Longmont City Council – Regular Session – January 23, 2024

Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – January 23, 2024

Read along below:

Speaker 1 6:56
Good evening, everyone and welcome. I would now like to call the January 23 2024 Longmont City Council regular session to order the livestream of this meeting can be viewed at the city’s YouTube channel, or at Longmont public media.org forward slash watch. Or on Comcast channels eight or eight ad. Can we have the roll call? Please done? Absolutely.

Unknown Speaker 7:21
Mayor Peck.

Unknown Speaker 7:22

Speaker 2 7:22
Mayor Pro Tem Iago fairing here. councilmembers. Martin here. McCoy, Rodriguez Yarbro. Crist. Mayor, you have a quorum.

Unknown Speaker 7:32
Thank you. Let’s stand for the roll call

Unknown Speaker 7:35
for the pledge

Unknown Speaker 7:45
the republic for which it stands, one nation

Speaker 1 7:58
can I have a motion for the January 9 20? Regular Session mate minutes

Speaker 1 8:11
Thank you. It’s been moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor Martin. Do we have any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none Let’s vote. And that carries unanimously. As a reminder to the public. The rules for providing public comment are as follows. Each speaker speaker must give their name and address and is limited to three minutes. Only Longmont residents and employees of the city of Longmont may speak during first called 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 are asked to add their name to the speaker list for this specific item prior to the start of the meeting. And anyone can speak and no signup is required to speak during final call public invited to be heard.

Unknown Speaker 9:16
I am wondering

Speaker 1 9:28
Do we have any agenda revisions or submissions of documents and motions to direct the city manager to edit agenda items to future agendas? Don Do we have any

Unknown Speaker 9:38
revisions no revisions, Mayor Thank

Unknown Speaker 9:39
you, Councillor Yarborough?

Speaker 3 9:48
Thank you, Mayor. I would like to add for future agenda a discussion about city council salary increase Sorry

Speaker 1 10:02
it’s been Moved by Councillor Yarborough to have an agenda revision for discussion on salary increase for council seconded by council. Councillor Rodriguez? All those in favor? Do we have any discussion on that? Seeing none Let’s vote

Speaker 1 10:28
that passes unanimous No, I’m sorry. That passes six to one with Councillor Crist in opposition.

Unknown Speaker 10:40
We’re now in the city manager’s report.

Unknown Speaker 10:45
No report Mayor Council.

Speaker 1 10:49
We have a proclamation to read tonight and it is a proclamation designating January the first through the 31st 2024 as national radon action month in Longmont, Colorado, whereas Radon is an invisible, colorless, odorless radioactive gas that threatens the health of our residents and their families. And Radon is a leading environmental cause of cancer mortality in the US, and it’s the eighth leading cause of cancer mortality, mortality overall. And whereas the Colorado Rocky Mountain region has been ranked zone one, an area with the highest rate on Densho possible by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Colorado residential radon data has shown 50% of Colorado homes tested as being at or above the US Environmental Protection Agency. Radon action level of 4.0 PCI let I’m going to try to pronounce this pico pico Curies per liter of air. And whereas any home in Longmont, Colorado may have elevated levels of radon and supporting recommended radon practices and policies to reduce radon exposure is important to protect our community’s health and welfare. And whereas testing for radon a simple and inexpensive and identified radon problems can be fixed. And whereas Boulder County Public Health, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association are supporting efforts to encourage Americans to test their homes for radon have elevated levels of radon reduced and have new homes built with radon resistant features. Now therefore, I Joan Peck Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me and the city council, the city of Longmont do hereby proclaim January January 1 through the 31st 2024 as national radon action month in Longmont, Colorado, and I encourage all residents to check their homes for radon. Do we have someone here to come on up?

Unknown Speaker 13:03
This is Patty Dooley strep. Pelle. Can you turn on the microphone, please? I think it’s in the upper left hand corner. Harold, can you help her turn that on?

Speaker 4 13:21
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor pack. I appreciate you reading the proclamation and taking the time again this year to proclaim January’s national radon action month it’s a great time to remind folks how easy it is to test for this environmental hazard. And also it’s one that’s easy to fix. And there are many ways to get test kits. One easy way is on the CDPH C’s website right now for free radon test kits at Colorado radon dot info. And with that if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

Speaker 1 13:59
Thank you for letting us know where we can get the test. That’s very important. Do counselors have any questions? Seeing none would you like a picture of us with giving you this proclamation? If you’d like it’s up to you. I can pass Okay, well come on up and get okay thank you

Speaker 1 14:52
so we’re now at first called public invited to be heard I was just handed the signup sheet and it looks like there is no one on the signup sheet So I will close public fiscal public invited to be heard

Speaker 1 15:13
since we don’t have any public invited to be heard, we are now at the reading of the first ordinances. Dawn Would you mind reading the ordinances into the record?

Speaker 2 15:26
Absolutely Mayor second reading and public hearing for the ordinances introduced on this consent agenda tonight will be held on February 13 2024. Item nine a our ordinances approving amendments to city along with retirement plans there are five of them. ordinance 2024 dash O eight a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code adopting an amended and restraint restated city of Lamarque general employees retirement plan. ordinance 20 2409 a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code, adopting an amendment to the money accumulation pension plan for employees of the city of Longmont. ordinance 2024 Dash 10 a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code adopting amendments to the city of Longmont, old higher police pension plan and old higher fire pension plan. ordinance 2024 Dash 11 a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code, adopting an amendment to the city of Longmont police pension plan and trust agreement. an ordinance 2024 Dash 12 a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.85 of the Longmont Municipal Code, adopting an amendment to the city of Lamarque fire employees pension plan and trust agreement. Item nine B is ordinance 2024 Dash 13 a bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city of Longmont and Gary Bogart at 12748 Weld County Road one nine c is ordinance 2024 Dash 14 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as vanced brand municipal airport hangar parcel H 34. C two L k holding company LLC. Nine D is resolution 2024 dash O seven a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Longmont housing authority for support and services. And nine E is resolution 2024 dash O eight, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and Boulder County Board of Commissioners for a harm reduction outreach specialist for the LEAD program.

Speaker 1 17:26
Thank you Don, do Are there any councillors that would like to pull the one of these agenda items or ordinances? Seeing no one? Can I have a motion? Councillor Martin?

Speaker 5 17:39
Yes, I moved the consent agenda for adoption. Thank

Speaker 1 17:44
you that was Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor Rodriguez. Let’s vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. We are now at we’re going to have a presentation on the ordinance on the second reading and public hearings. The first one is the bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting chapter 2.56 of the Longmont municipal code on the historic preservation commission and amending chapter 2.97, section 2.9 7.010 Point B. When I see Glenn van Morgan,

Speaker 6 18:26
thank you, mayor and council. I wasn’t here at first reading but I did watch the meeting. And there were a number of questions that came up. So if you’d like I have a very short presentation, please to address those issues. Just give me one minute.

Speaker 6 19:08
Okay, thank you, Mayor. So these are the questions that I gleaned that were maybe still rattling around in in some of the council members heads. One is the new addition of the section regarding decision making capacities. And again, this doesn’t take anything away from the planning commission. We just use that language and basically reproduced it in this ordinance. So there are decisions that are quasi judicial that the historic preservation commission makes, that would be approval of a certificate of appropriateness, which is any change to a landmark that goes through historic preservation commission. It could be appeal of a staff decision regarding something along the same lines. It could be approving economic incentives for a potential landmark, or district. So because of that there are special rules as far as ex parte communication, that sort of thing that we wanted to put in the ordinance. So it’s almost verbatim. If I’ve thought, well, maybe we missed it. And we’d left Planning Commission in there. But I think we’ve we’ve got it covered. So that was one of the questions I heard. The other is question about moratorium applying to, we have a new section that put some standards in place as far as maintaining your historic landmark. And the moratorium only applies to somebody who goes and makes a change to their landmark without any approval for a certificate of appropriateness. So in that case, it is at our option to put a one year moratorium on future permits for that property, if somebody goes ahead and does that. And then we upped that to two years, if somebody just demolishes their landmark, without going through any process, or they decide to pick it up and move it somewhere else. It doesn’t apply to the maintenance issues. So if we do identify a maintenance issue, and we say, hey, you need to get a roof permit. This would not apply to that. They they definitely would. And then there were a number of questions about the criteria and the process for unforeseen that maintenance requirements. So I got a real quick presentation. Number one, I think you all caught that. But this is only for our existing landmarks. Ultimately, we may have some districts which it would apply to, but not today. So it’s all these red dots, there’s we have about 140 landmarks of our, in our community and about 40,000 housing units. So it’s it’s a small percentage, but they do deserve a little bit further look. And I want to talk about one example, because I think this is where this need grew from, was 519 Atwoods Street. And on the left is a picture of a nice little home there and September of 2012. I think a lot of the staff described it to me as like a log cabin, it was a pretty rough structure looks pretty good in this picture. But since 2012, the owners basically took out windows, and basically just loud the weather to come into that building to a point in 2017, there was really nothing we could do to save it. This was not a landmark. So in this case, this ordinance wouldn’t apply to it. But it does kind of set an example of why we allowed somebody to get to a point where there was no other, there was no other action than demolishing the place. And they built a nice duplex. So maybe it worked out in the end. But that’s kind of the common example that I’ve heard. That is why we’re doing this. So um, criteria, we it’s kind of vague, but I’ll just read it real quickly. Is this paragraph B, from 2.5 6.2? To Oh, no person, lessee or occupant of any historically designated property, shall deliberately cause or negligently fail to prevent significant deterioration of the exterior or any special feature of a landmark. And that could be like a cupola on the roof. So this, I think, what would happen in this case, we did open it up to civil penalties. So it would be our code enforcement folks that would get probably get a complaint. And that could be from staff. It could be from the historic preservation commission members that that know the structures could be somebody in the neighborhood that could say, hey, nobody’s living in this, place the windows out and it’s, it’s going to hack. So we would go out, we take a look at it. First, we’d meet with staff and we’d go out and take a look at and say, Does this look like a significant opportunity for deterioration of this historic landmark? If we agree it does. We would send the notice of violation to the owner. And then we would set a time depending on how big of a fix it is, if they need to replace the roof. It could be a 30 day period of time that we would give them to make it correct. Our goal is to get it in compliance IPS through this process, not necessarily a force, enforce the code and, and get fees. As far as other criteria, we do have the International Property Maintenance code that we use for serious cases of unsafe structures. But staff would use some of the descriptions of what exterior deterioration looks like that they would use as kind of a guide to help make a decision on this. So if the applicant goes and they fix the problem, and again, it would be something more likely we could see from the exterior, be a hole in a wall window, something like that not peeling paint, it has to be something much more significant than that. If they fix it great. If they don’t, we will send another notice and say, Okay, we gave you 30 days, you now have two weeks to make this right? Or we’re going to file or we’re gonna hit you with a civil penalty. If they fix it great. If they don’t, then we would start the process of a civil penalty. And we go in increments, it starts at 100. If they continue to not fix anything, it goes up to 200, and then up to 500. And then that $500 could be repeated every time they don’t. They failed to basically fix the problem. And then those become leads, if they don’t pay them, they become liens on the property. So that’s roughly what this process would add. The intent is we don’t want it to become an unsafe structure that we have to board up or demolish. It’s just an additional tool that we’re going to use for landmarks to make sure they stay intact. That’s all I have. If there are other questions, I’d be happy to answer.

Speaker 1 27:05
You counselors have other questions. Councillor Crist.

Speaker 7 27:10
Thanks, Lynn. So historic preservation commission. If it’s a designated structure, they already require a certificate of appropriateness say before you take out the windows. Isn’t that true? Right. So what happened with the house on that? Would? I mean, how did that sort of slip through the cracks?

Speaker 6 27:34
Yeah, I wasn’t here. I’m not really sure what all the details were could have been just a broken window wouldn’t wouldn’t be necessarily they actually made an effort to take it out. But you would also need a building permit for that. So yes, there were a number of things that they avoided. I don’t know if they, they meant to avoid it. But there were a number of things that we didn’t catch. Right.

Speaker 7 28:02
So I’m just wondering about the mechanism of this. I mean, I’m thinking that maintenance is somewhat required anyway, on a designated structure. I mean, go through the historic preservation commission. So I’m just wondering about the structure of how are you going to catch this? And, and my main thrust is, how do we build something that’s not a burden on staff that fits within the structure that you already have administratively. So that it works. You know, I feel like now we’re all, you know, looking around at all the buildings to see, you know, make sure that they’re being cared for. Yeah, and then afterwards, with his house on that would if they had let it deteriorate, and then by then they had to ask for a demolition permit. You’re suggesting right then that they are not given a permit for a year or two years.

Speaker 6 29:01
In this case, in the provision of what we’re proposing to you, if the building official says, A it’s unsafe, it’s not saveable. It gets demolished. It doesn’t go through any process. So there’s that shortcut. So what we’re trying to do is insert some discussion, some communication before it gets to that point. I don’t think it’s going to be an additional burden again, right now, today, it’s 140 structures. And believe me, there’s a lot of people that are focused on these buildings. The owners know, we when it becomes landmark, they we do it by ordinance, and that gets recorded against the property and we put a nice big brass plaque on the front, very close to the front entrance. So it’s not a secret by any means, but I really don’t think it’s going to be an additional burden to staff

Speaker 7 30:02
In my experience is easier to be proactive and preventative rather than punitive after the fact. And so I’m just going that direction of how do we, how do we build something that actually works? And first off, you probably know, or you heard me say, I’m in favor of let’s review demolitions before they occur. So suppose you review a demolition and you say, this seems like it was an intentional degradation of the property. What happens then? You’re saying, if the building inspector says, Well, I can’t be saved, they just go ahead. So what what influences people to actually maintain the property?

Speaker 6 30:44
Well, one of the things that we talked about amongst staff is there is a requirement that says, it has to degrade either by from when it was landmarks, or when this ordinance went into place. So one thing we’ve done is prior to any landmark, we’ve photographically document the building. So we know where it is at that point. So we have a good guide, I guess, is if it has significantly deteriorated, and then we’ll probably need to keep doing that. Now. This, these are new requirements. So we intend to notify all those 140 owners, there’s some new rules in place, we’re here to help you. And then continue that every year just to notify people that you do have a special place. Historic Landmark in Longmont, and there’s special rules that apply. So I think that would be kind of fit, you’re proactive, because I totally agree with you, it’s much easier to catch them first. And before it’s too late.

Speaker 8 31:54
I think part of it is notify him, here’s a change in the rules. Here’s what we need to do. I think to Glen’s point, it is not uncommon for people to understand these properties, frankly, any property and let us know about something occurring on it. And it doesn’t even have to be historic property. One of the things that constantly challenges this is people that just do work on their homes without pulling a permit. And I can’t tell you the number of times that we’ve received communications from neighbors saying this works going on, I don’t see your permit. And so then we follow up with it. And and I just think that’s generally an issue that we deal with. I know that I’ve personally been involved in situations where somebody may get a permit to add a patio, but then all of a sudden, the patio turns into a closed room. And we’ve had to take the appropriate actions necessary to remedy that situation. So I think it’s letting them know ahead of time, we know that the historic preservation community also watches this, they’re communicating with us neighborhoods are communicating with this. But I can say generally, it’s just a challenge across the board on on getting this information, but we do get a lot of input from our community on these types of issues.

Speaker 7 33:14
I agree, when you talk about sort of as a consequence for not having a COA to say, well, it’s gonna be a year or two years putting get a permit seems like in that scenario, I don’t care whether they have a permit or not. So I don’t know if that’s going to dissuade them in any way from what they want to do next. And also, if there’s a certain type of person that might say, well, we’ll just get all the work done at once. And then there you go, we don’t need one for two years. But meanwhile, your staff is, you know, keeping those records and it’s, you know, something they have to keep checking. So

Speaker 6 33:54
the historic preservation commission had a similar concern in that, maybe it’s not to the city’s best interest to hold permits. And in that case, they could go plead their case, and say, Hey, we have an excellent residential unit that will fit in, we’d like to come in and get approval of that. The historic preservation commission has the discretion in the ordinance to say, Okay, we’ll reduce that time, or we’ll take it off the table. So they do have that ability to waive the moratorium.

Speaker 7 34:31
But I want people to not see a permitting process as being punitive. I want them to see that as being a happy experience. If I could say it any other way. And something that they would, you know, just as good citizens go, you know, sign up to do right but as it seems like people feel hesitant to approach permitting process, especially with a designated structure, right.

Speaker 6 34:59
Oh, Excuse me, those that are savvy, they get their permit because they know if when they want to sell, people won’t have to see that permit and CSC Mo. So it’s it’s maybe more your homeowner that decides, Hey, today I’m going to rip off the back patio cover and, and do something else. Those are the ones that I think we just need to educate and hopefully avoid those problems.

Speaker 7 35:27
So as the historic preservation commission, are they pretty much I say interactive with 140 designated properties that they have, is there some training or?

Speaker 6 35:43
Good question I know they want to be that is in their role is basically provide education on the historic preservation process that we have. So I know we are trying to find a date for retreat. And I know that’s going to be on that to do list, right to be a little bit more out in the community. And

Speaker 7 36:07
well, from beginning I said, I believe in the reviewing the permits for demolition, but what you’re saying is it’s a little too late. But what I haven’t heard is how do we make it not too late? How do you know? How are we proactive? And I know that’s a tough question, because I don’t think I have an answer for it. And I think it’s the tougher thing to do than to say after it’s happened, this is going to be the result or the consequence.

Speaker 1 36:33
Let’s see if Aaron has his light on. Let’s see if he counselor Rodriguez.

Speaker 9 36:43
Thank you. So just to address a couple things. First of all, again, with the outward Street property, you said that was not a designated property. So there is therefore no procedure to capture that necessarily. Right? Correct. Okay. So it wasn’t that staff missed it is that there’s no procedure to capture it because it’s not designated.

Speaker 9 37:12
Okay, and moving on. As far as the demolition process was concerned, having been the liaison for the last six years, I was specifically would be asked as the liaison to sign off on a demolition in six years, I never was not once. Okay, so it’s not common, that through demolition, they actually go through the procedure that was in the code prior to what’s being proposed now. Okay. And as liaison for historic preservation commission, I will tell you that there was a lot of conversation, both sides. And that. Yeah. And that, believe you me, because of our requirement to appoint certain qualifications to our historic preservation commission, as required by the state to be designated as a local government. That is to have the designation of a qualified local government, we have to have certain qualifications of our board and commission members. In this case, we have architects, we have somebody who I believe is the state archaeologist on our historic preservation commission. So they are more than qualified, if not more qualified, than I was, as the liaison. So I have no doubt in my mind that they are more than qualified to make that kind of recommendation and sign off on that application. The procedure in and of itself, I think, is completely justified in the sense that we had no punitive concept or very limited punitive concept for somebody that demolish is by negligence, much less demolish is outside of application. Whereas now, through much consideration of a very qualified historic preservation commission has some punitive effects or enforcement around that concept. And so, to me, it’s completely consider it there. There’s nothing that is out of bounds with what they spent probably close to a year on. And so at this point, I have no reason to see any way not to support them. The findings of a board that we appoint a commission we appoint, who is more than qualified than probably every one of us sitting at this lectern. So, you know, I appreciate my colleagues, asking questions and being concerned. But I don’t think that in any concept that oh, we should deny the requested changes to the code.

Speaker 1 40:37
I do before I call on you again. I do have one question, you mentioned that they get 30 days to comply. And if they don’t, and they get two more weeks. So Glen, within that 30 days, even though they don’t fix whatever the problem is, but they have contacted a contractor, or does that, go for them? I mean, it’s that. And they say we, you know, my contractor can’t get to this until XYZ or whatever. So sure, man, that would work. Yeah,

Speaker 6 41:07
that’s, that’s the advantage of this process is a lot of it’s to the discretion of the code enforcement officer if they’re moving ahead, and it is a busy time out there, and particularly Stark preservation contractor. There, they’re fewer of them. But they’re moving ahead. Those periods of time aren’t aren’t set in stone, that’s up to the discretion of the officer. That’s reviewing.

Unknown Speaker 41:33
Okay, great. Diane, can you have three minutes this time?

Speaker 7 41:41
So 2.5 6.180 is trying to include the house on at work just as an example, because the HPC wants to review any demolition for structures that are at least 50 years old. Whether it’s designated or not correct, so they can catch anything that could potentially be historic,

Speaker 6 42:05
not necessarily HPC. Maybe, if it’s if it’s too far gone, and it’s a it’s a hazard, the building official can go ahead and approve the demolition

Speaker 7 42:18
by a staff liaison and one council member, that should be delayed 10 days to determine if the permit should be granted.

Speaker 6 42:26
Right? That would be if it is saveable. That’s the first step. It’s between right now. It’s between the council liaison and staff liaison. They look at and say, Is it a contributing potentially to a district? Does it meet potentially the criteria to be a landmark? If they say no, then then the permits approved? If they say yes, then it goes to historic preservation commission. Okay.

Speaker 7 42:56
Well, thank you for your time and for answering all our questions. Mind particularly, and I guess I’m ready for a vote. Oh, we need to make a motion.

Unknown Speaker 43:11
Public public hearing? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 1 43:15
So now I’d like to open up this 2023 Dash oh five to the public for public hearing is there, I see that we do have one person that has signed up for this. And it is Steve lane.

Speaker 10 43:36
Good evening, Mayor Council, Steve Lane 1013 noon for circle. I’m also the chair of the HPC. So I just wanted to come up here. And thank you for taking the time to review all this. This does represent actually quite a bit of work. The HPC pick this up originally back prior to the pandemic. So this has been a multi year process that’s involved, probably the work of four or five or six staff members over the course of time, multiple HPC commissioners that aren’t even on the commission anymore. Multiple city attorneys, this is this is there’s a lot of work that’s been put into this and a lot of hard conversations about striking the right balance between protecting our heritage structures and still respecting property values. And I think we did the best that we possibly could and staff certainly supported us along the way. So again, I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time and appreciate your vote.

Speaker 1 44:39
Thank you, Steve. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to comment on ordinance 20 2305? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. And let’s vote. Oops

Speaker 11 44:55
Yeah. I move Genet HPC 21 2305 2020 4050

Speaker 1 45:15
Moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor Rodriguez. Let’s vote now.

Speaker 1 45:33
That passes unanimously, thank you for the discussion, everyone. We are now at 20 2406. This is a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 15.0 to Section 15.0 2.060 point one of the Longmont municipal code on review of variance requests. Do we have a presentation on this one? Seeing none, are there any questions from Council on this ordinance? Seeing none, I’ll open it up to the public. The public hearing for ordinance 20 2406. Anyone from public that would like to address this? Seeing no one ever closed the public hearing on 20 2406 Let’s have a motion.

Unknown Speaker 46:20
I’ll move ordinance 2024. Second, Moved

Speaker 1 46:25
by Councillor Duggal, fairing and seconded by Councillor Rodriguez, let’s vote.

Speaker 1 46:36
That passes unanimously. Thank you. The next one is 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 this bill number is 20 2407. Do we have any questions from Council on this bill? Yes, counselor Roderick is

Speaker 9 47:09
just one question is vertical LLC. Operating Agreement? Primarily the partnership? Private?

Speaker 12 47:25
Counselor, right. Rodriguez, smelly O’Donnell housing director. So the the entity that vertical would create that would be the eventual owner of this development? Yes. Would be a private entity. That answer the question,

Speaker 8 47:38
what is what specifically? I guess I’m trying to? Well,

Speaker 9 47:42
because technically speaking, if incorporated as a not for profit 5013 C, it would be eligible for property tax exemption. So that’s what my question was.

Speaker 8 47:59
Oh, okay. Yeah, there’s there won’t be eligibility for a property tax exemption and not as proposed.

Speaker 1 48:08
Thank you. I see no other questions from councillors. So I’ll now open the public hearing on 2024. Excuse me, oh, seven. Is there anyone in public that would like to address this bill? Seeing no one I will now close the public hearing on 20 2307. Can I have a motion?

Speaker 1 48:34
It’s been moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor McCoy. All those Let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 48:46
And that carries unanimously.

Speaker 8 48:49
Mayor Council cast a few words, of course. I wanted to thank you for your approval of this project. And thank you all as a council body for your leadership on the affordable housing conversation. What a lot of folks may not realize is this is probably one of the most significant projects regarding affordable and attainable housing that you’ll see in the state with 185 homes being built that are completely under 120%. Ami. And about 30 What is it 30 or 40%. For just under 40% of the homes are 55 units will be permanently deed restricted for sell affordable housing units. I think when we look around and see what people are doing in this world are doing in the state. This is potentially going to be one of the most significant projects that we’ve seen in the last few years. I think that’s a result of your focus and intention on affordable and attainable housing and what we need in the community. And so I just want to thank you for your leadership and supporting us as we move through these projects.

Speaker 1 49:55
Thank you but I also want to support you and I mean For all the work that you and Molly and the whole team have done on the affordable housing without you’re diving into and learning how to do this, we wouldn’t have it and I know you’ve spent hours and hours and hours on it. So thank you too. It was a it’s a great project. So we have nothing, no ordinances were pulled from the first reading. Nothing was removed from the consent agenda. So we’re going to move on to general business. We have a presentation from visit long more long, Mart. I am not having a good time talking tonight. Visit Longmont board appointments and I invite Sarah Leonard to the podium.

Unknown Speaker 51:08

Speaker 3 51:21
Can you hear me now? Oh, oh, that does sound different. Yep. Thank you for hearing our presentation. Visit long run as you know, is a separate 501 C six nonprofit organization. We were incorporated in April of 2008. We are governed by a nine to 13 member board of directors. And currently we have two and a half staff and a digital content manager on contract. And today I’m here to talk to you about some bylaw amendments and changes to our board of director recruitment. Visit Longmont last year was tasked with updating policies and bylaw amendments, to bring them more up to just to update them to be timely. And so we reviewed and updated our bylaws at our Fall Retreat in September last year. They were approved by our board of directors. And what I’m here to present to you today are specifically around Board of Director recruitment. And those are sections listed in our bylaws related to the board of directors. So the amendments to share with you today have our updated in board development while keeping the intent of our articles of incorporation and our strong partnership with the City Council in providing destination marketing services for the Longmont community. We’ve updated language around a board recruitment focus to be our responsibility and take a little bit of time off of the city staff. We’ve refined board seat descriptions including around sectors that support the tourism economy in the community of Longmont so around accommodation short term rentals, hospitality and tourism, businesses and economic development. And while retaining our city city councilmember seat as a voting member, city councilmember Crist and so specifically the new visit Longmont board seats that the board approved and these were refined descriptions around board seats, that could continue to help strengthen our board of directors by providing the skills and experiences around the tourism economy and helping us achieve our mission. And those three seats that were newly defined were around the arts and culture, culture sector, sustainability or sustainable development sector and an outdoor recreations sector seat. And at our last board meeting the visit Longmont Board of Directors approved the slate of new board directors before you went on the screen for the arts and culture seat Eric Mason, the recently appointed director of the Longmont Museum, the sustainability board seat, Byron common Act, the founder of Jack solar garden, a farm in the Longmont area, and the outdoor recreation board seat Jeff freezin are the director of recreation and culture with the city of Longmont. So what we’re asking you today is to ratify that approval of that slate, and this would add those board of directors, which is a little bit hard to see but to our current board, where I’ve listed out the executive committee and our current board directors for 2024. Thank you or see Again, Johnny’s helping me out here. So with this board of fugu approval, what I’m asking here today is for the City Council to ratify that, that approval in that slate of, of candidates.

Speaker 1 55:11
Okay, thank you very much, Jen. Sara, Councillor Rodriguez, thank

Speaker 9 55:17
you very much matter of fact. It did not say in our council communication, where in the code is it required that we ratify other seats outside of our internally appointed representative, mayor and council Eugene may city attorney, I believe it’s in their bylaws. It’s in their bylaws. And so we’re required to ratify their bylaws. And

Speaker 6 55:44
I think the articles of incorporation if you know them better.

Speaker 3 55:49
That’s my understanding the intent in the articles of incorporation were to have the City Council approve or ratify 1/3 of the board of directors of visit Longmont and so we did in our bylaw amendments was just update the process of board recruitment, but to continue to have that 1/3 this board slate approval or ratification by the city council.

Speaker 9 56:17
Okay, you know, it’s first I think I’ve ever seen this, as far as outside of our council representative asking the city council to ratify a slate of Board of Directors for the for the visit long run. So I didn’t know that was necessarily within our purview. I mean, I’ve no problem with the recommendations whatsoever. I think they’re all extremely qualified. I was just curious, where in code that it says that we have to do that. Or it’s in their bylaws, though, not within our BIOS or in our code or charter. Okay, well with that I move to accept the slate as presented by this logbook.

Speaker 1 57:10
Thank you, Councillor Rodriguez Move to approve the bylaws, the slate of board members for visit Longmont and that was seconded by whoever done would like to put down

Unknown Speaker 57:31
a councilmember

Unknown Speaker 57:33
Oh, council Councillor Yarborough so yeah, let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 57:57
There carries unanimously Thank you very much, Sarah.

Speaker 1 58:07
So we are now going to have a staff presentation by Stephanie Cooper, on the resolution of the Longmont City Council naming the neighborhood park located at 636 Deerwood drive as the fox Meadows Park. And this is resolution 20 2409.

Speaker 13 58:25
Good evening, Mayor Petco. There you are councilmembers I’m actually going to introduce myself I haven’t met everyone on the council Stephanie Cooper manager parks and trails development, but we will be presenting on the resolution for the naming of one of our eight and five parks a new neighborhood park. With that, I’m going to hand it over to Steve Rance, Wyler to present the senior project manager managing the project.

Speaker 14 58:49
Mayor Council Steve rands Wyler, Senior Project Manager for natural resources. I’m pleased we have a presentation. Oh, is it I actually work at this has been a long time since I’ve.

Speaker 14 59:09
Been here we go. Foxman neighborhood park. The man was dedicated to us back in 2002 or three with the fox development of the Fox Meadows neighborhood. We engaged in a public process last fall and had some public meetings at Troy Ridge Middle School and look at three public meetings at trilogy middle school, got some ideas from the public as far as what they’d like to see there looked at that based upon what budget we have allotted for this park and made some decisions on that brought that plan to parks and recreation advisory board in November and they recommended it to you for approval. This is the plan we’re going to we’re planning to move forward with what you can see as the Typical with our neighborhood parks we tried to have an open turf area shelters, a unisex restroom playground. Those are sort of the staples of our, our neighborhood park system. This this particular park, we’re incorporating a half court basketball and handball court, and possibly an off leash dog exercise area. We’ve also acknowledged that there is a larger senior population in this. This neighborhood, you’d be surprised the first public meeting I swear the mean age was 6570. It was pretty startling. But they all insisted there’s no kids and like they’re there. They’ll come play, I’m promise you, they want to know playgrounds. So we met in the middle, there’s Bochy, there’s going to be four or five tables that could have some chess patterns and things like that. There’s a walking loop, several walking loops Incorporated, and a shelter for some shade. So we’re trying to gear this towards all populations. We have actually engaged Wenke associates for the design of this project. And ECI site construction out of Loveland for construction, we’re under a design build contract with them for this project. And per your direction, we will engage with getting this designed, and the current schedule shows us having this completed in the first quarter of 2025. So we’re still shooting for that.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:30

Speaker 14 1:01:31
Thank you. And then the next is the park naming is the official business because this does need to be approved by resolution. We did go through this is ordinance 1320 30. And what has to go into a park name. So this is the criteria that we do give to the public. We solicited solicited input from the public at the public meetings as well as through online blasts and receive what would you say Stephanie’s 67 year so I believe that are in your packet, the list of somewhere not approved not deemed appropriate somewhere. And the Parks and Recreation advisory board recommended that we move forward with Fox Meadows as the park name. And with that, I’ll I’ll leave it to you for questions.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:20
Councillor Martin? Thank you, Mr. Peck.

Speaker 5 1:02:23
I’m Steve. I’m not sure that I remember how, how the the approval process for the actual content of a park happened anymore. It’s been a while. While we were going through the eight and five. I have been I’ve attended meetings, neighborhood meetings, where Park proposals were discussed. And you mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board approved the proposal for the park the council does not actually propose the content ever have to approve the content of a park is or the design of a park? Is that correct?

Speaker 14 1:03:07
Mayor Peck councilmember Martin, we used to, you know, I’ve been here for quite a while. And many councils. It used to be the council’s would adopt a master plan for our parks, that has proven to be a little bit more challenging as time goes on. And we have to have flexibility in those master plans. So what the current approach is to have them just approved by council just saying yes, this is okay to move forward with this. This is after a robust public process. As well as recommendation the crowd doesn’t approve anything, they made recommendations to Council for approval. And so Parks Board did make a recommendation to you. As far as the contents of the park, it’s a balance. You know, it’s it’s not only what the people that show up at the meetings want. That’s that’s not how it works. We are these parks for the entire community, not just the people that have the time and the means to come to the meetings we host. So we do listen to that we do take direction from that. But we also talked with our recreation staff to see what their needs and trends that are the so they can program this park for public use. And as well as we have certain staples like we do want to make sure there’s an open turf area for people to come and be able to recreate there’s a lot of people as the city is becoming more dense, where we’re needing to include paste places for people to recreate that don’t have yards. And that’s just going to be a fact as far as park system is going to probably be used more intensively over the next coming decades. And so we want to make sure that we’re making them fun and resilient and safe and maintainable and all those things we strive for for every park we built. Yeah To answer your question.

Speaker 5 1:04:44
No. Because big because because the I didn’t catch whether you said that the the final design of the park was ever approved by council So, or, or whether you said before, there used to be a parks master plan, and now there isn’t. So there are some questions that I have that come from some sustainability concerns that I don’t think that we know about. For example, I hear a lot about how many drinking fountains water sources there are in parks. We hear a lot about homelessness and the safety of restrooms. And, and so I, you know, you mentioned that there’s a restroom, you didn’t mention any water sources other than the restroom itself. And so I don’t think the council has ever weighed in on those aspects. I’d be happy to see those be as, you know, standard properties of an of all of the eight and five parks. But I’d like to know they were there. And I don’t think we do.

Speaker 14 1:05:56
Mayor Peck councilmember Martin, we do include at least the modern parks, I can’t speak for some of the parks that were built back in the 50s and 60s, I understand the modern parks since since I’d been here since 98. Every Park has had a drinking fountain that does not have year round water. We do not have year round water in our neighborhood parks, parks because of the concern of frozen pipes and the limitations of operations. So they are seasonal, they close in October and open in April. Yeah, presumably it’s a heat, but they are drinking their drinking fountains, we have changed our drinking fountain approach. In the past four or five years, we use jug fillers, because a lot of people bring their own water sources or water storage vessels now. But those and then our restrooms are high, high efficiency, we do meet the criteria that is set by the city for utilizing sustainable practices in our park design as much as possible. If the council did want to hear some sort of presentation about how we approach Park design from a sustainability lens, I can certainly speak with Stephanie and Francine and Joanie and come up with something, that’d be

Speaker 5 1:07:05
great. And if you’d like that introduced, you know, for a future agenda, we can certainly accommodate that, you know, in a in a future meeting, but I think it is important.

Speaker 8 1:07:15
And I think on the the restroom construction in terms of what we’ve talked about in terms of vandalism. I know I’m funding a number of positions to go to the national sub TED conference, so that they can start looking at different components and what other communities are doing so that we can deal with those issues in terms of the design, I sent a group last year, and then we’re gonna send another group in a month or so.

Speaker 5 1:07:39
Oh, yeah. And all that’s great. I just think that we should have it is as if we should move it up to official policy. Thank you. That’s all.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:52
Councillor Hudak offering?

Speaker 15 1:07:53
Thank you pair. So when you were referring to the the participation, you know, the community engagement process, so there were a lot of people in the neighborhood, I assume that weren’t allowed weren’t able to attend the meetings? How many? How much feedback did you get from residents offline? Or, you know, who weren’t in attendance? Like, do you feel like there was a balance of people who were present at these engagement meetings, as well as opportunities for other people to weigh in their their priorities?

Speaker 14 1:08:28
Mayor Peck councilmember Hill Daga faring? No. And that is a gap in I’ll admit that that’s a gap. We have our public meetings, we advertise them as best we can we treat encourage people to come. We’ve tried a multitude of things over the years and have not come up with that sweet spot of engaging everybody in our community. Yeah, we’re looking at ways to do that. And with maracas communication team, hopefully, we can look at more ways, you know, technology is always changing, but people don’t necessarily have access to technology either. And so we have limited staff ability to go into neighborhoods and go door to door and things like that, that costs a lot of time and money that would take away from construction apart really, and so it’s finding that balance, but we I still feel that we do a pretty robust process. We do a solicit feedback online, we had 40 The so people are these public meetings. So that’s, that’s not bad for a park on a fall night for an hour and a half. So

Speaker 15 1:09:30
do you feel like the the mix the makeup of the participants was was balanced? Or do you feel like there was one group that kind of dominated, you know, whether it be age group, ethnicity, socio economic,

Speaker 14 1:09:45
every public meeting process for every park is different based on the neighborhood. This one was not representative of families or people with young children, things like that, even though there is multifamily housing at the southeast. corner or southwest corner of ninth and county line, which I know that those people will be using this park. So I spoke for them. Yeah. Well, thank you. I was trying to explain to Councilmember Martin is that staff comes in and knows we need things just because the people say, well, we don’t need people. We don’t want a restroom that brings that people in. Well, we need a restroom.

Speaker 15 1:10:18
Yeah. Yeah. So and I agree with you there. And I appreciate that, you know, looking at the whole scope of of Longmont and who would be using that. So I you know, I appreciate that. The other thing that I really I appreciate dive in hearing from residents about is our dog parks. You know, I know we have in ward three, you know, we’re hearing well, you know, possibly having a dog park at Lake McIntosh, but we also have one that it’s not too far away. So I think just having a variety of different types. I think we’ll do we only have to the one by airport and the one off of 21st.

Speaker 14 1:10:56
Councilmember Hill Doug Afari. Yes, we have two official dog parks. Yeah, there are four unleased, believe it or not, when people are doing a park when they live next door to the park, they don’t like to live next to a dog park. They’d have no problem living next to it off leash dog exercise area, which is what we call our areas in neighborhood parks that are small enclosed area for dogs run around. But it’s not a dog park. It’s our job. Don’t tell her. Yeah, so. Okay. But anyway, we have there’s four others of those. There’s one demonstrated on this plan. And that’s something that I did want to mention is that we are fighting, rising costs like everybody else, that’s a prime thing to cut out of this. It’s it’s very challenging being an intervention bond, and because of the grading and so I would expect that that’s not going to end up in the park. It could be a future phase, maybe. But okay, that was not required was not requested by the public that was requested by staff. That’s something that we’re probably

Speaker 15 1:11:51
I think it would be popular just based on feedback I get I mean, it’s different area of town. But

Speaker 14 1:11:57
I can tell you, though, we are working to recycle the shelter that’s being removed from the museum and the project right now. Yeah, and reinstall that I drove dog park number one. Okay. You want to 21st and Frances, later this year, we’re going to try to recycle that that shelter and repurpose it out there. I’d like to have conversation, it’s running water, feel free to contact me. That’s fine.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:18
No, that’s great. Thank you very much.

Speaker 8 1:12:19
I wanted to jump in really quick in terms of community involvement and community engagement. I think counsel we’ve talked about we are in the process via next lightning utilities, bringing Salesforce into our organization. And that’s really going to allow us to connect with our community at a different level in terms of reaching out to community members and asking, What are you interested? What are you interested in what location of the community so that we were actually going to once we can fully engage in this actually do more direct communication with people and allow those who are interested to participate in different ways. So we’re really excited about it. We’re still in the front end of Salesforce, but we know that there’s a lot of opportunities for us and increasing communication and actually having wider outreach with our broader community.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:17
Now I’m looking at the wrong one. Counselor McCoy Crist.

Speaker 7 1:13:26
First, let me commend you for doing such great engagement with the neighborhood. You actually got six pages of suggestions for names. I think that’s phenomenal. And being kind of new at this, I started looking at parks and I realized, you know, how our parks named. And a lot of our parks are actually named by physical location or function. Function, almost half of them actually, we have 53 Parks unless there’s more than I don’t know about. And I noticed that about 13 of those were named after men, some of them pioneers and founders, but we only had one that was named after a woman just on her own merits, she was not a Longmont resident. So I noticed in your list, there were suggestions of females that that on their own merits, meet the criteria to have a park named after them. One of them is our first female mayor, who by the way doesn’t know I’m talking to you about this, and I don’t know that she knows her name ever came up on this list. But we’ve only had three female mayors and the third one is sitting next to me. Leona stackers name is on this list. She brought next slide to Longmont. She did an eight year term. She she was the only female on the council at that time. She has been a constant proponent of of fundraisers, charities, all things Longmont Support Longmont and so I just want for consideration if we’ve got eight parks coming in in the next five years that we do some parity in terms of women that have been significant in our community. And we also saw Patricia Jones name on the list and she was a fabulous teacher. And, and Pat Lopez, we’re building a park for Nino gaslow and a Latino and it would be nice to do something for Pat Lopez as well, just for parody. We do have one, actually Macintosh like I believe is is named after chief Macintosh, who was a member of the creek tribe. And so it also be nice to find maybe a female tribal member to name a park after and I just, I wanted to throw that out for the consideration of the council. And for the Parks and Recreation recreation department.

Speaker 1 1:16:02
Thank you. We have two motions here. The first one is to be well let’s do the first one for the resolution of naming the neighborhood park. Well, actually, that is not a resolution. That’s an ordinance. It is okay. Okay, so can I have a motion?

Speaker 1 1:16:37
Thank you. Councillor McCoy moved. The naming of a deer would have the neighborhood park at 636 deer Ridge Drive. And that was seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing is there any discussion anymore? Nope. Seeing none Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 1:17:13
So that passed 61 With counselor Christian opposition. Thank you.

Speaker 1 1:17:29
Our legislative bills and assistant city attorneys, city attorney I keep doing that. City Manager Sandy cedar real present.

Speaker 16 1:17:41
Thank you, Mayor Sandy cedar assistant city manager. Welcome to the legislative session. They have started with a bang 185 bills already this morning. When I last looked so they’re often running for sure. We’ve probably sent 100 for municipal comment. I went to my first VML municipal caucus meeting today. I do just want to review kind of what happens during the legislative session. It’s my job to read each of those bills and determine if there’s some level of municipal impact. If I think there is I’ll check it with the staff members that are most closely tied to that as well as their partner attorney. They send comments back to me I’m also listening to what’s happening at CML and as well as other professional organizations. If I determine from the staff comments, and from the other things that I hear that this has a significant impact on Longmont either positive or negative. Those are the ones that I bring to you for an official position. At any time, you’re welcome to ask for a bill to be brought for a position as well. You’ll see that today based on Mayor PEXA request during the pre session to bring one for you to consider. And then of course as we continue down this road, once you decide an official position, then I lobby our local legislators with your position and try to help them understand where Longmont stands on each of these bills really quickly as we’re rolling. So you’ll see this item on the agenda, pretty much From now until May. You’ll receive these bills on Friday so that we are as quick as we possibly can be on the on these. And if you have any questions along the way, please feel free to ask. One thing that’s important to know about legislation is that when the council takes a position on the bill, they take it as a body. And so sometimes you may be asked at some point to come down and testify on something you’re welcome to anytime. Just identify that you’re a single council member. I’m not speaking for the council unless the position has been taken. You can also find all these things on our city website under Legislative Affairs anytime you want. So with that, we have four bills for your consideration today. The first one is House Bill 2410 12. This is the operational efficiency of the Front Range passenger rail district. So as a relatively new district, they’re kind of getting their feet underneath them and wanted to pass some additional legislation to help with efficiency and contracting. This is obviously transportation oriented. That’s a main piece of the council work plan, and important to make sure that it continues to be successful. So the staff recommends that city council support House Bill 2410 12.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:20
Councillor Rodriguez?

Speaker 9 1:20:22
Thank you. I didn’t know we were going to necessarily take these one at a time. My comment was going to be specifically about the one where there’s where staff doesn’t have a recommendation, which is the study of the universal health care, I believe. And so that, honestly, I’m just gonna go ahead here and say that I move that. I don’t I don’t know if I can move that, I guess. I suppose that Council supports the study of universal health care, as it’s just a steady and it’d be nice to have that data and numbers and as well as at the expenditure of the state.

Speaker 1 1:21:05
So thank you for that Councillor Rodriguez, actually, we supported the same bill last year. And so this is an update for the public. This is nothing more than a study to look at other states to see how they’ve done it, did it work, etc. So are there any other comments on this bill? Seeing none, let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:37
And that passes unanimously.

Speaker 16 1:21:39
Thank you, Mayor. I will point out that we’ve had some challenges recently with family, the Family Medical Leave Act that you, you know, took a look at last year and opted out of certain portions. So we’ll be bringing back more information as we have some. That’s not exactly related, but somewhat, so I wanted to point it out. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:56
Councillor Rodriguez?

Speaker 9 1:21:57
Thank you, Mayor pack. So now with the direction given on that specific bill, I move that Council supports the staff recommendations on all four, including the now specified, Bill.

Speaker 1 1:22:17
So it’s been moved in by Councillor Rodriguez, Rodriguez, seconded by Councillor Martin, that we I’m going to ask you to clarify those slight is what you wanted to do. The other the other three, including? Okay. So is there any discussion from anyone else? I wanted to do a little clarification on the very first 110 12, four Front Range. All this is basically doing is a cleanup bill for us. Because some of the for example, when we first started, we were trying to see if we had to codify all of the board members, and this straightens, you know, cleans that up a little bit that we don’t need to go through that process. So thank you for that. Let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:19

Speaker 1 1:23:26
so that passes six to one with Councillor Crist in opposition, and she told me why so would you tell the rest of council

Speaker 7 1:23:39
I just haven’t had a chance to see the verbiage on these. And it wasn’t in my packet. So I just, you know, I’m a reader. So I just want to read more fully on it. generally agree with the terms that you’ve said here and and I trust you Sandy, but I just like to know the details. So

Speaker 16 1:23:57
Mayor Peck and Councilmember Krista on the website, the Legislative Affairs website is a spreadsheet and it’s there are links to every single bill that we’re tracking. So that’s a much longer list than these ones here. If you would like for me to begin to include the bill information. I’m happy to do that as well, if that’s something that the council is a body would like for me to do. Or it’s all listed in that website for your for your review.

Speaker 7 1:24:22
Yeah, I just would like more details. But next time, thanks.

Speaker 15 1:24:30
You know, I was just going to I was going to say the same thing. If you go to our council calm the link if you click on the link and go to legislative affairs, and you can click to see the list of bills tracked, that actually takes you to the State site. And that’s so that’s what I did prior to coming here as I went through and I read through the background of all those bills directly from the state so I just wanted to give you Yeah, there you go. And

Speaker 16 1:24:57
I’m happy to walk through that with you councilmember crest if you I would like to sit down and take a look at it together.

Speaker 1 1:25:03
I have to say that being on counsel, the very first year is a learning curve. So it’s a firehose, so we all need to be patient, because we’ve all been there. So I’m, and I’m glad that maybe we should mention that because not everybody reads the packet for the public, they should be reading these bills as well or voting on them. So Councillor Martin,

Speaker 5 1:25:26
thank you, Mayor Peck, I would just want one other thing to say it’d be these specific recommendations for a council meeting, comment out later than the packet because of the pace at which the legislature moves. So you always need to look like the day before in your email. And it’ll be there because it’s too it falls too late for the packet. But I think this is really important because it’s empowering for the council, because our testimony to the legislature is much stronger if the council has voted to support as a body. And so that’s why we prepare to do it, even though it’s a real fast track process. And, and I have to say, because I seem to recall, grousing about it when I was a new council member, because so often there was something I wanted supported and we didn’t get to it and fast fast enough. And, and Sandy has done a marvelous job of speeding up that process and getting us into a position where we can really wield our influence to the legislature. So I am so happy with this process the way it goes now.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:46
Thank you, Sandy. We’re now at final call public invited to be heard. Do you want to take a bio break?

Speaker 1 1:27:04
Is there any anybody in the public that would like to speak? I see absolutely no one. So I will call final call public invited to be heard. I know. Marin Council comments. We have any comments from Council? Seeing none, we’ll go to city manager remarks.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:26
Comments, Mayor Council.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:28
Thank you, city attorney. Oh, comments, Mayor. Great. Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Unknown Speaker 1:27:38
It’s been moved and seconded by everybody. Let’s vote. That passes we are adjourned.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai