted, we are in conformance with the mixed use employment designation as part of the Envision Longmont master plan. We want to follow those standards and applicable requirements including setbacks, density, all that good stuff, we don’t anticipate asking for any variances or deviations from what the city of Long won standards would be underneath that zoning. This was shared with you but multifamily development access off of Rogers Road, several buildings parking, basically meeting all of the city standards for all those requirements, including high density, parking requirements, open space and the like. A few benefits, as mentioned before further be a catalyst for the redevelopment of this area that’s happening right now. We’re excited to be part of that. Adding to the housing options for the area. As we all know, there’s a shortage of housing opportunities, not just in Longmont, but in the whole area. This is just going to further bolster the availability of housing crease revenues for the cities. As you know, we’re not part of the city. Now. Once we become part of the city, we’ll be paying more taxes, development fees, and the like will help that. And then high quality development. As I mentioned, Cairo has a great name for building high quality developments that communities are proud of and people want to live in. Just an example of the type of product project we think in community, we want to add the city of Longmont. Here’s an example project Community Center with great living spaces that people use and congregate and become part of their community and neighborhood indoor spaces, outdoor spaces, resort style amenity pools and the like. We’re really excited to go the next phase we ask for your support this evening. As noted by Jennifer we are in conformance with with all the review criteria, as well as the applicable Land Use and Planning Document. So once again, we ask for your support this evening. And we’re here to answer any questions you might have about our application. And we’re excited to move to the next step. So thank you for your time.

Speaker 1 52:37
Thank you very much. This was a great presentation from both of you. Counsel, Councillor Martin?

Speaker 2 52:46
Yes, thank you. How are you planning to satisfy the affordable housing ordinance requirement?

Speaker 17 53:04
Ryan got all the height of this partnership. So good evening. Thanks so much for the question. As we know, there’s a couple different options associated with affordable housing. We’re still very early in our process, right? I mean, we’ve been at this for a long time just working with Jennifer in the city team on all the different nuances associated with this annexation and zoning process. So we understand the various options that are at our disposal and look forward to working through that as we get into the site plan process as we get deeper into the design efforts.

Speaker 1 53:36
Thank you for that explanation. Are there any other questions from Council? Seeing none, I’m going to open up the public hearing and I do see one person excuse me signed up. Megan.

Unknown Speaker 53:50
secara okay. No, but thanks anyway. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address this? Seeing no one. I am going to close the public hearing and excuse me, ask for a motion from Council.

Speaker 18 54:19
I move order 2024 dash a one

Speaker 1 54:26
that’s been Moved by Councillor Hidalgo fairing seconded by Councillor Yarborough. Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 54:37
And that passes unanimously. The second one on our list is B 20. Excuse me 2024 dash O to a bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city of Longmont and David Asbury, the tenant on the money Montgomery farm Prince premises Are there any questions from Council on this ordinance? Seeing none, I will invite I’m sorry, I will open the public hearing for ordinance 20 2402. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address ordinance? Seeing none, I would like to ask for a vote. I mean, a motion

Speaker 1 55:33
Moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing Let’s vote. And that carries unanimously. The third one is 20 2403. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14, section 14.08 Relate related to sewers. Are there any questions from Council? Seeing none, I now open the public hearing on 20 2403. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address sewers? Seeing no one. I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion

Speaker 1 56:18
Moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor Martin. Let’s vote

Speaker 1 56:28
that carries unanimously. Number four is 20 2404. 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 44 C, the premises to the be in a hangar 44 C comma LLC the tenant. Are there any questions from Council on this ordinance? Seeing none I will now open the public hearing on 20 2404 Is there anybody from the public like to address this ordinance? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion

Speaker 18 57:09
I’ll move ordinance 2024 Dash oh four

Speaker 1 57:15
that was made by Councillor Hidalgo fearing seconded by Councillor Crist. Let’s vote. And that passes unanimously. Oh, we don’t know yet.

Speaker 1 57:38
So it does pass unanimously. There you go. Thank you. We are now at on the agenda. The items removed from the consent agenda and they were removed by Councillor Chris. Items nine a and nine H.

Unknown Speaker 58:00
Councillor Chris, do you want to address nine eight

Speaker 3 58:10
sections. The first one is requiring designation procedures for historic districts. And the second section, a review of permits before demolition. Both of those I believe are good additions to the existing municipal code. But I’m concerned about the last three for one of the maintenance requirements. Because something about owning a house when maintenance needs to happen often it’s sudden and expensive. And so I’m wondering if there’s any way to work compassionately. Especially if if people buy a house that needs work, which we’re talking about structures that are over 50 years old. Often. They buy them cheaper because they need work. And that makes them more attainable. And also there’s less competition for them. So I feel like the maintenance requirement may adversely affect those who are or maybe in the more attainable housing. category. And would you like to, would you like me to just go through all three. Okay. So then the VHS, section 2.5 6.230. Enforcement and penalties is mostly penalties for somebody who has allowed the property to degrade to where it needs to be demolished. And I feel like if somebody’s going to wait that long, a years wait for another permit may not be that much of a penalty. I also am concerned when I talk about the maintenance that people who want to maintain their property may be impacted by this and be under a moratorium and not be able to do The maintenance when they have the funds available. Okay now in the last section decision making capacities, I’m also concerned about giving authority to the HPC. That really belongs to the PNC commission. There’s some advantage to keeping those separate. So just want to hear staffs response to those

Speaker 19 1:00:31
Mayor pack councilmember Chris Adamo child planning manager filling in tonight for Glen van Morgan, who’s not in town right now, Jennifer, who had options here as well, she’s the liaison to the historic preservation commission, she probably has a better understanding of the proposals that are in the accounts comm than I do, I’ll have some background in history that I could share with you of where I think a lot of these have come from, Jennifer’s probably the better one to try to give you a little bit more info as to why these changes are specifically being made, at least the three that you spoke of. So if it is the pleasure of the council, I’d ask if we could let Jennifer maybe just walk you through those three proposed changes. And then you can ask questions. And if there’s something that we can’t provide tonight, obviously, we can take note of that, and work with Glenn so that during his presentation, he could address those items on second reading.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:31
Okay, thanks.

Speaker 15 1:01:35
Good evening, members of the council Councilman Crist. So in terms of the maintenance requirements, that really gets to a concept known as demolition, by neglect, it’s less of a, it has less to do with a property owner who can’t necessarily afford to maintain their property and more to do with someone who is deliberately not maintaining the property so that they can essentially demolish it. Basically letting it get to a code enforcement situation where it would become unsafe, it’s more of a deliberate lack of maintenance, as opposed to an happenstance where someone just isn’t able to keep up with it. So that’s really what it has to do with in terms of the moratorium and building permits. This is something that we really have talked through quite a bit as well. And we’ll take it to, I’ll talk with talk with Glenn about this. So he can address it at the public hearing. But effectively, it’s, you know, how do we add some more carrots and sticks for people who aren’t following the rules? Basically, if someone isn’t, if someone’s deliberately making changes to their property without going through the right processes. But again, I’ll let Glenn talk a little bit more about that the next meeting, but that’s definitely something we’ve, we’ve really been working through as well, in terms of the last section regarding decision making capacities, that is really less about HPC, because and pz, sharing duties, as it was making sure that we have consistent processes, for example, you know, how do we handle things, basically making sure that there’s similar language about quasi judicial nature of decisions and such. So it really was to reflect to ensure that there was some consistency between those two processes, or between those decision making bodies moving forward to prevent any issues. So with that, Eugene, is there anything that I’m missing on this?

Speaker 3 1:03:44
Okay. Well, thank you. Let me ask you, is there any way the maintenance requirements? Well, I guess what I want to ask is, is there a way to keep an eye on a property before it gets to the, to the arena of being, you know, needing to be razed to the ground? And I’m thinking is doesn’t that come under code enforcement, where you’re kind of keeping an eye on a property, making sure that people are keeping their property up to code? So is this really needed because there’s just so many scenarios that came to my mind. And in thinking about it, I thought there was not something you could write that would encompass all of those scenarios. And so I just feel like this is going to be an arena where we’re going to have a lot of pushback from the public. And when people want to have the liberty to deal with their property as their finances allow, as their, you know.

Speaker 15 1:04:42
So this particular section, if I may, it really has more to do with historic landmarks. It’s not really any property in the city. It’s if it’s already a desert damp landmark, so presumably, if someone owns or purchases a landmark, there’s the expectation that it would be maintained and And in a way that is consistent with the historic preservation requirements and consistent with the code. This is really intended to prevent there, I’ve seen situations and other other places where I’ve worked, where it’s a property that’s has historic value, but the person wants to do something else with the property. And rather than meet the requirements as they exist, they decide to just let it rot into the ground so that it has to be demolished. Because it’s a safety hazard. It’s really intended to prevent bad actors. That’s really what this has to do more with is preventing bad actors than it is. To that it has to do with affecting homeowners who are trying to maintain their properties and such. But it’s really specific to landmark properties,

Speaker 3 1:05:48
right. But this, this ordinance is asking for designation for historic districts, so that it can include other structures that are 50 years old, and consider them for maybe some historic significance, but also a review of any demolition for something 50 years or older.

Speaker 15 1:06:09
Gotcha. So I was I was referring strictly to the to the section 2.562 to zero in terms of the demolition. That is really some clarification to Because currently, our you know, we do have provisions in the code for review of proposed demolitions to properties that could be eligible, were really for this is 2.561 ad, it’s really more for making sure that we don’t lose potential historic assets in the community. And really to add, it adds more specificity to the demolition review requirements that are already there in the code. So there’s it really specified and

Speaker 3 1:06:56
as I said, I agree with that portion of it. But I’ve done understand because this other section for maintenance actually relates to the same section 2.5 6.220. So I think it’s an addition to this new Historic District. And by the way, I like the change in requirement requiring 51% of the homeowners to agree, I think that’s a step in a really good direction.

Speaker 15 1:07:23
Right. And so we currently do not have any locally designated historic districts in the city. So at this point, we this really only has to deal with historic landmarks, which are individual properties. So outside of historic district, we’re really only talking about our designated landmarks that people have either proactively designated on their own or they purchased knowing it was a landmark. So you know, the whole district question at this point is really very hypothetical, but it’s really setting the setting the stage if we ever had that happen.

Speaker 3 1:08:06
Okay, so I guess the question I have is, does this all relate to the same section? Which it does seem to 2.56220230 I think it all relates to this new demolition ordinance so

Speaker 15 1:08:37
mean all relates in terms of being historic preservation, the demolition section, it’s it really has to do with a review more than anything. So of demolition, proposed demolition, so slightly different. related but similar.

Speaker 3 1:08:54
Okay. Well, I’m in agreement in the two first sections, but not an agreement on the last three sections. Is there a way we can bifurcate this into two different pieces to be voted? Do we have to vote? To go on both.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:20
Yeah, please weigh in. Council.

Speaker 20 1:09:25
Thank you, Mayor pick, Jennifer and Dawn. Just so the public understands. The city’s not initiating any sort of blanket. Historic Districts, people are coming in as either groups or individuals and placing their having that place on individual home, or in the case of like, east side, proposing something like that. That group that’s doing that wants to make that their area, a blanketed area, and To the point here that, that it has to have a certain percentage of the population in that area supporting it. That seems pretty logical to me that you’re not going to get that you’re not going to get just, you know, forced blood blanket of have this sort of development or historic preservation sort of designation on something without people really having to buy in, correct, correct. I won’t be supporting any sort of separating this out. I think we need to move this forward, as presented. Thank you.

Speaker 2 1:10:46
Yes, thank you, Mayor Peck. In particular didn’t quite wasn’t quite fast enough to catch the letter that Councilmember Crist was referring to. But it’s it’s it’s intended to in incentivize owners of historic landmarks to keep them properly maintained, as opposed to allowing. So can you remind me the shortage, this the the

Speaker 15 1:11:19
term I referred to, as far as the maintenance requirements, it really is more geared at a concept called demolition by neglect. Yes, I understand that, really, it’s really geared, less apt, specifically saying that homeowners have to do XY and Z. But it’s more saying you can’t let your property rot and to the point where it’s you can’t maliciously ignore your maintenance. And it really has more to do with that malicious non maintenance.

Speaker 2 1:11:47
Correct. And and that wasn’t what I had trouble with. What I have trouble with, is how the incentive to do the right thing is supposed to work. Because code enforcement does not go around in inspecting properties, code enforcement operates on a complaint basis. So yeah, I don’t think people should be allowed to either purchase or apply, have a property designated as a historic landmark and suddenly changed subsequently changed their mind and allow it to deteriorate to the point where it has to be, has to be demolished. But I what I don’t understand is how the incentive works. Can you walk me through that? So this really is

Speaker 15 1:12:40
less about an incentive for maintenance and more just making it clear that there’s the expectation that you would maintain your property as you would any other home? So then how is it is the expectation enforced?

Unknown Speaker 1:12:59
What what makes people comply?

Unknown Speaker 1:13:06
Jean, you want to take a stab at this?

Speaker 21 1:13:13
Mayor and council Eugene may city attorney. So it would be a violation of the code. We have updated the enforcement and penalty sections to add administrative civil penalties as a enforcement tool, as well as just straightforward summons into municipal code for municipal court for a violation of the municipal code.

Speaker 2 1:13:37
Okay, so that’s the association of the language that I couldn’t quite make was, how what what causes the penalty to be invoked? That’s the part I don’t understand,

Speaker 21 1:13:56
if you deliberately cause or negligently failed to prevent significant deterioration, that that standard.

Speaker 2 1:14:05
And so would you. Yeah, so either it either someone would have to report you this, that this deterioration is happening, and then the city would come in and say, Hey, you’re gonna be fine if you don’t fix this property, or they might apply for demolition, in which case, the city could say, we’re going to deny this because you are subsidy. See that. That’s that’s the where I don’t understand how the steps work. So then they say, Okay, well, we’re not going to demolish it. But then they’re, they’re not fine. They just back off the demolition. What happens? How does that work?

Speaker 21 1:14:56
A primary goal of most of our code is come client’s Yeah. So if you were to come in for a demolition permit, and you were found to be in violation of this maintenance requirements, the expectation would be, you would comply, you would maintain your property. And if you don’t well, then we would use our enforcement tools of either the administrative civil penalty, or a summons to municipal court. So would

Speaker 2 1:15:24
they then when they made the application, and we found out that the and we determined who determines that the prod that the property has been allowed to deteriorate?

Unknown Speaker 1:15:38
I mean, I think it would be code enforcement, maybe it’s

Speaker 15 1:15:41
a combination of staff in conjunction with representatives from the historic preservation commission. So it would be historic preservation staff, code enforcement staff,

Speaker 2 1:15:51
so we’re all really working together than somebody is historic preservation, the quasi judicial entity that assesses the penalty. I just want to understand what the steps are.

Speaker 15 1:16:07
And that’s, and that’s something we can we can discuss with Glenn, if you decide to bring this back for the next meeting as well, we additional information on that.

Speaker 2 1:16:17
I mean, I think the intent is is desirable. I just don’t see how it works. And I’d be happy to have to have councilmember Rodriguez explained it because maybe he understands, but I don’t.

Speaker 1 1:16:36
Is there anyone else on council that does not understand the steps for demolition?

Speaker 2 1:16:43
No, it’s not steps for demolition. That’s pretty clear steps for

Speaker 1 1:16:47
the penalty. How do we get to the penalty? And who enforces the pedal? It doesn’t sound like anybody understands? Well, I do, then you could explain it. Now. My point is, this might be a off site conversation that you have with Eugene and because if the rest of us understand this, then you’re the only one. And Chris, maybe you could have a private conversation or an off Council conversation.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:23
I think that this is what public hearings are for.

Speaker 22 1:17:27
So if I may, okay, I’m going to try to it’s not a public hearing No, no. Please do. There are there are multiple ways that this can come to the attention of staff. So to the example that you gave earlier, is if a resident says they’re not maintaining the house. Another aspect of of it is in terms of our historic preservation staff, and others evaluating properties. Another option is that they come in for a demolition permit, because they want to scrape the site, and they haven’t maintained it. It can come in from many different areas. When it comes in, then you like any other code enforcement case, or building code issue, you then evaluate what’s happened here. And so

Speaker 2 1:18:27
and you is code enforcement, the historic preservation commission,

Speaker 22 1:18:31
it’ll it’ll more than likely be a combination of Code Enforcement, building inspection, historic preservation, staff that look at this and you’re going to start evaluating things. When was the property purchased? How long has the person owned the property and you start looking at the records and you start evaluating what has occurred. You then go through in liking code enforcement we issue and you know, the saying notice of violation. That’s then your obligation as the property owner to bring it into compliance. That’s Eugene’s point of voluntary compliance. If then, they don’t bring it into compliance, just like code enforcement and other issues, you then go to court. And then that’s where at the end of the day, it’s probably it’s going to be the court that really is hearing the case like on other code enforcement issues in terms of bringing it into compliance. That’s a general answer to how you go through the process.

Speaker 2 1:19:41
Okay, that seems very clear. It also seems that it was an appropriate question to me

Speaker 3 1:20:01
I agree that it seems like penalizing someone with a moratorium on a building permit after some infraction has happened kind of keeps them from actually maintaining the property further, it’s like the horse is already out of the barn. And now you’re penalizing them. It’s to me, they’re probably going to need a building permit if they’ve let it deteriorate, or they haven’t taken care of it. So penalizing them by you know, saying, Okay, now you didn’t ask for a certificate of appropriateness, which maybe, maybe they didn’t know, maybe they had an emergency. Now it’s a year before they can get a building permit. That just Yeah, I don’t follow the the way thinking are you want to weigh in cancer. Okay, so I would like to move that we separate the two first sections, which would be 2.56070 and 2.56180. And vote on that separately from the last three sections, which is 2.5 6.2 to zero, and 2.56230. And there’s a third one 2.5 6.240. And I need a second.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:31
So that feels for lack of a second.

Speaker 20 1:21:38
And so 2.200 Dash 2024 Dash five, as presented in first reading. Second

Unknown Speaker 1:22:01
is there any more discussion on this motion? Councillor Martin?

Speaker 2 1:22:07
Yes. I agree with councilmember McCoy that we need to move this through. Because I think it’s important. I also feel that if it cannot, if the mechanisms can’t be better elucidated by the staff, I will be voting against it on second reading. So, you know, like, I’m going to vote for it now. But we got to do better than this.

Speaker 1 1:22:39
Councillor McCoy moved to 20 2405 and that was seconded by Councillor excuse me, Hidalgo fairing Let’s vote

Unknown Speaker 1:23:05
mine is coming up so it disappeared Yep. So

Speaker 1 1:23:18
there we go. Sorry that took so long. And that passes six to one with a counselor Christina opposition. And counselor Chris, you also pulled nine H.

Speaker 3 1:23:44
So nine H is regarding the bond farm inclusionary housing requirement for that development. And inclusionary housing is not the same as affordable housing. So it means inclusionary housing means offering the same housing opportunity to those of lesser means, as we do to those have greater means. And if we want to level the playing field when it comes to privilege. inclusionary housing is pretty much how it’s done. Now, Bond Farm is a mature neighborhood. A mature school has mature trees. It’s got a good culture. Children raised in mature neighborhoods do better in school have higher graduation rates, better self confidence and develop friendships that help them succeed later in life. And there are very few development opportunities left in mature neighborhoods. So as a council, I’m going to ask that we do everything possible to ensure inclusionary units are included in this neighborhood and that we don’t accept the other piece of land which is on 1900 Terry 1916 Terry because that is a very different paradigm for people seeking to raise a family. Is there a representative here who’d like to speak to to the

Speaker 23 1:25:15
councilmember Chris, Molly O’Donnell, the housing director, I’m here to represent, we do have the developer here as well, if needed. Do you have any questions specifically?

Speaker 3 1:25:31
Well, what will it take to do eight units of inclusionary housing in bond form.

Speaker 23 1:25:38
So according to our inclusionary, housing code, developers do have an option. And in order to elect the land donation option, multiple requirements need to be met. And each of those requirements has been met on this site. So in accordance with code, this is a viable option within our inclusionary housing program, to build the units on site, I don’t have specific numbers about what that would cost the developer may. But we do know that the cost to build them on site would be more than the land donation option. And so if the city then accepts the donated land, then we would go ahead and leverage other sources to build on it, bringing in outside sources to help cover that gap and build the units. It is also important to note that the developer, if they built on site would have to build eight units. But we can get up to I’m sorry, I have to remind myself, thankfully, we can fit up to 54 units on this site. So that leveraging opportunity is there.

Speaker 3 1:26:49
Help much is the land worth 1916 Terry?

Unknown Speaker 1:27:04
Representative from the developers coming up, great.

Speaker 24 1:27:14
So land value is Marchionne, I think you guys know me. 1313 spruce, land value is typically evaluated based upon what you can do with a property. So when you look at a property, and people price things differently. When you look at a property, you kind of determine what’s the highest and best use. So when I was looking at this property and Terry street, I realized we could easily do a multifamily structure there, which would be a substantially more affordable entry level housing, then what we’ll be able to provide a bond farm, the so if we can build 54 units there, it’s probably worth $30,000 with door. So that would be about a million and a half dollars, something like that. I think that. So the chance that was building housing on the bond farm side is zero. As far as affordable housing goes, we have the option to buy out, we have the option to donate land on the farm itself, which would also be an option for us. So I think this is a better option. Plus, we’ve been talking to a number of national builders who are interested in developing the bond farm site. And we have product that ranges in that $400,000 range. And they have a policy of not building affordable housing. So it’s gonna be very difficult for me if we don’t, and I think this is a really good exchange, if you think about it, this site and Terry street, you can build 54 units. And actually, I think it’s 60. But 54 is the number that they said. So we’ll go with that. I think it’s very easy to see how a purely affordable housing project that can take advantage of TIF funding and all types of other sort of resources to develop affordable housing can produce 54 units here, which will really help as far as the affordable housing needs in the city goes compared to our seven and a half or eight units that we would have at Bonn farm.

Speaker 3 1:29:31
Do you? Do you build multifamily units? Yes, you do. So if we didn’t take the Landon on Terry street, you might consider building their multifamily units in addition to the bond farm development

Speaker 24 1:29:46
Yeah, we wouldn’t build 54 I mean, we build we would build this different project. So we’re not I don’t have the background for for building affordable housing. we’d be looking for some partner who would come in and do it. Or if we were to build, we build probably 1314 units and sell them at market rate less than 12%, affordable housing.

Speaker 3 1:30:15
Just the parcel of land, what would you sell that for? If you’re gonna sell that parcel

Speaker 24 1:30:20
of million and a half, you know, maybe even a little bit more, if it’s not affordable housing, if we can, let’s say, say, for instance, we could easily do 35 or 40 units there in a non affordable range. Because you get some bonuses, right? When you build affordable. might, you might get more than $30,000, the door might get 45,000 a door.

Speaker 3 1:30:51
So the what the price you would want for the units at Bond farm? Have you had seven to eight units? I think the percentage is somewhere in between there. You want $400,000? A unit? Why? Yeah. I mean, is that your sale price for the units? No,

Speaker 24 1:31:09
I’m not. First of all, I’m not a physician committed to the sale price, because we don’t even understand what all the engineering costs are yet. We don’t know how much it’s going to cost us to develop the land and get it ready to go. So but I do know that national builders have price points and they look at price points, you know, these guys build for like 130 $140 a foot and building it’s closer to $200 a foot, maybe 180. So then, as you know, we’ve got to the cash and lose 13 bucks a foot. So it adds quite a bit to the burden of the project.

Speaker 3 1:31:50
But donating this land would be in lieu of the in lieu fee.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:55
Yes, it would. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:31:57
so that would remove that fee.

Speaker 24 1:31:58
That’s that’s the intention. Without those, and

Speaker 3 1:32:02
if you built inclusionary units, you also would not have the in Luffy. That’s right.

Speaker 24 1:32:07
So, but it’s very hard to do that when so like, if you’ve got, we have $3 million in cost. That’s where the cost is. And then we’ve got probably another $3 million and off sites, and insight, infrastructure work. So already we’re, you know, at a pretty high price per unit that was 63 units. So, I mean, essentially, the, that drives the price point of the project. So you can have we think the units are all in cost going to be around $85,000 A unit for the land and infrastructure and such. So if I have to donate seven units, that has a value of about $600,000. If I donate land on site, versus paying the cash in lieu, we pay the cash in lieu and the units are 1700 square feet. It’s like just I think just under a million dollars. Yeah, should we be which we will pay the cash in lieu rather than build affordable units there.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:24
Harold, do you have a comment?

Speaker 22 1:33:25
Yeah, so I want to kind of go back to the inclusionary housing ordinance, because I want to clarify some points. So one, one option is you can build the units on site. And you can do that on your own and it doesn’t go back to council. The second option is you can choose cash in lieu, and they can pay the cash in lieu and that doesn’t go back to council, that’s something that they can just choose to do. The third option that they can look at is they can build on their own on the off site. That does come to council. And then the other option is the land donation, which also comes to Council for approval. And so those are the mechanisms that any developer has the ability to choose from. And I wanted to point that out, because it’s not an either or there. There’s a host of options that the Council put into that policy that those that developers can choose from.

Speaker 23 1:34:25
Once again, Molly O’Donnell, I just want to add that once we were considering raising the fee in lieu and modifying that calculation, we started hearing from some developers that they were starting to look at any of the other options before which had had barely, if not at all been used. This is one of the first examples of a developer looking at so using some of our other options built into the IH program rather than the fee in lieu and we expect to see more

Speaker 22 1:34:52
then to Molly’s point what the inclusionary housing ordinance requires in terms of staff recommendation bringing this back is that a the infrastructure has to be at site, we’d look at being able to produce more units on the donated land than on the than the number of units that would be produced as part of the project itself. So there’s criteria that we evaluate before, we can say we’re bringing that back to council. And so essentially, what we’re saying is based on the guidance from the ordinance, this land does all of those things. And now it’s Council’s decision to say yes or no. In that, what the reason why I brought up the different options is, is because should counsel say no to this, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to build the units on site, because they still have the option to pay the fee and lieu and just not build any product. They’re paying the fee at least. So that’s why I wanted to clarify the different steps.

Speaker 3 1:36:03
So there’s the criteria that the land has to meet, but then the fifth criteria?

Speaker 23 1:36:21
Correct? That is correct. Yeah. So for land donation, I could hear from here. For land donation option that we do bring that for council approval. Yeah.

Speaker 3 1:36:34
Yeah, just one more thing. So I’m not saying that you give up the idea of Terry, what I’m suggesting maybe is both. And in the past, we’ve taken a lot of the burden to the developer, and I have some ideas how to share that burden. But I’m gonna let the other councillors weigh in.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:55
It’s actually more Yeah, I

Speaker 2 1:36:56
think it was me first, and then Shawn, and if he’s willing, I would like this, I can be brief here. Because I think what we know already is, is that Mark has chosen this option, because it’s the most cost effective for him. And the city, speaking from the previous administration, really liked this option, because they think they can do really well at leveraging that land and building affordable housing on it. But we have a third policy consideration, which is that the city based on its housing needs assessment and the also the requests of our primary employers. Those are the priorities that our primary employers have set. The city has a strong need for attainable housing. And I believe and I just want clarification for this is that Mr. Young has has said that his the organization that he wants to partner with to develop bond farm would be the most likely to develop attainable units to be able to develop attainable units. If the affordable units were out of the picture, by this land donation is is that a correct understanding?

Unknown Speaker 1:38:25
Yes, it is.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:27
Thank you. That’s all I needed to know.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:31
Councillor Mackay,

Speaker 20 1:38:32
Thank you, Mayor Peck. Mark Young, thank you for coming here. I’m sorry to pull you back up and down and everything like that. But I just want to there’s some folks that are probably watching from the bonfire. And just so that they’re clear that we’re not expanding anything from what we agreed on 63

Speaker 24 1:38:51
units there you go more than 60 kids.

Speaker 20 1:38:55
So I want them to hear that out there. And, and that if you’re talking about attainable units, because of who you’re partnering with for development for building purposes, that sounds you know, even better. And in this area here, we we did a couple of our transportation goals. And those sorts of things because of where this is located in North Longmont. So we address that issue around affordable housing and the needs that are associated with that for transportation, you know, within a block of Main Street or so to get to, you know, on bus routes and other things like that. So, I’m in support of seeing this move forward as it’s presented, just because I think that you know, we want to make sure that we’ve we adhere to, you know, kind of the agreement that we made when you brought this forward If you’re willing to work with the community, surrounding community members had to come to some sort of consensus and, and the size and the scope of the growth there. So I appreciate your your effort, Sharon. And and like what I generally see you Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:21
Sit down. Yes,

Speaker 1 1:40:23
Mark, you may sit down. Diane, would you like to move their ordinance? Nine H. Or

Speaker 3 1:40:36
I would like to say that we are actually talking about the same things. I think we’re talking about 63 units, eight of which would be attainable. I’m saying, Well, I’m just, I’m just recapping. Okay. So I’m talking about eight of those would be attainable. Now, it sounds like there’s a comment that there is attainable in the mix with the 63. And if that, if that actually qualifies for inclusionary housing, why are we doing this land? Trade?

Speaker 22 1:41:16
So Molly, you’re gonna help me on this one. He’s he’s building 63 housing units of which he’s required to build eight affordable housing units, if they build them on site, which are permanent, permanently deed restricted. If he if the developer chooses not to build those on site, then they have the choice of paying fee in lieu building the units off site at a different rate. My mic. Alright, so I’ll say it again. So the inclusionary housing ordinance is really about affordable housing and the requirements that they have to build. So it’s 63 units. So they have to build eight, capital A affordable housing units to meet the inclusionary housing ordinance. If they choose not to build the eight units, then they can choose to pay cash in lieu versus building those units. And so those aren’t attainable, those are affordable. So if it’s homeownership that will be below 80%, ami for homeownership. What I think the question was, is that if I buy this land and donate it for to meet the affordable housing requirement, and that’s going to allow me to build theoretically attainable housing units at a price point, let’s say 500 400,000. When you do the land donation within the ordinance, so when you talk about fee and lieu and the attainable housing, and you talk about the construction of attainable housing within the ordinance, there are offsets built within the ordinance that says if I’m going to hit these middle tier price points, that actually reduces the the amount of affordable housing that I need to build if you’re doing it on site. And so if you’re building between 80 and 100%, ami, you get a 60% reduction helped me with five I can’t remember the numbers revised. So you get a reduction to your affordable housing requirement.

Speaker 3 1:43:36
Harold, just to clarify the inclusionary housing doesn’t ever mention attainable to separate ordinance has to be below $400,000. At this point, it

Speaker 22 1:43:46
does mention attainable in that when we talk about the table that we’ve built and said here’s the price points between 80 and 120%. Ami. That’s it within the inclusionary housing ordinance. If you build attainable as part of your project, you have a reduction in your affordable housing requirements on the 12% Depending on where the price points of those units hit, like we used 80 to 100% ami 100 to 110% Ami as a category and 110 to 120% ami. That actually reduces what you have to build. But when you choose to do the land donation, there is no offset. You’re choosing to give land instead of building it so even if you build attainable you don’t reduce your inclusionary housing requirements.

Speaker 3 1:44:42
And he’s building attainable on the bond farm 63 units

Speaker 23 1:44:47
to be determined to be determined. So it’s certainly market rate units and considering attainable units if the land donation is approved. That helps have the finances to potentially put in attainable units on site with the market rate.

Speaker 3 1:45:11
If we keep building segregated housing, we’re never going to have true inclusionary housing. In other words, the same equal opportunities for families who are trying for, you know, a step up. And that’s a concern. We can’t always build multifamily 50 units all together that just isn’t adequate for families. And especially for raising children who need some of the same opportunities that other citizens are enjoying. If we’re going to do inclusionary, I’d suggest that we be a little bit more bold, not necessarily put the burden on the developer, but consider ways that the city can partner to make sure that some of those units are attainable for families in that area. And those other question that I have for you, too, is do we have any other developments that are similar to bond farm in mature neighborhoods?

Speaker 23 1:46:11
I would have to bring planning stuff up to staff up to answer that question specifically, are you asking if other developments, market rate developments are proposing something similar to a land donation? Or just strictly on the development side? No,

Speaker 3 1:46:25
I’m asking if we have any other neighborhoods that are mature where there is room to develop more housing? And I don’t know of any in town, but if you do, I’d like to hear about it.

Speaker 1 1:46:40
So I think that we can push that off for different conversation only because to do what you want on some of the things, we have to have a code change in the inner Isaiah ordinance. And we do have developments, and I’m gonna say the Mustang that we heard about, and in our pre session that is has inclusionary, attainable, affordable homeownership rental, and it is a partnership with the city that we have to do. It’s very complicated. So that’s very complicated. My question to you is, do you want this ordinance to be passed as is? Or do you want to do something different with it?

Unknown Speaker 1:47:45
Too, I’m going to ask,

Speaker 25 1:47:50
or you could reject Mayor, Members of Council, Tim Hall, Assistant City Attorney, the options that I believe are before you right now, or you can approve this or you can reject it. The developer still has to satisfy age and so they’ll find a way to satisfy it. They can come back with the same proposal but modified slightly, you can pay the fee in lieu they have all of the age compliance options at that point. So

Speaker 3 1:48:16
Well, it seems like what we want is a unicorn a third option, a third middle road, so and I think this option for the developers a good one. So I’m going to move that we move nine H forwards.

Speaker 1 1:48:35
Okay, it’s been moved by Diane Crist to move nine H and seconded by Councillor McCoy. Is there any more discussion? I think we’ve discussed this a lot. So let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:55
And that passes unanimously. Thank you, staff. Mayor, can we have a break before the next item we need to thank you. Thank you

Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
We’re now at the general business portion of our agenda.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:25
And this is a Bill 20 2407.

Speaker 1 2:00:39
I’m going to read it now. Are we ready? A bill for an administrative ordinance approving the purchase and sale and development agreement, conveying 200 bountiful Avenue and 905 Harvest Moon drive to vertical LLC for an affordable, attainable housing development. And if I am correct, this is the Mustang project. Okay. So are we going to have a presentation are going to have a presentation? Oh, Molly, I’ll

Unknown Speaker 2:01:16
turn it over to you. Harold is going to kick us

Unknown Speaker 2:01:18
off first, and I’ll turn it over to Harold.

Speaker 22 2:01:21
We’re gonna we’re gonna start on this. So obviously, we put the information in the council packet on this project and wanting to talk about how did we get here. This project actually started a few years ago. And it was really associated with the nine acres of property that we purchased for affordable housing, excuse me associated with the Costco project. So in that diamond, GE concrete, Reggie golden in his family sold us the nine acres for $3.45 a square foot, that’s all in public record. That was done in 2022. When we initially purchased the property, that’s when we started working with the Longmont housing that’s that was at the point where we were engaged with the Longmont Housing Authority and taking on that work. And we really went. And we’re thinking about the traditional affordable housing work that you’ve seen in other projects where it’s a rental product. As we were moving through that conversation and continuing to move forward in the Costco project. Diamond G. Again, Reggie golden, indicated and he was starting to hear the conversations with council regarding attainable housing and the need for attainable housing in our community. And so he indicated that he would be willing to sell the remaining 7.28 acres. That’s adjacent to the property that we purchased to look at with a sub market rate condition and really building that attainable housing product. And that was really something that was front and center in his mind. At that time. We weren’t sure how we were going to move through this and approach it. But I was introduced to Walker thrash of vertical construction. Walker is behind me. And in that introduction, one of the things that he’s been working on is really trying to crack the code for attainable housing. I will say that I’m not sure. When we got into the affordable housing conversation, I think that definitely stressed everyone out. And we will talk to you about why that stressed this all out as we’re trying to move through it. But Walker then met Reggie golden. So the landowner, the developer, were aligned on the values of crack cracking the attainable housing challenge in our community. But what was even more important is the values that they were expressing in terms of why they wanted to do this, actually, were in alignment with the values that you all have established via various affordable and attainable housing policies. And it was really focused on a couple of things that we said as core principles as we had the conversation. So this became an unsolicited offer from vertical construction and Walker thrash as we were looking at it, you know, main component restrict to lower price points. The second bullet point that you see on this is perhaps the most important in that that was an open book process. And what I mean by open book process, and is that we were able to see all of the different components of what it takes to build housing. This, this conversation has been going on for two years, we’ve been following Council direction, in terms of negotiating this housing development agreement. And I will say that we’ve learned a lot throughout this process. What I will tell you is Building a For Sale product is completely different than building the rental product that we’ve been engaged in at this to this point. So that’s kind of how we got here. Council has adopted an attainable housing ordinance that we’re utilizing in this process. At the last Council meeting in December, council agreed to the purchase of the 7.2 acre acre parcel. And I would be remissed. If I didn’t, I don’t think we have this in the presentation. But I would be remissed. If if I didn’t really point out that what we were able to do in this and so the 7.28 acres was about $10 a square foot. As part of this, we actually ran an appraisal on this. And again, the 7.28 Acres is conditioned upon attainable housing. We ran an appraisal and the appraisal came in at around $18.35 a square foot. So if you look at what we paid for the nine acres and what we pay for the seven acres, in terms of being able to do this project, that was a really good deal. That was really the interest that diamond G and the golden family had and really contributing to affordable and attainable housing in our community. And I would be remiss if I didn’t talk to council about that that was a significant piece of bringing this together. What I would say but for that we wouldn’t be talking about this project today. The numbers wouldn’t work. Molly.

Speaker 23 2:06:33
Members of Council, Mollie O’Donnell, once again, starting with a project summary, talking about what we intend to do on the site. So here’s our project location, you can see Highway One night team can prep Boulevard up at the top, it is located just south of Costco. This is quail road. So we’ve got the rec center right here. And then Main Street is not far off the screen here. So we do have transit service to the Rec Center. We also have the left hand Greenway trail, left hand Creek Greenway trail here. And so that is within walking distance of the site as well. So in total, it’s a 16.4 acre site. So talking about the project and concept at this point in time, we’re planning on about 185 units constructed in four phases. At least 55 of those would be permanently deed restricted affordable to buyers below 80% of the area median income, and the remainder, which is about 130. In the current calculations, or would be deed restricted as affordable to buyers between 180 and 120%. of area median income. We have a mix of townhomes so attached and single family detached product proposed overall density is 11.3 units per acre. And we’ll get a little bit more into the next steps later. But assuming the entitlements and everything goes on schedule, we could be breaking ground in later this year, and with a five year construction cycle. Speaking quickly on the units, because prop 123, we have a goal, the city has a goal to produce 304 units that qualify under Prop 123 By December 31 2026. And then feasibly another three year cycle would would kick on from there. This because you’re allowed to count for sale product below 100% Ami, with the current proposal, we’d be producing 60 units that meet our prop 123 goals. So that’s 20% of our three year cycle wouldn’t be as perfect because we’re constructing this over a phase but just to get a gauge on how that helps our city goals.

Speaker 22 2:08:43
When you look at the site plan, there’s a couple of things that I wanted to point out to council. So when we say approximately 185 units of for sale product, it’s because we haven’t gone through the last stages of the entitlement process. And so one of the things we want to be very clear on with counsel is that as we’re looking at design standards and some of the other issues, it theoretically could adjust the unit count, we think we’re pretty close on this. In what we’re looking at. The other piece that I wanted to point out is when you look at the density of 11.3 units per acre, what we’re really finding as we start looking at what really goes into play in terms of the cost of housing, you need to maximize the density on these projects to truly be able to hit the price points on the affordable and attainable housing side. You can’t do this type of project and more of the suburban style development. It just won’t work financially. And that’s that was another big component in terms of what we were looking at finally. And we’ve said this before, I think we’ve all been racking our brains to try to figure out is Has anyone been aware of a project like this anywhere else? And we really can’t and the reason that we can’t is because you do see attainable housing projects. You don’t really ever find attainable housing projects with 30%, permanently affordable deed restriction restrictions in here. And you’ll see some slides as to why that really comes into play. As I indicated, we’ve been working on this for a while. And it really was struggling to be able to include the affordable housing ownership opportunities in this because it was a pro forma buster. And it took a I think we went through six or seven different performance. So nine, we’re performing nine as we brought it to you, and trying to figure that out. And in the big issue was the affordable housing site on this.

Speaker 23 2:10:49
So here’s a figure showing our project site plan as it stands today. Really, the intent here is that we won’t be able to distinguish the affordable units from the attainable units, or really from a market unit that is in the vicinity, it’s to hide the wealth in the back. So driveways, and cars being a sign of wealth, putting those on the backside, so that the front of these units are walkable, promote neighborhood neighbor interactions, and really just have a vibrant neighborhood to encourage a sense of community. That’s the idea here. So in these there’s four phases shown. And the first phase is down in the lower right corner, and that that’s what is proposed to start construction in 2024. And there are chunks that are certain similar type units. So the affordable townhome and the attainable, detached, they’re in some chunks, but it’s really mixed throughout the whole neighborhood. This is just a concept that the that vertical is working on in another community that would be potentially similar but customized for Longmont to just to show the level of aesthetic design that’s going into these so far. So talking about Project phasing, we’ve already worked on the concept. That’s what you’re seeing presented here tonight. We’ve done tests on underwriting just to gauge if this is a project that could move forward on the finance side, we have done preliminary design, I should say we vertical has done preliminary design. And tonight, the development agreement is really the next critical path in order for the development team to really start to invest in the architecture and getting the entitlements, deliverables in moving to final design and permitting and finalizing that financing would be the next step all going in lockstep. And then the intent would to close on the transfer of the land the two parcels from the city to vertical and initiate the process for construction here at the end of the year.

Speaker 22 2:13:07
Real quick, I want to point out why does the development agreement occur at this point, because up to date to date, all the parties have been spending money. When we start moving into the final design and permitting, the amount of money that you spend is drastically different, you go from 10s of 1000s of dollars to really seven digits in terms of what you have to expend. And so it really is needing, needing that certainty to continue moving forward in the process based on the capital outlay that’s going to have to occur in order to get through the process.

Speaker 23 2:13:45
So we wanted to give some some price points just to settle this in with what does this really look like in terms of community impact and who could live here. So what we have here are sample price points. So this is based on our 2023 maximum sales prices for affordable and attainable units. Because this will be be constructed in phases. These are not the exact numbers that the project will be subject to since we update that every year. But just for theoretical exercise, if all of them were constructed today, then this or the bounds within the project would be working with. So this just is hopefully helping to give you an idea of what type of household or what type of income and household brings in could qualify for these and what those Max sales prices that the developer would be required to withhold to would look like if this was today. But in reality, we are working with a draft pro forma. And the developer does want to build in some flexibility for the market to make sure we’re not just planning on everything at the max and you have to have some wiggle room for for just working within the market and buyer qualifications. So again using two A 2023 maximum sales prices. That’s what you see on the high end estimate here, the low end estimate is what we are the numbers that we are working with through the draft process in this in developing this pro forma. So the developer doesn’t tend to sell these units, not right at the max. And really, that does help tell the story, when you see the city investment coming in later.

Speaker 22 2:15:24
Really focusing on the lower end estimate, I think, you know, one of the reasons why we wanted to give you all a range is because if we’ve learned anything over the last two years is that inflation is a beast in terms of projects and what that can do to it. So are we are focused on the low inside of this. There are things that can change it, price of materials, goods that you need to build this interest rates, labor, all of those things. And so we’re really focused on, I wanted to say we’re really focused on that lower end, had some conversations with some individuals. And part of what we’ve talked about is you don’t want to be at that higher end number because it really starts changing the, the pool of buyers that you can have in it. So you really want to kind of hit that middle ground in this and and in the event that something starts shifting with house prices, you don’t want people at the top end, because then it could put them in a bad position down the road. Go in go ahead, go to the next slide. One of the things that I wanted to talk to council about on this, and I alluded to it in the last conversation prior to this agenda item, and probably in a lot of conversations with council regarding affordable and how affordable, affordable and attainable housing. So you know, when you look at what are the headwinds when you come into a project like this, and we put these cost drivers in order of influence, and so the first one that really comes into play is land cost. As we’ve been evaluating what it takes to actually build affordable, attainable housing, and you look at the cost of land and in Boulder County in Longmont. Depending on what that cost, depending on how much you pay for the land, that could immediately just eliminate options because it just won’t work in the pro forma. And that’s why when we talk about the land cost that we pay for this, it really fits well, because it’s allowing us to collectively manage it. I’ve talked about material prices, and interest rate and labor. And you know, the last piece is fees, but it’s actually probably I mean, it’s a big number collectively. But when you look at the overall cost, it’s not the one that immediately is what we’re trying to solve for. When you slide over and you look at the other side of the slide, and you look at construction cost on the affordable units. The cost of constructing those units, and this is a cost per unit is $94,000. Let the sale price is $94,000 less than the actual construction price to build an affordable and affordable townhome for ownership. And that’s a smaller townhome, slightly larger townhome is the sales price is $86,000 less than the actual construction price. And we’ve already taken land cost out. And we’ve taken permit fees out. And I thought this was a really important piece to talk to the council about in terms of this is what made this project hard because that really is creating a gap that we’re trying to fill. And we also know it’s the housing that’s most needed in our community. And and when we looked at this when you when you look at what we typically do for homeownership, this is less than we typically do. But they also have to buy the land. And so if you if you normalize for land, it’s pretty typical enough affordable homeownership side.

Speaker 23 2:19:05
Let’s talk about what that investment is going to look like as proposed. So the we’re splitting this up into a couple of categories, because there’s a lot of moving pieces. So what we’re calling the non city funds, this is leveraged funding funding that the city is brought in, but it is not local city dollars. We spent $4.65 million between ARPA allocation and a state grant called the Iowa grant innovative affordable housing incentives program. We obtain that funding and put it towards purchase purchasing that land. So that’s been done. In addition, the developer proposes requesting 100% fee waiver, which we’ll get into in a moment, we’re going to dive into that a little bit closer. But overall the value of the fee waiver for affordable is 1.3 3,000,004 attainable is 3.6 5 million. So it’s important to note that that is not direct city dollars, but it is unearned revenue, if this project as proposed came in as a market rate instead, so it’s something that the city is not collecting in this proposal. So that totals 9.6 2 million of what the city could put into it, that is not cash. On the other side, there is still a gap. As Harold mentioned, this is primarily because of the Affordable Units, we have figured out through this exercise that attainable can be built with with land, reduced land and fee waivers. But to do affordable, it takes a deep incentive. And so what is proposed here is to fund this through the affordable and a combination of the affordable and attainable housing funds over a period of five years. Or in that same timeline, we could go out for more leveraged funding, such as prop winning 123, or the new county tax funds that would be available in about 2025. If so, then we could swap out that that cash investment. Overview of the total project costs of the entire project is estimated at 77 Point 8 million to build with the city’s investment pulling out that 6 million the gap, the developer is really at risk for that $71 million. And this is considered a high risk project when you’re building this much income qualified housing with no market rate units to balance it out. And so you’ll see how that kind of comes into play when we talk about the the attainable fee waiver piece.

Speaker 22 2:21:44
I believe that 71 million before interest. So interest is on top of that. So when you look at this, so when we look at what we’re investing in the risks that we’re taking, I mean, the developers taking a lot of risk on this project. So some key deal points on this that we wanted to talk about. So one of the things that we work through is the development fee to the developer on this project. And the end of the day, we agreed on an $8 million fixed development fee. And that’s important because it’s not based on the sales price and other issues. I mean, it’s fixed, we know what it is, when you look at it, it’s 11.1% of return on on the developer’s investment that we talked about in the previous slide. It’s a 9.8% return on the total project cost. And this is one of the things that we learned in the process. I think a lot of people think that developers set their return based on what they want to achieve. But what we’ve also learned is that the lenders actually in the underwriters, on the construction side, play a pivotal role in require requiring that return on investment and why did the lenders play a role. because of things like inflation and other challenges come up, or you let’s say you have issues with the infrastructure on the project, it’s not like you can go get another loan, they have to pull that out of there return. And so what’s different in this is that it’s a fixed fee. The other thing that’s different about this, and again, when we talk about alignment on values. And really the in I wish this would have been my idea, this was really Walker’s idea saying, you know, we’re all trying to get something unique done. And so if there’s any savings to the project cost, or excess proceeds based on the pro forma, the city will receive 75% of that, and then the developer will receive 25% of that. So what that really does is the $6 million investment if any of the if we have any savings or excess proceeds actually is reduced once we finish the project. You know, a couple of key points, the land is not going to be transferred until closing and all conditions are met. We’ve talked about this on some other housing projects. And that, you know, we have are what we say we Walker has tested whether or not this can be underwritten. I have seen letters from lenders that are saying it can be underwritten. But that’s just to get the project ready to go once you once the decision is made is when you really start getting focused on finalizing all those details. And all the conditions have to be met before we transfer the land and we close on the property and begin the project. So there’s still a lot of work that we have to do on it. And the other thing that we did in this is that funding is distributed by project phase to minimize risk. And what we mean by that is you can look at the agreement in the packet and we were putting I believe two and a half million in phase one. And then we have different phases where we’re bringing dollars in, we’re not putting all of that money up front, and we’ll put it in an escrow account at the beginning of the phase, and then spin down on that. And we’ll obviously have approval of those costs. Once we’ve been began the second phase, we’ll put in the second amount into the escrow account. And so it’s not all going in at once. Because one of the things that we’ve said in this process is, it’s a risky project. And you know, especially on the affordable side and qualifying people to buy it, you know, we’re going to be watching the sales on this real time as we’re moving forward. And in and so we thought that was the best way to minimize the risk to the city in this process. The reason why the first phase is higher than the other phases is because we also figured out to adjust the pro forma, that if we can put the two and a half million on the front end, where it’s basically covering that initial infrastructure cost and the horizontal side, what that actually does is allow us to reduce the carrying costs. From an interest standpoint, if you had to get a construction loan on this, which didn’t make a difference to the gap. I believe the gap was about a half a million dollars more. Total. Yeah, yeah. So it was about six and a half million until we chose to find it with that upfront of two and a half to manage that cost.

Speaker 23 2:26:30
All right, so let’s dive into the attainable housing fee waiver piece of this. So first, just to to clarify this. First off, with the modifications to the fee waiver program that council approved last year 2023. This project qualifies for 100% Fee Waiver at the administrative level. So you don’t need to consider the affordable fee waivers, but that it is valued at over $1.3 million. Moving to our attainable fee waiver. This is our first project to utilize our new attainable Fee Waiver Program. And so I want to outline how this project scored against the criteria that council set for the program here a few months ago. So I’m just going to walk you through a couple of key pieces, we have a minimum of five units written into the development agreement at the 100% Ami level. Right now the current price points that are showing in the pro forma there’s a significant number more than that, but to build in the safety net for the market over the next five years that we at least wrote in this minimum, and then a minimum of 15 at 110% ami. And then moving to our exceptional benefit to the community, this project has some sustainability features being built in it will be 100%. Electric, it’s being looking at that neighborhood piece. We want the indistinguishable like aesthetic where it really feels like an integrated mixed income neighborhood, walkable, that sense of community. And then really the big one on this one also is that it’s a pilot project. This is a model that has not been tested anywhere in the nation that we know. And if this is successful, then this could be a model that’s replicated. So that has some value for the employer units. So the city is investing as the employer in this project. And in return, we would get preference on a first sale of 24 units for city employees that might be peppered throughout the phases, we’ll have to see how the once we start collecting buyer, interested buyers and running through a lottery process and qualifications, we’ll see how that that spreads out in the project, but 24 total would be dedicated. The rest of them outside of those city dedicated units would be for employment in Longmont. So again, this is those that work in Longmont moving to Longmont and then there are some exceptions to meet fair housing rules, specifically for those with disabilities. And there’s some things around retired employees as well. And then the rest we have 68 units that are currently set at 120% ami. And so recall that this is only the attainable units, we’re not counting the affordable units in here. So there’s they’re considered separately. The total value of 100% fee waiver, which this project does qualify to come to council to request is valued at 3.6 million just over that. So I will say that overall, this project does meet the minimum thresholds required to perceive the fee waiver in our program. It’s for sale product only. The developer will restrict the sales prices and in accordance with the city’s maximums, we’re going to income qualify the buyers will have an entry into an agreement with the city which is happening here tonight. And the developer is participating in an open book partnership. So those are some of the key quality fires to get to this point. Because they scored 75 points, they also qualified to come to council to request 100% fee waiver, which is part of the proposal tonight. So this some of this is what you have seen here in recent months, but the project will follow the attainable fee waiver deed restriction model. So this is considered a large investment project, which means it would have the 10 year rolling term for that’s our wealth generation balancing scale on our program. If the homeowner sells before 10 years, the sale is then restricted to our maximum sales price limits. And that deed restriction rolls over to the next buyer up to three sales. There is an element we included in the code language for the fee waiver program, that there is an opportunity for developers to come and negotiate certain aspects and request council consideration of certain aspects in order to make the project work. And in order to qualify for that request, you have to build a fully sub market development with at least 25% affordable which this project is doing. So the requested special provision here that we will be building in is a buyout option. And this is something that was really driven by the lenders to minimize risk, because they are worried about having enough qualified buyers to let these homes not sit on the market too long. So this proposal would be if a homeowner desires to sell before the 10 year restriction falls off at market rate, they could with a payback provision that if they sell in their eighth year, there would be 6% of the market price paid back to the program. But it would be back to the city in the ninth year 5% of that market price. And we’re in the 10th year before you complete that, that deed restriction timeline 4% of the market price. So there’s a example here up on screen just to see what those proceeds could look like back into the city Fund, which does it is more than what the fee waiver received for that unit was valued at. So it is extra benefit back to the city in this instance.

Speaker 22 2:32:20
So a couple of things I want to point out, this is only for the attainable houses, the 55, affordable houses will have permanent deed restrictions only. Part of what we mean so I’m going to clarify this too, when it’s a fully sub market project. And we talked about the risk. The what we were seeing is and we talked about it a little bit when Council adopted the policy is when you have a housing market like this, and then you say, Oh, you have these deed restrictions, then it does this. And then when you have the volume that you have in terms of the affordable and the permanent deed restrictions, you start seeing a shrinking and so there was really concerned about having a robust enough individuals who will purchase to really ensure that we do this, and that’s where Molly is really referring to the lender piece on this and why we felt like in this case, it made sense. And it was because it’s 100% on market with a high percentage of affordable for sale.

Speaker 23 2:33:28
And I would clarify that we show the eighth, ninth and 10th year and these biodh options. Before that there is no buyout option. You either rollover the deed restriction or you wait the 10 years.

Speaker 22 2:33:43
There is the caveat if you have a significant hardship that I think it would have to come to the Council for the approval. Thank you. Yes.

Speaker 23 2:33:54
Okay, we’ve reached the point where we would love to hear from you. So what you’re considering tonight is the first reading of an ordinance that would approve the purchase and sale and the development agreement to vertical. If approved tonight, we would bring back for a second reading on January 23. So I’ve just want to open it up for questions or comments if there are any from Council.

Unknown Speaker 2:34:20
councillors have any comments? Councillor Yarborough?

Speaker 26 2:34:26
Thank you, Mira. Just quick question. I don’t recall. I don’t know. I’m sure it was on me. I don’t recall us agreeing that for the affordable housing that it will be permanent deed restriction. So there are no options for affordable housing for those to kind of waver out of that situation. I’m sorry, my screen so

Speaker 23 2:34:51
the the affordable fee waiver has been in place for multiple years. And we have existing affordable deed restrictions on For Sale units out there, for example, all blue VISTA. And so there are ways built in it is a permanent deed restriction. But there are ways built in for owners to get out if needed, the hardship the financial hardship is built in. And then their resale value is built based on a calculation currently, with what they’ve paid down versus what improvements they might have made, it’s kind of a separate track, then the attainable and how we build that in,

Speaker 22 2:35:33
there is a way for that for the affordable side to pull equity out, it’s just different than the attainable differently. And that’s just the way the ordinance is drafted. On the affordable side. So if Council kind of similar to other council conversations, if council wants to adjust that we’re going to need a policy change, or an ordinance changed. But that’s in conformance with the existing policy

Unknown Speaker 2:35:59
in HOA fees as

Speaker 23 2:36:00
well. So that’s built into our maximum sales prices. So the if there’s HOA fees included our maximum sales prices, build that in, because it’s backing into what a person can afford based on their income, and Hoa is built into that. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:36:14
great. All right. Thank you. Counselor, Chris.

Speaker 3 2:36:25
Just to piggyback off of that, is there any idea how much the electrical costs will be since it’ll be all electric?

Speaker 23 2:36:32
I don’t think referred far enough along to be able to come up with with numbers that are pretty exact. Any estimates? Yeah, yeah. Okay.

Speaker 3 2:36:45
The first 10 years of a mortgage, most of the payments are interest, I mean, they just don’t have a whole lot of reduction of principal. So I’m wondering, what happens, if you’re trying to build equity, it really assumes that you’re gonna hold it longer than 10 years, or the sales price is, you know, the market is gonna stay steady. But what happens if there’s a dip in the market, and people end up upside down in their mortgage,

Speaker 23 2:37:14
so our maximum sales prices do update every year, and they take into account the last year or 218 months of data, including median sales prices, and what interest rates have been in the last year. So our maximum sales prices are built to move with the market. And so if the if someone, I should say, it’s not an immediate real time, because we have to do it on an annual basis, so it’s not perfect, but over time, it averages out. So we did try and build our sales price spectrum to be flexible within the market and try and match up with it.

Speaker 3 2:37:59
Yeah, but of course, once it’s purchased, and we’re talking 10 years after the purchase, things can happen. Okay, so you don’t have any mechanism built in to reclaim the investment, the city investment in the, in the project? And, and I’m, I’ve looked at the numbers, think with the unearned revenue from the fee waivers was about 4.9. And then another 6 million to to mind the gap there. So about 11 million total. And then the city would never recover that, is that correct?

Speaker 23 2:38:34
No, unless the project has excess proceeds or other cost savings in which we do the 7525 split?

Speaker 3 2:38:42
Right. Okay. And the only inventory we would retain would be the 55 units retain, I mean, have deed restriction and retain as affordable. So all so

Speaker 23 2:38:54
the 55 units would be permanently deed restricted, affordable. The 130 or so units would be deed restricted under the attainable housing program, which could be as much as 30 years.

Speaker 3 2:39:07
Right, but with continuous ownership would end after 10 Correct. Okay. Okay, and then we would have no inventory from those 130. Right.

Speaker 23 2:39:16
So the idea is with the rolling deed restrictions, some people you want to balance wealth generation, because now we’re not talking permanent housing security, that’s really what the Affordable side is for an attainable you’re looking for people that need to first they need to get in and then use that as a stepping stone to get into the market. So we’re trying to balance allowing people to pull out their their wealth, or stay in and be secure if they want to as well. And with that, that means the city investment would help some gain wealth and we’ll also roll along and maximize the number of people that we can help.

Speaker 3 2:39:54
And I’m just addressing the concept and it’s a policy thought that we have to have have inventory, more inventory of attainable housing in within the city. And we’ve had discussions about that. But okay, so then let’s oh, by the way you present this type of information very well Molly,

Unknown Speaker 2:40:12
thank you. That’s a practice.

Speaker 3 2:40:16
Easy to follow makes it interesting. It’s great. Tell me about the neighborhood now I’m familiar with it but they’re shopping there but where’s the closest school?

Speaker 23 2:40:29
I don’t know if it’s shown on our map. Is that your school Susie?

Unknown Speaker 2:40:32
Maybe Indian Peaks

Speaker 22 2:40:37
the well the closest elementary school was going to be west of gonna be the one adjacent Kanemoto Park,

Unknown Speaker 2:40:49
Burlington, Burlington

Speaker 22 2:40:53
and the middle schools I think that feeds into sunset and this may feed into a couple of elementary schools and then high school I think that feeds into Skyline

Speaker 22 2:41:20
Yeah, that’s that’s the other piece is that open enrollment is a bit of a different animal in terms of where people end up

Unknown Speaker 2:41:30
Firestones also in the district, so

Speaker 3 2:41:32
that’s true, it wouldn’t necessarily be farther to go east. All right, that’s all the questions that I had. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:41:40
Councillor mountain.

Speaker 2 2:41:45
Oh, thank you, Mayor Peck. Molly, I think this isn’t an easy one. But essentially, for the attainable housing, we do not have the goal of eliminating the property investors risk. Is that correct?

Speaker 23 2:42:03
Not eliminating it is it is a less risky product generally than the affordable ones.

Unknown Speaker 2:42:10
Wait a minute.

Unknown Speaker 2:42:16
What do you mean by property investor, the buyer, the buyer,

Speaker 2 2:42:18
the occupant the pricing occupies?

Speaker 22 2:42:22
Correct that’s there’s a distinct, distinct, distinct difference in attainable and the affordable in that, what you’re doing is you’re by reducing the entry point, you’re giving people the opportunity to buy a product that doesn’t exist in the market, but they’re still inherently the same risk that you have that any buyer would have in purchasing a home. It’s

Speaker 23 2:42:48
an entry point to market. So the point is not necessarily housing security and reducing that risk as much as possible. It’s more here’s the way in and now. This is what you Yes.

Speaker 22 2:43:03
Thank you, it part of it in terms of the growth of the houses. And, you know, this is this is a different product that we’re learning from. And, you know, when we talk about inclusionary housing, it’s, it truly is inclusionary minus the market rate. Those are the conditions associated with buying the land at a low price. But it really is intermixing reducing the wealth in terms of how you see it. If you’re curious, the Mueller neighborhood in Austin, Stapleton neighborhood and we’re trying to those concepts but a little bit more refined and truly being focused on it. And I was felt I feel I was remissed into saying this earlier, that was actually the developer’s intent. And this is removing the wealth from the front of the house so that it all looks similar. And it really is to the point of getting into that inclusionary housing piece.

Speaker 1 2:43:59
Seeing no one else in the queue with comments, the staff is asking for us to either approve the execution of the purchase and sale and development agreement or do not approve the purchase

Speaker 1 2:44:19
well, it will go to second reading with the with the motion to approve. So counselor, Martin

Unknown Speaker 2:44:28
Yes, I’m I moved to move it forward.

Speaker 1 2:44:30
Okay. All right. Councillor Martin? Moved. Move this. I don’t even know what it’s called at this point. 20 2407 To move it and it was seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing that’s fine.

Unknown Speaker 2:45:01
And That passes unanimously. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Thank you very much all the input.

Speaker 22 2:45:05
Thank you, Mayor and Council. And I would say I appreciate you all being along with us on this ride. I didn’t say this earlier, I did talk about the landowner. But I didn’t want to say this until the council had a chance to make the decision at this point. This has really been a great partnership with vertical and really working through and understanding all the details and honestly, not refusing to show us anything, and being willing to have the hard conversations. And so I just wanted to let you all know, when we say open book, this has been open book. Thank you.

Speaker 1 2:45:37
I know it’s been a lot of work, but I think the city can be really proud of this development. So thank you. All right. Our next one is liquor marijuana and other licensing code updates. And our city clerk Don Quinn Tana is going to.

Speaker 27 2:46:52
Good evening, mayor and council members. Are you ready for a good round of 40 questions? 20 questions. We’re here tonight, donkey Thomas, city clerk, here to talk to you about some licensing code updates and get some policy direction from you all. In the areas of marijuana licensing, liquor licensing, and then specialty business licensing. We’ve broken up the presentation differently than the council comm was written in hopes that if somebody was confused, maybe this would add some clarity. So we’ll first talk about marijuana or cannabis. Then we’ll go into liquor, or alcohol, whichever word you prefer. And then we’ll talk about specialty business. Before we go there wanted to frame our discussion. And if you indulge me in analogy, if we were talking about what we were going to do for spring break and planning our trip for spring break. This policy setting journey that we would be on would be likened to us deciding are we going to Florida Are we flying or driving? Are we going to Disney World sort of those big pieces of our vacation not we’re not booking hotels yet. We’re not ready to look at our itinerary. We’re looking at the big sort of pillars of our journey, if that makes sense. So we have kept this information fairly high level not into the weeds. We are not presenting any ordinances for you look at tonight, we really need some policy direction. And we’ll bring back some drafted language for you all so

Unknown Speaker 2:48:27
off we go.

Speaker 27 2:48:30
marijuana and cannabis just wanted to quickly look back over the past 10 years since some members of this council have we’re not on council may not be, you know, aware of where long months been in the past 10 years. In June of 2013. We enacted a prohibition on marijuana business in Longmont city limits in January 2014. retail sale of marijuana began in the state of Colorado after the passage of Amendment 64. In October of 2017 Longmont City Council finally decided to lift the prohibition and ordinance 2017 61 was passed and allowed for retail marijuana stores in city limits. Four of those were chosen in July 2018. And in the fall of 2019. Our first store opened in Longmont city limits in 2019, as well, as you all have heard of House Bill 19 Dash 1230 was passed that residents have talked to us about in October 2020. You gave us direction. And we brought back an ordinance for you to adopt delivery for medical marijuana only. And then last year at the retreat, you identified that you wanted us to bring back information on marijuana hospitality businesses. And so here we are today at long last. In this marijuana code, we have kind of four big questions The big the doozy of the night is really the first one. Would you like to remove the cap on licenses to add a hospitality license? Secondly, are you interested in us looking at a social equity program?

Unknown Speaker 2:50:12
Third, we’ve

Speaker 27 2:50:13
identified some burdensome requirements that exist in our current code. We would like to suggest that those be removed but we need your direction to bring that back. We have a little definition, technicality to clean up, also need your direction on that. So first, we wanted to talk about the cap on licenses. So our code limits to us to have for retail marijuana establishments in city limits. That really is the big question, Do you are you interested in lifting the cap? In order to allow a hospitality business of any type, we have to lift the cap because we currently have four licensed retail stores in Longmont city limits? If you’d like to remove the cap, then we need you know, what does that look like? Is it lift the cap? Is it a new number? Is it removing the cap entirely? Are there other licenses that council would like to dabble in it really is quite quite a loaded question. And so what is the marijuana hospitality business would be in case you weren’t informed of what that is? Marijuana hospitality business allows somebody to open a business where somebody could come to that premises and consume marijuana there. So there are three types or three models on premises consumption and sales. So if you think of that, in the alcohol realm, that’s where you go to a location to a restaurant or a bar, you order your item and you consume it there and you don’t take it away with you. You’re not allowed, in fact, to take it away with you. Same model on the marijuana. The byo C or byo w, I don’t know which acronym you’d prefer. But on premises consumption, no sales might be the Bring Your Own model, where it’s allowed to be consumed in a venue, but there are no sales there. There, there are tons of rules within each of these models. So I’m not going that into those weeds. And then the mobile premises consumption and sales. And, and you’ve seen these, these are those cannabis tours. One of them has a very catchy hash cab name, there, you know, come right around world tour you the cannabis industry in Colorado and you can consume in this vehicle as we drive you around. So those are the three models of hospitality license. And as we began to look at so as you may or may not know, the city and county of Denver, has set themselves apart in the industry, in the regulated marijuana industry, from the get go really has done a great job of delving into create building the bridge as they were going across the river when creating the regulations. So we always look to the city and county of Denver to see what they do first when we ever we have questions. And so one of the pieces when we were looking at the information to bring this to you all, city and county of Denver has distance restrictions, liquor code, it’s a common regulatory thing with liquor as well. And I wanted to put this map and ask for this map for you all because actually, my first question was if we enacted distance restrictions, is there anything left? I just was curious, and I thought you all might want that visual. So what you see on this map, and it’s kind of small, my apologies, is the gray area is Longmont city limits. That’s our jurisdiction. The blue stars are dispensaries in town. Four of those are in Longmont city limits four of those are not so Longmont is decently covered, but they aren’t all our stores. So just to be clear, and I can tell you which ones are and aren’t if you’re interested. The orange bubbles are 1000 foot buffers around childcare schools, those kinds of facilities. And then what’s left is the green which is a mixed use zone where a marijuana hospitality business might be located if it’s not a mobile one. And you can see the green there on the screen there there is still substantial locations where a marijuana hospitality business might locate and we just really wanted to check that out before we asked you a question that was kind of a dead end question if there was no no possible location left. So the other questions we have for you in relation to hospitality is you know if you lift the cap again, are you interested in looking at other licenses called there’s cultivation licenses, there’s research and and and development, there are various other license types. And and how do you want that cap to look? And is there some other direction. Some other thing you’d like us to know or look at or bring back that we haven’t talked about? Again, this is very high level. But is there something else in your you no thought process around marijuana licensing that you’d like us to consider as we bring something back if you direct us to do so. And on the staff side, we just want to remind that there’s always a consideration for the resources involved in managing those licenses, in terms of the multiple departments, police fire, doing those inspections, building inspections, managing the license, those kinds of things, courts to do the hearings and such. So that is, the marijuana hospitality piece, I can pause and let you ask questions, or I can keep barreling through. Because I have my cat, all my questions captured at the end, your preference. 20/29 question? Some? Keep going. Thank you. Thank you. Stop out. Done.

Speaker 20 2:56:16
myself. I I’m not really could we go back a couple of slides to your list of have one more?

Unknown Speaker 2:56:28
Keep going I think before that, the options so that? Okay, there you go. Yeah, you know, I’m, I’m not, you know, very keen on B and C. But I think that maybe there’s a

Speaker 20 2:56:51
appetite in the community for a not that. And so I’m just wondering if there’s interest to look at that further. And that would probably then mean that we need to look at expanding our current cap from four to something like eight to, to keep it, you know, in in some check. Let’s see how it how it proceeds. I mean, you can’t really put the toothpaste back in the bottle when after that. But you know, I think there’s a point where I think it’s better than having people just on the street right now what people are doing. We know this, we see this, that they’re going and just using as they walk down the street. If we have facilities where there were the treated like they would go to a bar, and they only consume it, they’re inside the space, then there’s a certain amount of of being able to, for those services to focus on just those areas. And so I think that that’s something to at least look at.

Unknown Speaker 2:58:27
Councillor Martin?

Speaker 2 2:58:28
Yes, I think that Councilmember McCoy and I have the same concern, but a little bit, too, just to make it a little clearer. On Premise, consumption and sales mean that like in a bar, you can’t take it away from you, you have to, you have to consume it there. And I believe that both of the people that are in supportive hospitality businesses here have that model, right, you would not want to be able to take it away. And I think that’s probably easier for us to regulate, I may be mistaking misstating somebody’s intent with that. But if what I would like to keep do is keep our retail cap and have a separate hospitality cap, because retail, where you go in and you walk out with a bag full of stuff gives a has a certain ambiance for the city. Whereas a hospitality business is different, and probably would occur in different neighborhoods. And so I’d like to say that I think we would want to see it that it’s a separate, cool, separate allocation and not having any not have any overlap with conventional retail. And, and I tend to think that at least to begin with, we should have on premises consumption, but no exiting with the goods. Because you can already buy infused oils and stuff like that. In our existing retail,

Speaker 27 3:00:29
if I could just interject one thing I failed to mention, I apologize. The members of the of the audience of the public who have mentioned their interest, are neither interested in sales at both indicated that is not the business model, they would be interested in. We could delve into that with them at any time if you’d like. But I just wanted to relay that to you. So they, they would actually be question

Speaker 28 3:00:53
of adding a hospitality licenses or any licenses at all, and keep the answers to the questions for a study session.

Unknown Speaker 3:01:10
With an emotion, counselor mountain

Speaker 2 3:01:13
island like that idea. And I would like to move that we consider doing exactly that. Putting together a new pool of licenses, and discussing the regulatory details in a study session.

Speaker 1 3:01:33
It’s been moved by Councillor Martin net, we keep the detailed discussions at a at a study session. Do you want to make it a date certain? Or just leave it up to staff on that study session?

Speaker 27 3:01:56
Because there’s one February 6, that already is pretty full, I believe. So wouldn’t be until a march study session would be the next and I I’m not like I don’t know how full that agenda is at this point?

Speaker 2 3:02:10
Well, we could look, I would say, you know, that’s really not very far out. I would say the next available study session in March or April would be fine. Great.

Speaker 1 3:02:22
Thank you. All right. So that was made and amended by Councillor mountain, excuse me seconded by Councillor McCarthy, or is there any discussion about that? Let’s vote please.

Unknown Speaker 3:02:49
Passes unanimously, thanks for that motion.

Speaker 1 3:02:58
So do you want to continue then with the presentation? Absolutely.

Speaker 27 3:03:01
That was my question. Should I keep going then? Are we okay? Okay, so the next question is the state Marijuana Enforcement Division is encouraging municipalities to implement social equity programs. These are intended to offset create a more inclusive environment in the cannabis industry in the state of Colorado. Based on the decades of the impact of decades of enforcement of marijuana laws prior to the legalization of cannabis in the state of Colorado. So the question is, are you interested in us looking at that, we showed you again the City and County of Denver’s model, which, you know, is a is a solid already well thought out model. Of course, city and county of Denver has a heck of a lot more going on in terms of licenses that we do. I just wanted to see those numbers. They’re doing 144 retail stores 300 cultivation licenses, they have a lot going on. But nonetheless, our thought is Wike recreate the wheel would you like us to bring something back that might fit with Longmont sort of modeled after after the city and county of Denver? We do have some specific questions there. You know, should we follow their criteria? Look at specific license types. Are you interested really is the big question. Are you interested in us looking at that yay or nay? And if if not, no problem, and if you are are you comfortable with us looking at the model sort of city and county and never has used and and bringing that back? That’s the big question on that guy.

Speaker 18 3:04:51
Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I am interested in bringing this back for you know with the answers. As to these questions as far as what Denver looks looks like, how’s that? How’s that rolling out? I’ve had conversations with other community members around the social equity program. And you know, the impact that it could have a positive impact that it could have on our community. So, you know, I would like to bring that back for for discussion. Anyone else is interested?

Unknown Speaker 3:05:27
Councillor mountain?

Speaker 2 3:05:28
Yeah, I was just for the information of the council have also had discussions with constituents who are interested specifically in the social equity program. So I do, I do believe that there is interest in that and we should discuss it in the sub study session. I

Speaker 1 3:05:46
agree that’s got to be a very strong point. When we put this out to the when we make a policy, because it’s going to come back on us, we need to make sure that the social equity, would you mind going back to the last slide? I didn’t quite understand this. Second bullet point. They acknowledge that equitable canvass industry that acknowledged the effects of decades, are we talking about a positive effect to negative a negative negative

Speaker 27 3:06:20
historical effect? Yes. And I copied that straight from their website. It’s not my wording. That’s there’s,

Speaker 1 3:06:28
these are reasons to have a social equity program. Okay. That’s support

Speaker 27 3:06:31
having a social equity program. Correct. Okay. Yes. Okay. So

Unknown Speaker 3:06:36
you may go on.

Speaker 27 3:06:39
I was gonna say we could do a thumbs up.

Unknown Speaker 3:06:42
Oh, yeah. For the social equity to

Speaker 27 3:06:44
bring back social equity. Yes. That’s unanimous, thank you. And comfortable with Denver included is, is what Okay. The next area of code changes we request, your blessing to bring back would be to remove some burden some requirements in the marijuana code. So our code currently, when someone renews or one of our four stores renews their license, they have to refile all the same paperwork they sent gave us to apply initially, which was a whole lot of paperwork. In fact, one application was a filing box. That was one application when we got those they were they’re thick. It includes things like a cover letter, a bin, a control plan, a business plan, community outreach plan, these are things that we don’t need necessarily when considering renewal, or a transfer either. If that business is established, we don’t need them to reestablish that they’re in the proper zone. We’ve already established that when they were first opened. So we request your permission to to make those. We don’t do anything with that paperwork either. So we’d like to reduce the burden on the applicants remove those things that we don’t need. But the thing we would recommend to keep in terms of transfers, if they were making a change a substantial change to their business plan or their operations, maybe their older management plan, then we would want to see that if it’s something impacts our operations, but otherwise, we don’t need to necessarily revisit all of that again. So we read request your permission to bring back those changes. I

Speaker 1 3:08:26
have one question on under renewal. The second bullet point. Do you get background checks and IDs, etc, on new employees? Or?

Speaker 27 3:08:36
We do okay, yes, we do mayor but on a renewal again, they’re required to update their employees all the time with the state the state is, you know, issuing employee badges every day. vetting owners. We’re we’ll talk about managers in just a moment, but not with a renewal necessarily. So.

Speaker 1 3:08:57
Okay, let’s give direction on this as easy. I’m going to make a motion that we remove Remove less direct staff to remove the burdensome requirements for renewals and transfers. So I made that motion. It was seconded by Councillor McLean. So is there any discussion? Seeing none, let’s vote. Can we do a voice vote because we’re all on the same? All right, all those in favor? Aye. Those opposed?

Speaker 27 3:09:36
Thank you very much. Yes. Lastly, in terms of the marijuana code, are we do want to know who the day to day manager is and we want the licensees to keep us up to date on those we want to vet those onsite managers. Our code is currently a little confusing points to a statute that refers to a man an owner owners, of course, vetted as owners of the application. So we just want to clean that up and your permission to bring while we’re cracking that code open, or are you comfortable with us make fixing that. That’s our last question in terms of marijuana. So a yay or nay would a thumbs up would be sufficient? Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 3:10:20
Can you emotion for that though?

Unknown Speaker 3:10:23
I think the thumbs up is sufficient. Okay.

Speaker 1 3:10:28
On the liquid at the legal headshake. It was an odd, are you sure this way?

Speaker 27 3:10:39
So under liquor, we have a question about fingerprint retention. And we want to be consistent with current CBI rules and regs and then about festival permits. So first, the fingerprint, we no longer we used to get fingerprint cards. Fingerprints used to be handled differently in the state, the police department used to do the fingerprinting. Now, they don’t do that anymore. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has a third party vendor, a couple of them, and they handle all all fingerprints, and they’re done electronically. So our code is just a little outdated. We don’t actually get fingerprints anymore. And in fact, we don’t want to keep those anyway.

Speaker 1 3:11:24
You know, when this comes back on second reading, then we’ll have public hearing. Okay, thank you.

Speaker 27 3:11:31
And along those lines, we the we just don’t want to have to retain those to protect them is exactly the point. So we’d recommend that we strike those references to be current with what we’re actually doing, which is not retaining fingerprints, not not rekey not keeping background results in our files.

Speaker 1 3:11:49
So thumbs up if you want to agree to remove fingerprint retention. Thumbs down if it’s a no. So that’s good. We’re all good.

Speaker 27 3:12:01
Thank you very much. The next one is a little bit different deal. This is the festival permit. These were enacted in 2023 by the state legislature. Festival permits are kind of what they sound like a festival for a festival, we all kind of know what a festival is. What’s different about these is they can last up to 72 hours or a maximum of 72 hours, and licensees. Currently, businesses licensed those on the right hand side of the slide can all request a permit for up to nine festivals for up to 72 hours each. And they can each participate into 52 up to 52 festivals each year. Currently, if one of our licensees applied for a festival permit, they apply to the state, we get a copy of that and we have a chance to weigh in. But our authority is not vetting it our authority is not the decision maker decision maker on that. Exactly. We make a recommendation to the state. What would be preferred is because it is a matter of local control that they actually out we opt in that we create a festival permit they apply to the state and to the city, just like most things liquor and marijuana under the dual authority of the city in the state. So there’s these are not cat not have not taken off yet. But we can imagine why not in our office, we are waiting for this to hit. So we just did a little math. If our 114 eligible licensees pulled nine permits each that’d be 1000 plus festivals in Longmont. That’s not going to happen, honestly, realistically, but these are currently being used if you go to the Boulder County farmers market, some of our distilleries are selling their wares their their products at the farmers market via a festival permit. So these are happening already in our, in our vicinity. That’s not our jurisdiction, right? But we think that 2020 that the time is not long before we start seeing many more of these, it seems like a very functional tool. So in order to provide better local control, we’d recommend opting in but need your blessing to draft that language and bring that back.

Speaker 1 3:14:22
Personally, I would say for me this needs more discussion, and I would like to do it at the study session

Speaker 1 3:14:35
but I need oh, I need more input if anyone agrees with me. I agree.

Unknown Speaker 3:14:50

Speaker 28 3:14:59
All right. Let’s just say we don’t opt in, would that be a way to circumvent having to get a special event license from the Liquor Authority,

Speaker 27 3:15:07
a special event permit is a different is a different vehicle. Different, these licenses wouldn’t qualify to pull a special event permit. They’re mostly a fundraising tool for nonprofit organizations. So a festival permit is targeting different licensees is a different mechanism to get alcohol to an event.

Unknown Speaker 3:15:27
So it’s not a way to circumvent that process.

Speaker 27 3:15:30
There’s different different mechanisms, right? That’s right. And the special event permit, we have opted in and we solely control in fact, this, you know, they were similarly now we we handle all of our own special event permits local authority, blesses all of those, so we just aren’t don’t have the opportunity to bless these. When we we kind of we are we are copied on them. So do you want to

Speaker 1 3:15:55
give direction tonight is more study it is? Okay, I whatever counsel wants to do is what I want to know. So what opt in now? Okay, all those that want to opt in thumbs up. Okay, those who went away, thumbs down?

Speaker 27 3:16:19
No, thank you very much. last area is specialty business licensing. This is a unique little license in the Lamont municipal code under Chapter 665. These are sexually oriented businesses. Again, like liquor, we have some outdated language around fingerprints and background checks, finding information needs to be well protected. And if we don’t need it, we’d rather not have to hold on to that. And finally, in this area, we don’t have statutory authority when the state when the state moved to a third party vendor for fingerprinting. We don’t have authority under our licensing requirement to background check the employees and and the owners of these businesses. So the way to fix that, if we’re in here fixing this section of code is to require them to bring us and disclose to us their background. So you can go to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, any of us can be $6 or 895. Maybe it is now a nominal fee and print your full Colorado Bureau of Investigation background report. We would like to require them to bring that to us when they file their application, because we don’t have the authority to send them out to get fingerprinted. So some changes there that were this this section of code is the most outdated and we needed to get caught up in terms of how fingerprints are handled.

Speaker 1 3:17:46
I have a question, do you know the vendors that you accept background checks from

Speaker 27 3:17:52
the state has contracts and so we are obligated to use them? One is identogo. And the other I can’t recall the Do you know Chris, do you remember? Colorado? What? Oh, Colorado fingerprinting.

Speaker 1 3:18:07
So my question then for counsel is, is it important that they use the recommended background checks? I mean, I don’t know much about it. But what if they bring in a they

Speaker 27 3:18:18
can only get it from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. There’s only there’s a single source, so you would have to go to the CBI website, okay? And enter the data, pay the fee, and they will give you the printout of your background check. And then we would have that when they file their application. Okay, there’s not not many people in that business, just the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. So

Speaker 1 3:18:42
do we want the staff to update these this code? All right. You got it.

Speaker 27 3:18:53
I think we’re good. I added this slide in case we needed to run back through but I think we’re good. Thank you very much. Anything else you’d like us to know? Thank you very much, Mayor Council.

Speaker 1 3:19:08
We have one more. It’s the advisory board appointment for the Senior Citizens Advisory Board. We did have someone who did not who vacated. Is that correct?

Speaker 27 3:19:20
The resignation mayor and council was not forwarded to the clerk’s office. Okay. And so at the time that we brought appointments to you all at the last meeting in 2023. We weren’t aware of it. Since you have a slate of candidates, and it’s very recent. We wanted to just bring that back in case you wanted to just appoint and go ahead and fill that vacancy. And

Speaker 1 3:19:38
you did say that this one person the board recommended that was not appointed in the correct round. And that was David Bruna

Speaker 27 3:19:47
that was David Brenner. Correct. He was recommended by the by the board. Yes, absolutely. And but we didn’t have a vacancy to to fill to fill.

Unknown Speaker 3:19:57
Right. Yeah, counselor Martin.

Speaker 2 3:19:59
Yep. As the liaison to the Senior Citizens Advisory Board, I move that we seek David Brenner.

Speaker 1 3:20:10
Okay. So Councillor Martin moved that we’ve seen David Brenda to scab. And that was seconded by Councillor McCoy. Yeah. Are there any any discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 3:20:42
That passes unanimously, we’re now at final call public invited to be heard. This would be your time if you want to make a comment.

Speaker 8 3:21:02
The reason that I came to Longmont was actually because I was fleeing from my boyfriend who was stealing my identity, he brought a woman’s clothes into my house, he was stealing my stole my youngest child, affidavits of paternity to have them, he wouldn’t need it, because I would give it to him, he still pictures out of my house, I thought that he was he stole my pay stubs, they deleted from 2017, all the way down to 2013. For from my email, so they have access to this, they have permissions behind it, they can, they can get into it anytime they want. And it’s 20 years of email, it goes back so far it has, it has two different types of fingerprints on it from 2018 and 2013. From what I had more professional jobs, and so they’re able to order those with my birth certificate with my social security number that they are able to already obtain. And and that those don’t have to be attached to anything, they can just order it and order my fingerprints for adopting out my children, perhaps in a different state for possibly making 3d Even fingerprint gloves and putting my fingerprints on to, you know, on to criminal things, since he’s associated with gangs. And so many different things have gone through my head, who knows, just like legal cases, who knows. But the fact of the matter is, is that it can be used, that the creativity that they’re getting the permissions that they’re using, they have permissions to my Google, I know that they do because they can make things disappear. And it sounds like it’s psychosis. And it isn’t because the laws have not caught up with the technology. And so because the laws haven’t caught up with the technology, the processes have not caught up with that technology, and therefore they cannot be invalidated until all of those are put in place. If we had a process to be able to do that and go through identity theft, all the different forms, then we would be able to establish that that was was or wasn’t happening in this case, I think that it is because there’s so many different forms that it’s taking, they took all of my pictures. And they they changed the email address that it was associated with Microsoft, they downloaded to theirs, they re uploaded them to mine and downloaded them for months before they finally kind of came to whatever it was, I guess they stole all my pictures, I have no idea what they’re doing with them. But they can put themselves in it, they can change evidence is basically what my contention is. And so my fear is that that’s affecting my case with my children right now, because I am actually but the fact of the matter is, is that technology hasn’t caught up with it. And we need to put parameters in place before things happen. So with the specifically with the specifically dealing with the, the the fingerprints, you have to have something physical to back that up. If somebody doesn’t go in and fingerprint as you, then you shouldn’t be able to order them. They’re able to order my fingerprints just by submitting my documents by submitting my social security card by submitting my birth certificate, which they already have access to. So there’s nothing tangible to say, you know, there’s nothing tangible there to be able to stop that. It’s just well, we have your records, we have your medical records, we have your records from school, we have, you know, all these things that we can order because we have these other documents. So because we have these other ones, we can get these. And so then that leads, of course to the fact that I mean they have access to everything that they can get my fingerprints. And so fingerprints are a really big deal because they’re part of you. They aren’t something that’s separate. And granted, they could probably get it off of the bottles.

Speaker 1 3:24:26
Thank you for your comments. Thank you. And we are now at Marin Council comments. Oh, Lance, I’m sorry, I I was looking down instead of up.

Speaker 11 3:24:42
Mayor and Council is the proposal that was set before you today. I know there’s some concern about BYOB that and the dispensary As for the dispensaries, now a lot of people buy a lot of quantity at a dispensary. And that’s where you know the other business that might be able to consume marijuana. I would not recommend that be taken. Because people do spend a lot of money in these dispensaries, a BYOB would limit the quantity that you bring into this, the establishment. So a person may only bring in a small amount that they’re willing to consume, and then leave without anything in their pocket. So that is, you know, something to be considered. I know you guys are real concerned about you know, people walk around the street, with cannabis in their pocket or in their vaporizer, or stuff like that. And that’s was one of the reasons why I wanted to start this business is to get those people off the streets. And to give them a place where they can be social, and where cannabis can be consumed. Not as a stereotype, but more as a soulful drug that it is. Because if you use it as a social drug, it becomes a social issue where people are more likely to get along. We see this in concerts, we see this in, in other clubs. But if you just allow the dispensaries till then you’re gonna see more people walk around with cannabis in their pockets and you’re not gonna be able to consume two ounces of cannabis in a dispensary unless you stay there for a couple of weeks. So I would really advise against the dispensaries getting these licenses rather than, you know, individual businesses and practices where, you know, people can just come and relax and be part of Walmart. So and that’s really where I like to go with this. Thank you, Lance. You’re welcome.

Speaker 1 3:27:50
Now we’re at Council comments. Do in councillors have comments? No. All right. City Manager remarks.

Unknown Speaker 3:28:01
Got another 15 minute presentation for you. No comments Mayor Council.

Unknown Speaker 3:28:08
I vote no to extend. City Attorney.

Unknown Speaker 3:28:13
No comments, Mayor.

Speaker 1 3:28:14
Thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Unknown Speaker 3:28:17
So moved. Second.

Speaker 1 3:28:20
All in favor? Aye. We are adjourned.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai