Longmont City Council – Regular Session – February 13, 2024

Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – February 13, 2024

Read along below:

Speaker 1 6:31
Good evening, everyone. And welcome to the February 13 2024, regular city council meeting. I’d now like I’m sorry, I already said that but livestream of this meeting can be viewed at the city’s YouTube channel or at Longmont public media.org forward slash watch. Or Comcast channels eight or eight ad. May we have a roll call please don’t.

Unknown Speaker 6:56
Me or bank

Unknown Speaker 6:57
president councilmember

Speaker 2 6:57
Crist. Councilmember Davao Ferring. Councilmember Martin, Here. Councilmember McCoy, Councilmember Rodriguez. Councilmember gabbro. Mayor you have a quorum.

Speaker 1 7:34
As a reminder to the public, the rules for providing public comment are as follows. Each speaker must give their name and address and is limited to three minutes. Only Longmont residents and employees with 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 this 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. Anyone anyone may speak no signup is required to speak during final call public invited to be heard. May I have a motion to approve the January 23 minutes second, it’s been Moved by Councillor McCoy and seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing to move the January 23 minutes. Is there any discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote

Unknown Speaker 8:42
how do you not okay. Bogey as I said I’m fine. With me. Yes. And that carries unanimously. Do we have any agenda revisions?

Speaker 2 9:07
Mary do we have item nine B is being pulled from the agenda ordinance. 2024 Dash 16. Thank you being pulled entirely. Okay.

Speaker 1 9:18
And do councillors have any motions to add agenda items to future agendas? Councillor Martin?

Speaker 3 9:28
No, I want to pull something from the consent agenda. But that’s later Correct. Yeah. We’ll

Speaker 1 9:33
keep you in mind. We’re here. We’re ready for the city manager’s report.

Unknown Speaker 9:41
Report. Mayor Council.

Speaker 1 9:42
Thank you. And we have no special reports and presentations. So we’re going right to the first call public invited to be heard. The first one on the list is Joanne Austin and remember that we need your name and address. You have three minutes left Okay

Speaker 1 10:14
Good job. Can you pull that microphone closer to you, Joanne? President? That’s great.

Speaker 4 10:20
Joanne Austin for 19 Terry straight. Mayor Peck city council members. Today, sorry in advance for stepping on your toes. Is Mardi Gras day. Shrove Tuesday. And tomorrow is Valentine’s Day and the beginning of Lent. So you can decide which holiday you remember receiving my gift. In no way. Do I mean this gift to be disrespectful? I have watched city council meetings for many years. Not only this council, but many before you struggle to know just how council meetings should be conducted. You and several councils before you have been very lucky to have a Mayor Pro Tem to guide you through meetings. When it becomes obvious mayors and council members have never educated themselves regarding Rules of Order. These are big shoes to fill Suzie. So I am gifting seven books of Robert’s Rules of Order, one for each council member. I urge you to regret this book, if it seems that is no longer an asset to you. I also want to thank the poor council members who voted in favor of HB 2411 52. You understand the reality of housing for the future and for the future generations. We must embrace change. And closing Wednesday start spring training for the Chicago Cubs pitchers and catchers hope springs eternal. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 12:03
Thank you Joanne Kathy partridge.

Speaker 5 12:22
Hello, I’m Kathy partridge. I live at 2719 Denver Avenue here in Longmont and I am here this evening on behalf of the east county housing opportunity coalition known as eco and together Colorado. And we are urging the council support for HB 2410 98 which is for Cause Eviction. in Longmont. We believe in taking care of our community so everyone, no matter the color of their skin, what language we speak or how much is in our wallet can thrive. Housing for all is a council priority. And Longmont has been an out front example to other communities in the state when it comes to taking care of fellow residents housing needs, including putting time, effort and dollars into creating more affordable housing. In addition to increasing housing options, we believe that more should be done to help keeping people housed for Cause Eviction legislation would give Coloradans including our Longmont neighbors, a greater sense of housing security and a safe and stable place to call home. We know that stable housing is key to mental health and learning for children. hB 1098 seeks to guard against actions by bad actor landlords who unnecessarily disrupt that stability. This bill will not remove any measures currently in law that allow a landlord to evict a tenant if a tenant violates their lease, such as non payment of rent, health and safety violations or not caring lease violations. It also allows landlords to not renew a lease if the landlord or the family member plan to move into the unit. The unit is to be sold or a significant renovations or demolition is needed. This should give the landlord including longline Housing Authority, the protections they need to safeguard their property. In preparing for this bill, we heard countless stories of landlords who discriminated against tenants based on their race for complaining about uninhabitable conditions of their housing. And for other reasons like they wanted to rent the unit to a third party, in particular post Marshal fire. We saw a lot of lease terminations for complaints about smoke and ash damage. Our families deserve better than this. hB 1099 is somewhat revolutionary in that it shifts the burden to the landlord to be able to document reasons not to rent to someone instead of a burden on the tenant to find a new home when the landlord decides capricious Lee they no longer want to rent to them. If we are serious about keeping people housed, which is much cheaper than building new housing, Longmont should support HB 1098. Is county housing opportunity coalition and together Colorado strongly urge the council to support HB 1098. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 15:21
Thank you, Kathy. Gary Hodges.

Speaker 6 15:31
Good evening mayor and council. My name is Gary Hodges I live at 2148 Stuart Street was two weeks I spoke about wind and solar power and the illusion that these power sources provide some benefit over combustion. And I’m gonna talk about EVs tonight and EVS really have the same illusion that there’s some benefit of an Eevee over an internal combustion engine. And so it’s really trivial to discover, it’s not hard. You can dig into the literature if you want. And you’ll find a lot of that’s out there. And across the board, the US really optimistic projections. Volkswagen has done a study on this, you can find this nice plot that they’ve done that shows over the lifespan that’s including manufacturer and end of life. There’s really no appreciable difference between an Eevee and an internal combustion engine. So yeah, so on that optimistic projections, we saw something similar to that when Platte River gave that talk last year, where they prefaced every plot they showed these are our most optimistic projections. And they were doing it for a different reason. I think it was just so you all would understand the utility of wind and solar actually doing anything. So why is the state pushing? Tonight we’re gonna talk about charging stations. So why is the state doing this, and I’m a law for maybe an example with the state lottery where the generally less affluent fund recreation for the more fluent in the, you know, open space areas. And so maybe there’s something like that, you know, maybe the more fluent or hopeful to make the less of fluent fund your charging stations and networks so that their second or third cars, you know, this just makes it easier on them. But really, the question is really what do we do as a city and about this thing, and because there’s no benefit, there’s really a cost, if this goes in, there’s going to be more co2, there’s not going to be less of it. So my encouragement as the city would be at a really slow walk this, what the state’s doing, and and if eventually forced into it, to just do whatever the absolute bare minimum, but I’ve got a better idea for you than just doing that. And that’s for our city to be bold to take some really bold action right now and write a letter call to the state and, you know, take a stand and say, we’re really unwilling to do this, because it’s not a good idea. It’s actually worse. It’s a worse outcome than what’s it’s intended, intended to produce. And so it’s a no let’s take a stand for the loss of fluid in our city and let’s take a stand for the environment and push back on this and push back on it as hard as we can. All right. That’s all thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 18:19
Thank you, Gary. Lance Whitaker.

Speaker 7 18:33
Alright, animals still My name is Lance would occur. My birthday is on Saturday so you can Omero my packages to 1750 Collier Street. Today is also gallon teens day. I have something in my pocket. So you need to know what day it is today in order to know what’s in my pocket. It’s also national cheddar day. It’s also National Pancake Day, and there’s no turtle any day. It is also Fat Tuesday. So as you can imagine, I have beads in my pocket today. I’d like to talk a little bit about electromagnetic fields today. I know there’s a lot of residents that are worried about electromagnetic fields and meters. And I just want to make sure you all know that while science does not know a lot about electromagnetic fields, we do know that exists and we can measure them. So you know we He can measure the amount of electromagnetic fields that are around those meters to ensure the public that they put off very little. We can also measure radio frequencies, all travail waves and all the things and Graviton waves and everything else. But then sure the public on the electromagnetic field that surrounds our meters, we should just writing and just get the meter, turn it on, get the electromagnetic field and just play it because they are very little. There’s not much electromagnetic field around your meters. Thank you. Have a good day.

Speaker 1 20:59
Thank you, Lance. Seeing no one else in the list. I’m going to close the first call public invited to be heard. We are now at the consent agenda. Don, would you mind reading the consent agenda into the record?

Speaker 2 21:14
Absolutely. Mayor peck the ordinances on tonight’s consent agenda will be on second reading and public hearing on February 27 2024. Nine A is ordinance 2024 Dash 15. A bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2024. I won’t read nine B because that’s the one that’s been removed from the agenda. Nine C is ordinance 2024 Dash 17. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 15.05 section 15.0 5.080 of the Longmont Municipal Code concerning electric vehicle parking infrastructure development standards and amending chapter 15.10. Section 15.10 point oh 209 D is resolution 2024 Dash 10 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Colorado Department of Human Services Behavioral Health Administration for a grant in support of a lead and core programs. And nine E is resolution 2024 Dash 11 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the memorandum of understanding between the city of Longmont Department of Public Safety and the Douglas County Sheriff’s office regarding shared access to and use of the rook armored critical incident vehicle. Thank

Speaker 1 22:29
you dawn. Does anyone want to pull items from this agenda? Councillor Martin?

Unknown Speaker 22:33
Thank you, Mayor

Unknown Speaker 22:35
Pet Pet.

Speaker 3 22:36
Yes, I would like to pull items C and E from the consent agenda.

Unknown Speaker 22:41
Okay. And would you move to the agenda then?

Speaker 3 22:43
If no one else has any desire to pull anything I move the consent agenda minus items C and E

Speaker 1 22:53
been moved by the agenda has been moved by consent agenda by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor McCloy, let’s vote.

Speaker 1 23:06
And that passes unanimously. We are now at ordinances on the second reading and public hearings on any matter. The first item is a public hearing for an appeal of denial of certificate of appropriateness and certificate of hardship by historic preservation commission regarding proposed window replacement at 545 Collier Street, tabled and continued on December 19 2023, to February 13 2024. And we have our planner Jennifer Hewitt Everson for a presentation

Speaker 8 24:01
Good evening, Mayor and members of the council this item is a continuance of an appeal of a decision by the historic preservation commission in accordance with provisions of the Longmont municipal code. In particular, this appeal concerns denial of a request by a property owner for a certificate of appropriateness or COA to replace all historic windows in a locally designated historic landmark, as well as the denial of a certificate of hardship. 545 Call your street is a locally designated landmark and as such any exterior alterations beyond general maintenance and repair require approval by the historic preservation commission through the COA process. This property was designated as a historic landmark in 1985 and was purchased by the appellant Miss wolf in 2021. A 2020 I’m sorry, a 2002 Cultural Resources survey which is included with your packet provides a full description of this property, including its history and architectural elements, and notes that there have been minimal exterior alterations to the building since 1901. building permit data confirms that this is still the case. So to recap the path of the appeal under consideration on July 6, the historic preservation commission denied the appellants request to replace all of the historic windows in the home finding that all of the for review criteria established in Section 2.5 6.130 of the Longmont Municipal Code had not been satisfied as required in order to grant a COA. In this case, the Commission determined that criteria one two and three had not been met. Criteria one requires that the proposed work meet all applicable design guidelines approved by council for individual landmark properties the Secretary of Interior standards for Historic Preservation are the guiding document for this for these decisions. The standards are clear that historic features of a building shall be repaired rather than replaced unless they are deteriorated to the point where repair is not feasible. The windows in question are not deteriorated beyond repair. Criteria two requires that the proposed work preserves, enhances or restores and does not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property. Energy efficiency, especially as it relates to temperature regulation in the winter, is the primary driver of this request. Historic Preservation professionals on the commission expressed concern that the windows may not be the only cause of temperature regulation problems, and that the proposed Window Replacement may unnecessarily destroy key architectural features of the property. Criteria three requires that the proposed work does not adversely affect the special character or historical, architectural or aesthetic interests or value of the landmark. The proposed replacement windows would match the style of the original windows and or solid wood which is consistent with the original material. However, there are differences with new windows that will detract from the historic character of the landmark and it’s important to note that once the windows are removed, they’re gone for good. Additionally, they propose replacements Wildwood they are pine while historic windows are typically made of old growth wood which contributes to the longevity. These windows in question are over 120 years old and they’re so quite functional, they could use some maintenance and repair but they are they are not deteriorated. Additionally, historic windows were designed in such a way that they can be repaired and that individual elements could be replaced if needed, which is not really the case with moderate replacements. But again, the Commission voted for to to to deny this request finding that all of the criteria had not been met as required by the code. So the applicant appealed. The Commission’s decision to city council Council remanded this application back to the Commission at their September 5, meeting with direction to consider hardship. Members of the Council asked at this hearing whether staff had considered an energy audit referenced by the appellant the audit had not been included as part of the application package and therefore could not be reviewed. Following the September 5 appeal hearing staff requested a copy of the energy audit referenced by the applicant during this appeal hearing for consideration by the Commission. The applicant did not provide this documentation until yesterday, despite multiple requests from staff going back to September. So at the remand hearing, the Commission again found that criteria one two and three for a certificate of appropriateness had not been satisfied and therefore denied the COA. Because hardship is not a criteria established within the code for a COA. The condition then considered a certificate of hardship separately using the criteria established in Section 2.5 6.160. This section provides that the Commission may issue a certificate of hardship to an owner of a designated landmark based on evidence that an economic hardship or other hardship prohibits the owner from complying with one or more of the provisions of the code. The applicant has the burden of proof that a hardship exists under the following criteria. Whether compliance with the regulations would result in an economic burden substantial economic burden, whether the property cannot be reasonably maintained in a manner consistent with the pertinent standards and guidelines, or whether there’s no reasonable means of saving the property from deterioration, demolition or collapse and other than the applicants proposal. While the commission recognize recognizes that the appellant has had high utility bills, the requested energy audit was not provided for evaluation of whether the windows were the primary cause of heat loss. Additionally, there are alternatives to total window replacement that cost far less than In total window replacement and have centered similar energy efficiency benefits. According to information from the US Department of Energy among other noted sources, window replacement is almost always the most expensive option and numerous studies over the years have demonstrated that it has the lowest and longest to realize its return on investment when compared to other measures. The Commission determined based on this information and also based on the absence of new information that the economic hardship criteria had not been met. The Commission also denied the certificate of hardship based on the lack of new information and the existence of far less expensive alterations that would achieve the similar energy savings without permanently altering the exterior of the property. A finding could not be made on the second two criteria for hardship because there was not additional information that could be evaluated. So one thing I would like to note is that Longmont is what is called a certified local government as designated by the State Historic Preservation Office. The status has certain responsibilities and benefits. Historic Preservation Commission’s and CLGs are required to have at least 40% of their seats held by qualified industry professionals. In the case of our commission, we have architects who specialize in historic preservation and restoration we have the state archaeologist as well as as other professionals in the field. So in terms of what it means to be a CLG, there are financial benefits to both the city as well as landmark property owners. One local example is the Callahan house whose recent restoration work was funded by state grants. And additionally, state and federal tax credits are available for eligible private projects. The Callaghan house grant would not have been possible if the city of Longmont were not a certified local government. So I think that’s important to point out. And as as the slide notes, maintenance of the status requires a number of things but one of those is following the Secretary of Interior standards when rendering decisions on certificates of appropriateness. So the question before you this evening is whether the commission was plainly an error in its decision to deny the requested certificates of appropriateness and hardship. the appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the commercial the commission was in error. Following the procedures and standards established in the code. The council shall give deference to the Commission’s record and decision and apply the applicable review criteria for the subject application. Staff asserts that these decisions are supported by competent evidence, particularly the photos submitted by the appellant that depict the windows that are not beyond repair, and the absence of evidence that the windows are the primary cause of heat loss. Additionally, the decision is consistent with the established review criteria for both certificates of appropriateness and hardship. And finally, the commission is clearly empowered by the code to review and make these decisions regarding certificates of appropriateness and hardship. So finally, um, council has four options this evening, you can either uphold the first you could uphold the has the historic preservation Commission’s decisions on relating to both the certificates of appropriateness and hardship, you could reverse one or both of the decisions, you could modify either or both decision and you could remand one or both matters back to the Commission for further consideration. So with that, I’ll stand by for questions and turn the floor over to the appellant Miss Wolf.

Speaker 9 33:51
Hi, good evening. Thank you for your flexibility and hearing this. As I was not able to be here last time we were scheduled. So I really appreciate that. Thank you for continuing this. Love. I know it’s because I will be reading because I hate speaking in front of people so and now it’s permanently recorded and on the internet. So you see how this goes. So one thing that I did want to address before I start with the statement that I’ve put together is that there has been significant alteration to the home since 1901. There was a 250 square foot addition built off the back of the home unpermitted in the 1950s. And it’s on the west side of the property. It’s plainly obvious. So I just wanted to stand with let that stand corrected. So a couple of things. It took took me a while to dig this stuff up, because this is not my job. I’m in marketing, so I don’t I don’t do ordinances and laws. And so it took me a little while to dig it up. But here’s some things that I think are pertinent that Maybe you might like to consider under other hardship. And I’d also like to note that the Commission inappropriately applied this standard by implying that both prongs must be met and not voting on them individually, when in fact the ordinance is says only one is required to be met. But under other hardship, it states that it cannot be reasonably maintained in a manner consistent with pertinent architectural standards or guidelines or, or no reasonable means of saving the property from deterioration, demolition or collapse, other than the applicants proposal exists. Okay, and then just a couple of other little points here. I don’t even know how to read this under Chapter 2.5 6.010. Point B point two. Okay, sorry about that, of the Longmont Municipal Code. The purpose of the ordinance creating the historic preservation Preservation Commission is to create a method to inform but not to limit or constrain the council in the exercise of its legislative discretion in drawing a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public’s interest in preserving unique historic character, based on the amount spent so far on the home and the measures that have been suggested to me by the Commission, which I’ll go into detail about later. That’s why I bring up the reasonability aspect of it. I’d also like to note that in my opinion, the Commission exceeded its authority under the Longmont Municipal Code, when it adopted the Secretary of Interior standards in the absence of design guidelines for this historic district. And under the same chapter, but 8.2 Should I read the whole thing, the whole number doesn’t matter. 2.5 6.010 point 8.2 of the Longmont municipal code, the Council must observe the will of Longmont citizens as expressed in Section 4.3 of the long wait municipal chapter. Pursuant to which every act establishing any rule or regulation for the violation of which a penalty is imposed or placing any burden upon or limiting the use of private property shall be by ordinance. By the Commission’s own admission, no design guidelines have been adopted for this historic neighborhood. Under the Longmont Municipal Code. 2.5 6.020 design guidelines means a document adopted by council regulating alterations to a designated landmark, or properties within a designated historic district, the historic commission may not implement design guidelines that have not been adopted by council. As this is a violation of both 2.56020 of the code and 4.3 of the city charter. Alright, I’m done with the stuff I barely understand. And now I’m just going to tell you about the situation as I see it. I spent over a year trying to take measures to satisfy this this, the situation and the Commission specifically. And over two years trying to remedy and improved the temperatures in my home. Due to the tight due to timing delays from contractors, grant applications and other challenges along with implementing commission recommendations that have not improved the situation as of two weeks ago. My kids are now going through their third winter in a home without sufficient heat. I’ve spent $71,000 replacing H back getting energy assessments, installing storm windows, replacing windows, installing insulation, installing doors to crawlspace so that it can, you know, stay insulated. And lots of other things that I kind of did on my own that really don’t add to that number, but they do add to the time spent and the energy spent trying to do this the way that it is suggested to me by the commission. But the situation is still not improved. The hardship application requires that the property cannot be reasonably maintained in a manner consistent with pertinent architectural standards and guidelines. It does not require that every possible measure be taken at all costs. How many years does this commission deem reasonable for my kids to continue living in these conditions? For 10 I love this house I intend to stay there and it could go on in perpetuity all in hopes of repairing some deteriorated windows which I think are deteriorated but apparently that’s up for debate for which this commission has admitted there isn’t adequate replacement plan. Despite spending large sums of money to comply with the various remedial measures recommended by the Commission, the temperature condition in the house is not improved enough to render it reasonably habitable for me and my kids. Sorry, I lost my place because I got a motion. I think it’s my judgment that the commission would have our family spend an additional 50 grand on the improvements that they’ve listed. On top of the $71,000 that we’ve I’ve already spent on more unhelpful remedial measures. One of the measures that was suggested with dark cellular shades. I don’t think anyone wants to live in the dark six months out of the year. So I don’t I don’t think that’s reasonable. And they want me to do all of this before financing $46,000 in wood, comparable design, custom windows, that will keep my house warm. They’ve already stated that it’s adequate. This plan is adequate on the record. So is this really drawing a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public’s interest in preserving windows? Is it reasonable to make this the only way that I can save my children from living and sleeping in 40 degree temperatures inside my home on the coldest nights, and no small thing that due to climate change, temperatures are more extreme now, and they’re not turning around. In my opinion, this is not a reasonable solution for a home. And I don’t think anyone here would be very happy with living under these conditions either. So that’s the basis by which I’d like the council, though, the questions were very neatly laid out for you. And the matters to be considered were very precisely worded. I’d like for you to perhaps consider the reasonability of this. I did submit a whole packet of papers yesterday. I didn’t really expect for them to factor into any into any presentations, but it just took me that long to get it all together. Okay, hold on one second to make sure that everything Oh, and I did want to add one thing. I’ve been engaging with one of the vendors that is on the new and improved historic Colorado vendors list. And surprisingly, for the first time I got a reaction I got a call back. It was actually the recommendation from the chairman of the commission. So I imagined the referral went some way. And I had them in my home yesterday and talked a great length with Terry Schmidt. At

Speaker 9 43:21
I will find the name of the company it is on that list, but it’s not readily available. I’m not going to make you stand around and watch me look through my email. And he said that storm windows and operation ability repair are a good step in the right direction and they will approach the efficiency of double pane windows but they will never be the same. They will never be the same and that’s from a historic preservation professional from a company that has been doing this for 25 years. So that’s that’s it should I sit for questions and come up if you have any.

Speaker 1 44:03
Let me open this up to counsel first into see if they have any questions or comments remembering what our can you bring up that last slide that you had as to the poor decisions that we need to make one of them so open up the Council for discussion. Councillor Crist

Speaker 10 44:31
you did Terry Schmitt mentioned whether the windows were repairable. They are Yeah. Okay. Have they ever been operable?

Speaker 9 44:40
No, not since I lived there, and especially not now because I’ve copped the ball because I was desperate. It

Speaker 10 44:46
was cold, and can he repair them to the point of being operable? Yes. Okay. Now, let’s see the somewhere in the package you mentioned that there was a The prior owners had baseboard heat and also standalone heaters in each room. Yeah. Yeah. So that seems to indicate that they were also having trouble maintaining a temperature. Yes. Yeah.

Speaker 9 45:12
That’s how it appeared to me. But that’s just an observation on my part. But yeah. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 45:18
And you got some help from efficiency works. Yes. Yeah. Did did you have to qualify for that?

Speaker 9 45:23
I did. Yes. So you’re under 80%? Ami for the county. Okay.

Speaker 10 45:31
All right. Does anyone else have some add on questions? Councillor mountain?

Speaker 3 45:37
Oh, yes. The this is just a logistical question. I have also lived in a house of comparable age. That was the first tried to have baseboard heating. And so I do know that it doesn’t work for an old house with high ceilings and stuff, stuff. And so, but you have already replaced that with a forced air gas furnace? Yeah,

Speaker 9 46:09
I have to actually I have one upstairs and one downstairs, they run at full capacity all winter, despite the lower temperatures and type.

Speaker 3 46:17
Okay. The The question I have is, I also have had home energy assessments. And when I got a home energy assessment, I got one machine readable email double PDF document. And so I don’t understand why it took many months to provide that document to the Commission for review.

Speaker 9 46:50
Yeah, well, mostly because initially, I was under the impression that we were exploring economic hardship. And so what I didn’t want to have happen. And this is probably more of an indicator of my deteriorated sense of trust in the Commission’s judgment. But I didn’t want to hand over an unfiltered list of things they could tell me to go do and spend 10s of 1000s of dollars on before they let me replace the windows, it didn’t seem. I tried to take the economic hardship tack, I stated, and was willing to provide documentation for the fact that I qualified for assistance from efficiency works, therefore, avoiding the need to enter my personal financials into public record forever and ever. But also answering the question of, of economic hardship. And so why it took that long Well, one. The reason I just explained lack of trust and the fact that I thought we were doing an economic hardship hearing, but also, when efficiency works, does an assessment with the intention of doing some of the work themselves and financing that they do not send you that energy assessment. I’ve spent more time on the phone than I’d like to admit, with the state questioning the the reasonableness or the ethics behind not disclosing the assessment of my own home with me before recommending improvements, but they do not release that information. So I was waiting for that for the for the resolution to that second situation before I turned anything in.

Speaker 3 48:45
Okay, I’m confused, because I thought, initially, you said you did receive that

Speaker 9 48:50
I’ve had to, I’ve had two energy assessments, why I’ve actually had three. The first one I had done a while back, and the guy was there the day I had to put my dog to sleep. And I kind of lost track of the details. And I couldn’t find that assessment anywhere. So I had another one. All of last year, I paid for that one. And then I found out that efficiency works have this program where they would fund the work, but only if I had them come back out and do the same assessment again, with a few extra questions tacked on. I did not know until literally three days ago that I didn’t have access to that assessment. I’ve been kind of chasing people in circles trying to get it. I just got a straight answer a few days ago. Okay, thank you. Yeah, sorry if that was unclear, but

Speaker 1 49:44
so you’ve had three assessments done? Yes. Yeah. Did you give any of them to the Commission? They just wanted one.

Speaker 9 49:56
Yeah, so I don’t have the first one. Like I said, I lost track of those. details. I don’t have the third one because I’m by law not allowed. And then yeah, the second one I delivered yesterday, I apologize for my lateness. I didn’t want to give them opportunity to send me home with tons of work to do that may or may not actually improve the situation. They speak with great authority on a home they’ve never stepped foot in.

Speaker 1 50:21
So the timeline for that assessment was when Jennifer

Speaker 8 50:29
so the assessment that was delivered to me yesterday, I do have copies if if it is this Council’s prerogative to augment the record. I received it yesterday. It is dated October 2 2023. I first requested it on, I believe, September. I can’t recall the exact date right now. It was the week after the first appeal hearing, I asked that it be provided by October 12. So that I can prepare my packet to the Commission gave some grace October 23. I requested the audit again, did not receive it received a response that I was not good that the applicant would not be supplying the audit to staff and to the commission. I will say that one of the primary reasons for requests in the audit as far as it actually goes to the question of economics, because there are very cost effective options out there that will have energy benefits, plus the Commission who are professionals. And do this work for a living wanted to be sure that the windows were actually the cause of the problem. In the absence of this audit, they could not determine that the windows were the cause of this problem. And in looking through the audit, it’s pretty clear they say windows and doors are rarely recommended for improvement due to high cost or for replacement due to high cost. Thermal blinds are recommended. I can tell you I have them myself throughout my house, I have light filtering ones it is not dark at all. But they are a very cost effective solution for maintaining thermal thermal regulation. But the ultimate, the issue is the commission could not determine whether window replacement, which is the vast majority of the time, the absolute the economics question.

Speaker 1 52:35
So my other question is, you have said Miss wolf that because the prior owner had space heaters and had some other heating, I guess, solutions that they were doing. So did that ever come up to the historic commission. With the previous owner. I know that you were in here,

Speaker 8 53:05
I could not find any records of any any certificates of appropriateness or anything with the previous owner. One thing to note is that the Commission does not get involved with interior with interior renovations or interior improvements. Unless there is a certain if there are certain tax credits being requested. And typically, that’s when you get into more federal tax credits. And those are for more commercial properties. So that did not come up. It was pointed out by a number of the commissioners that while baseboard heating, you know from an efficiency standpoint isn’t ideal, much like radiator heat in older homes. The way our chair described it is it effectively creates kind of a heat curtain over the windows. So even the so it can keep the house you know, it’s quite warm. But again, recognizing from a modern standpoint, it may not be the best option. However, there are, you know, historic reasons why that was done. I’d also like to take issue with one comment about there was a contractor that our chair recommended. He didn’t recommend them. It was the contractor who did the work on on the Callahan house, and it was just a hey, they may have time, why don’t you give them a call too, because they they are one of the few specialists in historic restoration. And they’ve actually done work for the city for city properties before so there wasn’t any sort of quid pro quo. It was strictly a, Hey, I know this group does this work, you should maybe maybe reach out to them in addition to the other folks on this list. And they were they’ve always been on the contractor list from History Colorado From what I recall.

Speaker 9 54:49
Just as a note there actually the Chairman said on the record that he spoke to the contractors about doing small jobs in reference to my home and said that he liked to do small jobs. Between larger jobs.

Speaker 8 55:03
It was more getting at general availability, because the applicant had indicated that there was difficulty finding people to do work. It was not a recommendation. Well, per se.

Speaker 1 55:16
To me, that isn’t an important point. I mean, I get it, it was somebody that that restored historical places, and good for you for for talking to them. So we have to decide what our recommendation is going to be. And I would like to hear from all of you. Councillor Yarborough, do you have any input on what you would? Oh, I didn’t see it. I guess you do.

Speaker 11 55:45
Thank you, Mayor, um, this, this is, of course, this is not my wheelhouse. As far as a historic preservation, I do believe that they do have professionals. And that’s why there’s a commission. And I did want to make sure that you had every opportunity to be able to appeal and see what you could do anything they could bring to you, so that you can accommodate their request, so that they can help you in any way possible. I kind of I don’t understand the part about waiting to waiting. I don’t know if there was a fear, like you said, for them to ask more money, they will be asking you to do more things with the property. But at the same time, if they needed that information, you know, you know, you were going to come back to us anyway. So we could have heard your you know, just like we’ve listened to you now, it is important for you to follow in, you know, submit whatever it is that they’re asking for, so that we can make a really sound decision, making sure you followed everything that they asked you and provided everything that they needed to make a solid decision. And so for me, I have a hard time. But you know, I can’t really go against them with anything, because they were waiting on that information for you to see if there was an economic hardship. Jennifer, if now that you have that information, I mean, have you reviewed it and looking to see if there was an economic hardship?

Speaker 8 57:36
So I did, I did read through the energy assessment that was submitted that was conducted in October. And it’s pretty clear, it doesn’t they don’t recommend replacing windows because they’re so expensive. And indicate in the quote that was submitted by the applicant, it was a $43,000. Quote, you know, when you layer different options that are less expensive, say you do the thermal shades, you do the storm windows, you do some heavier curtains, you will get and also the biggest the biggest thing the energy assessment stated was that the need to do insulation in the house and to seal air cracks as being the biggest bang for the buck project product projects to do. Which confirmed a lot of what the commission suspected and what their initial thoughts were. And that’s why they wanted to see this information because they want to documentation that the Windows was problem. The windows may be a problem, but they aren’t the only problem. And there are steps that can be taken to mitigate them.

Unknown Speaker 58:43
Somebody should or should we go through? Counselor?

Speaker 11 58:49
Yeah, I would like to hear from those who are on the Commission. In probably if counselor Rodriguez will want to you were on there previously. So I’d like to hear from you if you want to. If not, that’s fine. Because this is a difficult for me, it’s kind of hard, because when they are asking for information and the information wasn’t provided in a timely matter, I think it’s hard for them to make a decision. And for us he because originally I was saying number four, just to so that the whole Commission can go over what she brought to you and then make a decision, but I don’t want it to be a lot of back and forth if you keep requesting things and you’re not receiving it in a timely manner. So that’s my that’s my concern, but I would like to hear from everyone else. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 59:43
Counsel Rodriguez, do you have any options? Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see you again. Council McCoy.

Speaker 12 59:49
Thank you, Mayor. Well, I haven’t been on planning zoning before and been on the both my wife and I both served at different times on the historic preservation commission there, there are some obviously, serious issues around, you know, when we go about having buildings placed on the historic registry, and we we don’t take those sort of things lightly. Those folks that are serving on that some are somewhat amateurs like myself, and others are our, our CEU professors and others like that, who have had years of experience, and really know, you know, the in depth intricacies of the historic preservation. And, and, you know, when we, when we to councillor yarborough’s point, when we ask, it’s really important to get that so that we can move forward with it. And I think people want to be reasonable. But the thing is, is that, again, to councillor yarborough’s point, you know, the back and forth is concerning, I, I just think that when when people purchase these homes with that identifier on their, their deed, this is, this is something that maybe the house seems like too good to be true, it’s beautiful, it’s got a historic element to it, it’s, it’s got all these, you know, cool, unique, historic aspects that are just, you know, not put into homes today. But, you know, they do haven’t grown up in an old home that had, you know, windows that didn’t always seal, right, because they were so old. And they will park town, I can understand that. That’s it, that’s it, lets a problem. But if especially, you know, if it’s been put on the registry, now we’ve got a problem with, with that. And, and, you know, that’s, that’s why it takes a special sort of situation to get into something like that, it’s not easy when to be in our position to feel like we’re pushing this down your throat, nobody wants to do that. But in the other sense, I think everybody would like to make sure that we don’t open up a whole can of worms in regards that now people saying, Hey, by the way, I have the same situation, these old homes are drafty, and they have poor windows. But there are some serious fixes, like the total replacement. And then there are some fixes that can keep the character and and that’s the price of a house that’s on the historical registry, that you have to keep it in the, in the similar sort of character. So I think that we’re kind of in this circular sort of pattern, and I think we’re going to just have to break it unfortunately, I think it’s not going to be land on your side. I would not like that to be the case. But I don’t see how we can keep going in Sydney back to, to the historic preservation and, and, you know, come out with what it looks like it’s the same results. So I don’t know where to go from here other than to deny

Unknown Speaker 1:03:37
Sure, go ahead. Councillor Martin.

Speaker 3 1:03:40
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I think I agree with councilmember McCoy. The the occupant of the home was not compliant with the requests of the of the commission and that’s it’s kind of telling when the home assessment does not uphold the proposed action that the that the commission has recommended against so I think that the only thing that the council can can do is is uphold their decisions.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:21
Councillor Crist?

Unknown Speaker 1:04:26
Am I still able to respond to things?

Speaker 10 1:04:29
Oh, no, I’m actually gonna ask a few questions. Go ahead. Sorry,

Unknown Speaker 1:04:33
I’m sorry.

Speaker 9 1:04:50
So energy assessment aside, that was an error in judgment.

Speaker 10 1:05:02
maybe something you could share is why, why are you going for Window Replacement rather than the supposedly less expensive opportunities? Is it? Is it have to do with financing? Also,

Speaker 9 1:05:12
I’ve done? I’ve done some of the less expensive stuff. I’ve had gaps and cracks spilled on the outside of the house. I have clear cocked everywhere around the exterior walls at the baseboard, which when they did the blower door test was a big source of air movement. I purchased the window windows, that the Commission suggested that was $9,000.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:42
And those are the storm windows.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:44
And it was still important.

Speaker 10 1:05:49
Did Mr. Schmidt? Does he have time to work on your windows? And how much would that cost? Yeah,

Speaker 9 1:05:56
they’ve been really kind and responsive. They do have time. Which the timing could not be more bizarre, because I spent literally the better part of a year calling and not getting calls back. But. But yes, they have time, they said that exterior storm windows which are kind of irrelevant at this point, because I bought the windows would run about $500 a window. And that was just an eyeball estimate. I have not actually received heart estimate from them, because it was just a couple of days ago that I got them to the house. And it takes time to get people out. So yeah, and the operation ability improvements that the Commission suggested they they’re available to do the work. I don’t know how much it’s gonna cost. So

Speaker 10 1:06:55
and that’s something that could be financed through a home equity loan, because

Speaker 9 1:06:59
it’s a permanent fixture of the home. Yeah, the window operation. I imagine. I’m i I’m using my logic here and extending it to this, but I think it can be

Speaker 10 1:07:10
remind me how many windows you have 18? All weird sizes. And Ms. What would external storm windows be acceptable? I know that you deal with the exterior architectural features. And those would be absolutely

Speaker 8 1:07:28
they are acceptable. And in speaking with representatives from the State Historic Preservation Office, if we review the proposed proposed storm windows, if they are historically appropriate, there is the potential that Ms. Wolf could potentially get state income tax credits for it. There is a minimum a minimum project cost of $5,000. And then there’s I think 20 or 25% tax credit that is potentially available. But they would need to be determined to be historically correct or historically appropriate. But we absolutely permit his storm windows, they are something that is that you see historically on historic windows, and they don’t interfere with the with the permanent. They aren’t a permanent fixture.

Speaker 10 1:08:21
Okay. So this alternative is a possibility. Because what I see is a house that’s in good condition that’s been well kept. It seems like a lot of Mr. Trump has made a lot of attempts to try some of the solutions you’ve recommended. So I’m puzzled as to why the two of you can’t work together better. And I don’t I don’t mean you personally, I just mean that it seems like the historic preservation commission could no give advisement. And then the owner could try a few things. And you could work on a solution. So I would tend to be more in favor of number four, where we could go back for further consideration and maybe see how much you could improve this property to where you’re both satisfied. Because these are beautiful windows. They are remarkably in good shape for the age. And when you consider the hills that we have in this area. It’s really unique. But they have to have utility as well. So I appreciate both sides of this argument. And I don’t like making a decision that chooses one over the other. I guess that’s where we probably all sit. And so that’s my, my assessment.

Speaker 9 1:09:41
Councilman McCoy in response to what you said thank you for your statements, both of you. When I purchased this home, I had a partner who was handy. So I don’t have that partner. So so that kind of informs the where we’re out now. And unfortunately, with all of the publicity around this, I probably could not sell that house to most people, because they’ll know that they can’t replace the windows, even if I wanted to sell it. So, yeah, but I appreciate your unique perspective. Thank you both of you. Talk. Okay, do you have any comments?

Speaker 13 1:10:29
You know, so I have been, you know, and I really want to find a way to make this work. And, you know, because, you know, as representatives, we’re representatives to the people, you know, not the property. But, so that’s, you know, that’s my personal perspective. And so, you know, I did have, you know, a hard time kind of wrapping my head around, you know, and you already have heard this multiple times without holding the information. You know, I really would like to see, and it seems like we can be getting close to some kind of resolution between the two of getting the storm windows, if you’re willing to,

Speaker 9 1:11:10
I have interior ones now. Okay. Yeah. And

Speaker 13 1:11:14
so then would it have to be the exterior? You know, I’m still I’m not, this is not my area of expertise. So yeah,

Speaker 9 1:11:21
so the interior storm windows serves the same purpose as the exterior stuff, okay. Except I didn’t need to get a permit or ask for anyone’s permission, I was able to spend my money as I see fit on my property, try to improve the conditions. Yeah. But they’ve been installed for several weeks now. Improvement is extremely minimal, a couple degrees. So I kind of it if I improve the operation ability of the window behind the storm window, we can probably see some improvement, like where the, the sashes are kind of lopsided. Some of that’s due to settling and will require structural changes. Yeah. Which is like a snowball effect. But yeah, sorry, I might not have answered

Speaker 13 1:12:09
your question. Um, so you know, and then I guess, this question that would go to Jennifer. So with the new information received, would the commissioners, you know, come up with either a different set of criteria, a different set of recommendations or be able to have an opportunity to come closer to a resolution?

Speaker 8 1:12:31
I’ll be honest that and say, I don’t know the answer to that question. But based on what I’m seeing, what I see in the energy audit that I received yesterday, a lot of the suggestions in here are suggestions that the commissioners made during the hearings for this project, as far as the interior storm windows, which actually are now eligible for tax credit, a federal tax credit, checking on doing more insulation, doing, you know, making sure your gaps are sealed, they’ve made quite a number of suggestions. And I don’t know that the suggestions would change based on based on the information, the energy audit, which is pretty clear that because of the expense associated with window replacement, they don’t recommend it. They recommend doing things that are I don’t want to say incremental but taken together, they can have a quite a big impact.

Speaker 9 1:13:30
In regards to the energy assessment, when I had the folks to my house, I hadn’t done any of the fixative measures that the Commission had suggested that was back in October, I was still working on getting vendors out and getting the funding lined up with efficiency works. I really, really wish I had access to that other assessment, but it is literally against the rules for me to see it. As frustrating as that is. Maybe they’ll let you see it. But when the man Robert white, the assessor was at my house, I let him know about the situation, I let him know that the windows were a non starter and then I needed solutions that I could do myself. And immediately because I was looking I was staring winter down. This was literally that council meeting where you said Winter’s coming. And so I panicked. And probably that’s what informed my fear based decision and not sharing that information. But I asked him specifically not to talk about the windows however, if you look at the blower door images, you’ll see that the windows are bright red, because there’s air coming through them. So the other stuffs been done. So

Speaker 1 1:14:47
Okay, anyone else want to come in here? So, um, this is frustrating on both parts. But there are conditions when you buy historical Only designated home, I am really concerned about the three energy audits that you had done. And it took so long to get them to it, it’s, it’s basically I lost it that at any rate and want to go through that, um You did a lot to your home. But I do know that those curtains work because I’ve got forced air as well in my home. And if I don’t pull those curtains down at night, or on a very cold day, it doesn’t get warm in the house. But they do block it. I number four, we’ve already done that. We’ve and and the Commission has shown you some alternatives, how it won’t cost as much with the tax credits, et cetera. So I don’t see any reason to keep going through that process, it’s going to come back the same regardless that is the process and and until until all the recommendations or the most extreme recommendations that they make like like the window coverings, etcetera are done. You have options. And I don’t know what else to say. So I am going to do number one uphold their certificates of appropriateness of hardship.

Speaker 9 1:16:32
May I ask a clarifying question maybe your any Jennifer has the answer to the window coverings do something that interior storm windows don’t

Unknown Speaker 1:16:40
I have no idea, their

Speaker 8 1:16:41
installation their layers of insulation I can I can tell you from my own personal experience, much like Mayor Peck I have them in my own house. And I have both light filtering ones and blackouts but the light filtering ones led in quite a bit of light and you can definitely tell a difference on cold days when they’re open in the closed. It’s it’s a layer of its insulation is what it is so

Speaker 1 1:17:04
specially if you get the ones that are double that have the holes in each because the radiant heat from the window, heats that air within those pockets. And that is a barrier. So are you I’m going to do go with number one. Any other? I need some.

Speaker 1 1:17:39
All right. I move that we uphold hpcs decision on certificates of appropriateness and hardship. So I’ve been seconded by Councillor Martin, any other discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 1:18:17
So that carries 61 With Councillor Hidalgo faring in opposition. Thank you. The second one on our second reading is our 2024 dash dash 12 A resolution

Speaker 1 1:18:39
Okay, I’m sorry, I thought it was all right. We are now on Step Up, Up up up. Where are we at Walmart retirement? Yes, we are.

Speaker 1 1:19:00
ordinance approving the amendments to the city of Longmont retirement plans. Do we have a position? Okay. So it’s a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code adopting an amended and restated city of Longmont general employees retirement plan. Are there any questions from Council on this? Hill? Seeing none, I’ll open it up to the public hearing on 2024 Dash oh eight. Is there anybody from the public that would like to address this? Seeing none, let’s Councillor McCoy.

Speaker 12 1:19:47
I move ordinance 2024 Dash 08.

Speaker 1 1:19:57
It’s been moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor wrist Let’s vote

Speaker 1 1:20:08
that carries unanimously the second motion is a bill for an ordinance 2024 dash O not oh nine and Bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.85 of the Longmont Municipal Code adopting an amendment to the money accumulation pension plan for employees of the city of Longmont. Are there any questions or discussion on council? Seeing none, I will open this up to the public for public hearing. So anybody in the public that would like to address this ordinance? Seeing none, let’s vote make a motion. I’ll

Unknown Speaker 1:20:45
move ordinance 21 for dance oh nine

Speaker 1 1:20:50
It’s been moved by Councillor Hidalgo. fairing seconded by Councillor Yarbrough. Let’s vote. And that passes unanimously. 2024 Dash 10 is a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code adopting amendments to the City of Long Run old hire police pension plan and old hire fire pension plan. Are there any questions from Council? Seeing none, I would now open the public hearing on 2024 destin say anybody from the public that would like to address this ordinates Seeing none can I have a motion? Councillor Crist?

Speaker 10 1:21:39
I move that ordinance. 2024 Dash 10 be accepted. It’s

Speaker 1 1:21:45
been moved by Councillor Chris seconded by Councillor McCoy. Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 1:21:54
And that passes unanimously. A bill for an ordinance 2024 Dash 11 is 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. Are there any questions or comments from Council on this ordinance or bill? Seeing none, I would like to open it up to the public for a public hearing on 2024 Dash 11. Anybody from the public that would like to address this? Seeing none I’ll close the public hearing on 2024 11 and ask for a motion I’ll move

Unknown Speaker 1:22:35
Oregon 24 Dash 11

Speaker 1 1:22:39
by Councillor Hidalgo fairing seconded by Councillor Crist, let’s vote. And that passes unanimously 2024 Dash 12 as a bill for an ordinance amending section 3.0 4.885 of the Longmont Municipal Code adopting an amendment to the city of Longmont, fire employees pension plan and trust agreement. Are there any questions from Council on this ordinance? Seeing none, I’ll open up the public hearing on 2024 Dash 12 Anybody from the public that would like to address this bill? Seeing none I will close the public hearing on 2024 Dash 12 and ask for a motion

Speaker 1 1:23:29
second, it’s been Moved by Councillor McCoy seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing Let’s vote. And that passes unanimously 2024 Dash 13 is a bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city of Longmont and Gary Bo got the tenant at 12 748 Weld County Road one. There any questions or comments from Council? Seeing none, I will open it up to the public hearing. Is there anybody that would like to address 2024 desk 30 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on 2024 13 and ask

Unknown Speaker 1:24:10
for a motion I’ll move ordinance 2024 Guess

Speaker 1 1:24:14
it’s been Moved by Councillor Hidalgo fairings seconded by Councillor Martin Let’s vote. And that passes unanimously 2024 Dash 14 is 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 three, four C, the premises to LK holding company, LLC, the tenant. Are there any questions from Council on this ordinance or bill? Seeing none, I’ll open up the public hearing. Oh, I’m sorry. I was going way too fast. Councillor Martin?

Speaker 3 1:24:55
Yes, I I am. Just want to ask a handwritten Nice question that I’ve recently heard some conferring information about just this. Just this tenant actually keep an airplane in this hangar.

Speaker 14 1:25:16
Good evening, my name is Phil Phil Greenwald, transportation planner with the city of our plan planning manager of the city of online. And I believe he does have a hangar or he’s, he’s selling it to somebody who will own a hangar in this in this on a plane and

Speaker 3 1:25:28
on a plane. Yeah. Okay. All right. That’s all I wanted to know. Thank you.

Speaker 12 1:25:37
McCoy. So correct me if I’m wrong. The the the individual here is selling that to somebody that owns a plane, correct. I’m just checking to make sure that I heard that. Yes. Sorry. Thank you.

Speaker 1 1:25:54
Thank you. I don’t see any other questions in the queue from councillors. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this ordinance? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on 2024 Dash 14. Can I have a motion? For their second set it was Moved by Councillor Crist. seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing. Let’s vote. Now passes unanimously. So that is all that we have on the second reading. But we need to go back to the consent agenda. Councillor Martin removed? Items C and E. Councillor Martin?

Speaker 3 1:26:37
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I approve of electric vehicle parking in general. And I found myself a little bit confused about how the terms of the ordinance would operate in practice. So I just have a question. We have discussion and direction to counsel about land use, in specific changing further making further changes to our parking requirements for new buildings in general. Is this written in such a way that it’s going to have to be revisited? When the parking requirements change? Or or not? It’s not clear to me how that works. If if the parking requirements for new building are relaxed, so that the less parking is required? Is this ordinance gonna get out of kilter?

Speaker 15 1:27:41
Mayor councilmember Martin’s Good question. So the way the state law reads is that the Evie requirement is a function of the actual amount of parking that’s provided. So for any new development, however, many spaces they do provide, then a subset of those will have to be electric vehicle. And as you may recall, from the last time that there was a percentage of of the type of the amount of infrastructure, there were four different levels of infrastructure that would be required for developments have 10 or more units for multifamily developments. And so, so those percentages won’t change, regardless of the number of parking spaces provided for those developments that have over 10 parking spaces. So so it will remain consistent.

Speaker 3 1:28:35
Okay, I just just wanted to make sure that we were weren’t going to move an ordinance so that the math didn’t work and that you had considered that use case, essentially. All right. In that case, if no one else has any questions, I’ll move adoption of items. See.

Speaker 1 1:28:53
Okay. 2024 Dash seven team. Nine C was Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor McCoy. We have any more discussion by council Seeing none Let’s vote. And that passes unanimously. Councillor Martin, you also pulled II?

Speaker 3 1:29:14
Yes. And I have some questions about this one. That I mean, first, I want to make it clear that this is this is a resolution and that this is not a purchase by the city of have this equipment this rook device, but it’s just an agreement that we have access to it. Correct? Yeah. So I would just like to to make the point that the reason I’m questioning this is that Longmont is a city that is dedicated to community policing has been for a long time Do we have an approachable and accessible and I feel successful public safety force that does good in our community. And I’m really proud of that. And I think we all should be. But I do find the contrast between, you know, this, this ordinance or this, this resolution about sharing a tank with Douglas County. And yeah, maybe it’s a little bit of an exaggeration to call it a tank. But you know, it’s got treads, and it’s, you know, got a battering ram. And, and so it’s kind of a scary thing. And so it’s, it’s, there’s some irony in in having this resolution follow the one about lead and core. So what I what?

Speaker 14 1:30:50
Yeah, and it’s not a tank, but we can get a window. Yeah.

Speaker 3 1:30:59
Yeah, it looks like a cross between a tank and and a chess rook. So yeah, whatever it is, it’s kind of a scary looking device. First of all, I would wonder, since we’re not buying it, how how this came up to council, did Douglas County, get this grant and then approach us to be their partner because their grant required that they share it with other municipalities? Or, you know, how did happen?

Speaker 14 1:31:33
So Douglas County secured a grant. And part of that grant was to make it a Regional Resource to teams which involves the MOU, they also don’t want to lend that vehicle out, without some consideration for replacement if it was damaged. Officers would be to trade on it. So when it was used, they would provide a driver and equipment and get it here. But from my personal standpoint, I would hope we would never have to use it. But hope is not a perfect strategy. Yes, it’s a piece of equipment that in a very extreme life safety measure, could save lives. Officer lives civilian lives. And if we need it, it’s a tool that would be available to us.

Speaker 3 1:32:20
How long do you anticipate that it will take in the in the in the case of a need for it? How long does it take to get it from Douglas County up to probably

Speaker 14 1:32:33
two hours. We’ve used a similar vehicle on two occasions in Longmont once during the residency and when the we had to access the third floor where the person blew up the hotel room. And then another one was where a person had threatened his neighbors with an AR 15 style rifle. It turned out to be a paint gun in the end, but we didn’t know he barricaded in his house, we use that same vehicle is called essentially has a ladder on top of the truck that can lift you up to the third floor with ballistic protection. That would be those similar examples. And that’s probably over five years. And for operational planning, I think it would be very rare when we would consider it it would be have to be we evaluate all our warrant service based on the risk. So it would be a very high risk kind of scenario where we would anticipate needing that. And I at this point, we have other resources we have the Bearcat that we share with Boulder County which is armored. So we have some of those tools available to us. Larimer County has some that we can borrow. And we also share those resources regularly with other agencies. Okay.

Speaker 3 1:33:53
The you know, there is there is a concern that, that, that, you know, having military grade equipment or in a in a police force tends to change the image and perhaps the behavior of of the public safety organization. And, and that’s my concern that I just wanted to bring up. There is a federal program for getting military surplus equipment and providing that surplus equipment to to the public safety force. Well, this is not part of that program. And I want to make that clear. That’s correct. But what kind of equipment in the past has has has long been obtained and what how do you have now through that federal program

Speaker 14 1:34:51
and last, I don’t remember when we brought it to you but we lease a night vision goggles from the Navy and And then we have a small robot. They call it a ground drone. It’s a small robot. Again, when we go on these operations, the last thing we want to do is go into that structure. Sure tools available to us the robots, the drones are bomb robot, that we explore those locations, with tools and pieces of equipment versus people. And that this tool is one of those tools that will keep officers safe, keep the community safe if we have to evacuate. But we don’t have any, any military vehicles or military guns, the weapons we purchase are very similar to what any citizen can buy. Our officers have hangers, and they can purchase their own rifles. Sure.

Speaker 3 1:35:53
And I wanted to make that point in the bomb row robot, actually, it moves a suspected explosive device away with without an officer having to approach it is what it does,

Speaker 14 1:36:05
we can use it for that. And we do use it for that. But we also use it to search a house. So rather than send a person and we drive the robot into the house, it can climb stairs, it can open doors, and we can communicate through that robot. We will also break windows, fly the drone into the house and search the house. We try to clear as much as we can without putting people at risk in that structure. Okay,

Speaker 3 1:36:30
good story. I like that. I don’t and that’s it. I wanted to make it clear. And given that if nobody else has any questions, I will move approval of the resolution

Speaker 1 1:36:49
so resolution, nine e r 2024. Dash 11 was Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor McCoy. In more discussion? I do. Yes. I’m curious. Are we the only municipality that’s going to have an MOU with Douglas County to use this?

Speaker 14 1:37:08
I don’t know how many people they reached out. They reached out to every all the SWAT teams kind of work together. So they reached out to a lot of different departments. So I don’t we’re not the only one. Okay. Sure. Castle Rock and many of the ones Yeah. Okay.

Speaker 1 1:37:24
Thank you. So let’s vote.

Speaker 1 1:37:33
That passes unanimously. Thank you. And let’s take a five minute break.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:37
Thank you, America. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:37:42
we don’t want to be scary.

Speaker 1 1:46:52
Now we’re gonna move on to general business the first thing on general business is a bill for an ordinance 2024 Dash 18 Suze, counselor Hidalgo, fairing waving. Hello. It’s a bill for an ordinance authorizing approval of the Longmont planning area comprehensive plan.

Speaker 16 1:47:26
Good evening, mayor and council members, Glen van Inwagen Planning and Development Services Director and give you a little bit of short history on the property. We did make a presentation on two agreements that we have like Boulder County regarding our planning area. One is the one you’re reviewing tonight, which is specifically between Boulder County and the city of Longmont. And then there was the super IGA that we presented back on May 3. What your direction to us was to continue to negotiate to update those two agreements, they had, at that point, a drop dead date of October 16 2023. You gave us direction to work with staff and address and also include something regarding affordable housing in that agreement. So we’ve done that we’ve worked with, it’s Hannah Shipley, who’s the planning manager at Boulder County, and with a team of staff members here with the city of Longmont. And we have for you a completely new agreement, because both those agreements did expire last October. And I think what our joint staffs realize is, that was that agreement was originally done in 1997. It was it needed an overhaul, so you’re gonna see a completely new agreement this evening. And then ultimately, you will see that super IGA the county wants to get other communities that are in Boulder County to buy into the one on one agreement between them, and then they’ll bring the big umbrella agreement to you in the future. So the basic tenant of this agreement is to keep the county rural and as open space agricultural uses, uses kind of define Longmont by that green border around the community and but at the same time support our growth inside our planning area. So that’s what the agreement has. We support growth in the city planning areas through defining where the county can buy open space where the city can buy open space, and then how we permit building infrastructure that supports our community in Boulder County. Just I showed this to you back in May. This is supported by envision Longmont that talks about the urban design of surrounding the community by open spaces so that we do appear as a free standing community. And that it’s it’s to the benefit of our residents to have agricultural uses maintained in Boulder County on our perimeter. I want to talk about the two exhibits, and all the geographic terms that are in your agreement with a bunch of acronyms. So I might use a more common term for some of these things. But one of them is the city itself, which is areas that have been annex that we provide services to. That’s all the gray areas in these two maps. We have the Longmont annexation boundary, which is that purple line that surrounds our planning area in Boulder County. And again, this is right out of Envision long month, there’s not a different line here than what’s in our comprehensive plan. Potential annexation areas are those white areas that have not been annexed yet shown on the map between within the planning area boundary. And then the rural preservation area, which is really what the county is concerned about is all the area outside that purple line, which is under Boulder County control, and will stay that way unless there’s a separate agreement. And then we added something new with this agreement, and that is the coordinated planning area. Again, it comes right out of Envision Longmont that’s the map on the left, that’s the area that’s actually out of Boulder County, where we have separate agreements with Firestone and Mead, and Weld County on what happens there. But the county does purchase open space outside the county. In fact, in our staff report, we gave you a example of our joint agreement where we purchased the PowerShell open space in Weld County. And basically we have some provisions now in Weld County in our Boulder County agreement. So that’s pretty clear. Sure. So a couple of the requirements regarding an annexation the city only annexation annex those areas within our planning area that hadn’t been annexed yet. We won’t annex outside our planning area boundary unless we happen to have a compelling reason and the county agrees and we come back and we amend this agreement. But generally our annexations are limited to within our planning area. Areas that are county islands that hadn’t been annexed yet. We notify the county promptly when somebody does propose annexation and show them what’s being proposed. Really the only reason they look at it is say is it in conformance with this agreement. We can’t expand those annexation areas, which means we can’t annex out into the county beyond that planning area boundary. But again, we do have a provision that by mutual agreement, we can amend these provisions in the agreement. Then open space purchases. This agreement says Boulder County will not purchase open space of any in any of those annexation areas and those county islands that’s with our planning area. They won’t purchase open space in our Longmont annexation boundary that purple line. The county will not grab open space or purchase open space within there. And then we added our coordinated planning area as well that that portion of the area in Weld County. However, Longmont can purchase open space in any of those areas. So it does not tie long bonds hands. And then we have a few other provisions. One regarding there is a permitting process for through Boulder County that is rather extensive or any kind of infrastructure, but because we are part of this agreement, basically the county says what Longmont is doing as far as infrastructure meets our complement our comp plan, therefore, it’s it’s a bit of a streamline process. And I mentioned in the agreement that the Nelson Flanders plant is Stephen They’re going to be a candidate for some additional expansion permitting. So this is a part of the agreement that actually goes back to 1997. And we’re extending it forward into this agreement. We

Speaker 16 1:55:16
provided a new chapter about or a section about housing affordability being a regional concern. I think the county folks feel that we do have a regional housing partnership with Longmont and a lot of the communities in Boulder County. But if we need to emphasize that, they they felt that was a good provision. So I think we’re open to other ideas at this point. But I think from staff standpoint, I think we’re doing something a bit more, certainly was silent on it. With the previous agreement. The county folks told me that this does add a lot of strength because other communities will be buying in with with similar requirements. So more the merrier. And I think we have a better chance of making sure this is a regional issue, and everybody is sharing in the solution. As far as providing affordable housing. We added a section about the sugar factory, we’ve talked about recently, the redevelopment of the sugar factor area, it’s going to be an important redevelopment area for us. At the time, we drafted this agreement, potentially we well, we may want to clean it up before it it sanics. So again, will you be beholding to Boulder County to help us issue permits, and that could be small grading demolition permits. But they’ve agreed that they would that we have a joint interest in seeing something else happen on the sugar factory site, and they’ll help expedite those permits. One of the things that county staff added is they realize that we’re burdened by some nonconforming uses that are in those county islands in those future annexation areas. And they’re really industrial areas that are uses over and above what envision Longmont in envision so they offered up the fact that they’ll evaluate their zoning and potentially look at rezoning some of these areas to be in conformance with long Monson vision long been our comprehensive plan. So I think that’s a pretty big step. And I think they are doing this and some of the other communities. Lyons I think is one of them that they’re actually taking steps to zone nonconforming uses to be conforming with that city’s comprehensive plan. So a pretty big step there. And then on top of that, I think this is really a repeat is at Longmont would strive to annex those areas those enclaves or county islands that are within our planning area. And I think that’s basically it. We’ve been presumptuous hoping that we you could approve this on first reading. But we certainly would offer steps between one and two, if you would like to come back for first reading and second reading. But we are recommending and hoping you approve this on first reading. And I’ll come back for a public hearing on the 27th I believe so I’d be happy to answer any questions that council might have.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:41
Councillor Benton?

Speaker 3 1:58:44
Yes. There are some things about envision Longmont that are a little bit behind the curve in terms of of urban development policy as it stands today. This is a kind of peripheral to the issue at hand. But is is there an update to envision Longmont in its in its near future?

Speaker 16 1:59:09
Well, technically, the transportation plan is an update at least the transportation element of Envision Longmont so that’s going through now. We really wanted the community to focus on that. So we are tentatively talking about closer to the end of the year starting the overall land use part okay modifying envision Longmont

Speaker 3 1:59:33
Well, that’s a pretty near future that’s near enough for me. And the other question I had is, is is Boulder County aligned with our intention to annex the enclaves

Speaker 16 1:59:48
that they encourage it, they do encourage it and that ultimately is the ultimate answer as far as non conforming uses.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:57
Okay, thank you. Those are the only questions I have Got it.

Speaker 17 2:00:00
I would say on in terms of Envision Longmont, we did have the conversation about doing it sooner. That was staff capacity. That was an issue that we were struggling with. So on target at the end of the year, if we have significant staffing challenges, we’ll definitely be talking to council about capacity to do it. But at this point, I think we’re on pace.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:23
Councillor McCoy?

Speaker 12 2:00:27
Thank you, man. There are going to be some folks out there that are watching that kind of want to know if in these mad, if you’re referring to enclaves, as like, areas like the Kanemoto conservation easement, is that considered enclave? It just making sure that the public is aware of that?

Speaker 16 2:01:00
is definitely one of those areas that’s within our planning area yet to be annexed.

Speaker 12 2:01:04
Okay. And then on the maps there just for their for the general public’s education. Are we seeing that in that purple outline map? Yeah, I

Unknown Speaker 2:01:18
can jump back I

Speaker 16 2:01:26
wish I could point at it, but you can see where the diagonal highway comes up. And Oh.

Speaker 12 2:01:37
Great. I see it there on airport diagonal highways and red airports on the left for those that cannons. Yeah. And it’s just that

Unknown Speaker 2:01:47
point or is

Speaker 12 2:01:50
right. It doesn’t lock us in anything. It’s just a kind of a general guideline of That’s correct. All right. I’m just making sure the folks that are watching are, you know, up to speed. So they don’t assume we’re just doing this at nine o’clock at night?

Speaker 16 2:02:09
Correct. There’s a full process for the annexation and zoning that has to go through numerous public hearings. So no, it doesn’t happen overnight.

Unknown Speaker 2:02:19
All right. Thank you for your time. And I appreciate sir.

Speaker 1 2:02:23
Sorry, I have a couple of questions. You mentioned the open space in Weld County, and that the distal and toll properties in Weld County. Can we annex those? Or because they’re not in Boulder County? I don’t know what the Weld County and I know you touched on it.

Speaker 16 2:02:46
Well, there’s nothing that is greement. That would keep us from annexing the areas in Weld County. We do have a separate agreement with Weld County. So I think David, maybe

Speaker 1 2:02:59
I can that’s okay. Okay, clean. I can find that out. I was just one that answer. Okay.

Speaker 16 2:03:06
There’s nothing in this agreement that would keep us from annexing those or purchasing those areas.

Speaker 1 2:03:12
And I would like your definition of an enclave when we disclose to a past conversation that I had. When you say the enclaves within our city that are actually Boulder County properties, when you say annex the Enclave

Speaker 16 2:03:37
perhaps more accurate term would be that’d be maybe more universal as a county Island. Okay, and when you think about an enclave it’s completely surrounded by Longmont. But as you can see, not all these areas are completely surrounded by Longmont. There’s some on the edges Kanemoto being one of them that is not completely surrounded by Longmont. So I would say anything that is a county. I call them islands within that purple boundary. You could call enclave now. I think there’s a legal term regarding different annexation processes. If a property is completely surrounded. I’m not exactly sure about those nuances, though.

Speaker 1 2:04:23
Oh, nice. Nice dodge there.

Unknown Speaker 2:04:27
We do have experts. So

Speaker 1 2:04:32
or our council said and I don’t I can’t know it verbatim the ordinance that we won’t annex unless they are asked to be annexed my statement correctly to follow the directions for Canada not to force the annex. Do you think when we annex and enclaves at the end that the definition of annexing an island would be the entire island are just a portion of it. This, this goes to or a parcel of it. Yeah,

Speaker 16 2:05:09
I think chipping away even incrementally, I think meets what the goal of this agreement is. Mayor and if you have a policy that says the owner has to sign on, then that’s the policy we follow.

Speaker 1 2:05:23
Okay. I guess Aaron’s correct. It’s hard for me to say thank you. Seeing no other questions. Do Can I have a motion is to adopting?

Speaker 1 2:05:45
ordinance 2024 18. Great. Councillor Rodriguez moved 2024 18 seconded by Councillor Martin. Let’s vote.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:03
That passes unanimously. Thank you, Glen.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:05
Thank you.

Speaker 1 2:06:12
No, we are at B which is going to expand this to be good here. B times up.

Speaker 1 2:06:32
So the next one is a proposed ordinance amending section 13.20 point oh, five oh, public lands regulations and adding section 13.2 point 110. And I see David Bell at the podium.

Speaker 18 2:07:03
Good evening, mayor and council David Bell, Director parks natural resources. In your packet this evening. You have the proposed amendments to chapter 13. There’s a few there, but I think there’s enough information in the actual ordinances. And then we tried to in previous summary on the front of that. So we don’t have a prepared presentation. We’ve done that presentation with prab. We’ve gone through that we’ve taken their advice and guidance, we’ve made some changes. So tonight, I have with me some staff, I have Elizabeth rain Mills, Assistant Senior Assistant City Attorney, Bryce Bray, who is our senior ranger at parks and open space. And then Chelsea is going to be our senior Ranger out at noon reservoir. So we really want you to nice, make sure that if you have questions, you can ask us we do have something we pull up and look at it together. But this is a zero reading. So this gives you the chance to make some comments, because there’s chance to take it back and then it will come back on the first reading after that. So

Speaker 1 2:07:59
it looks more like it’s a client a cleanup type of bill. It

Speaker 18 2:08:04
really is at this point. Yeah. There’s there’s, I’d say there’s one in there for sure. I think there’s going to be that those will be able to talk about more, it’s probably the is it the the penalty

Speaker 19 2:08:13
sections, I think is a significant change. And the idea is to incarceration would not be an option for a lot of these parks violations, they would move to a find similar to how the state does it. And so that would be the real substantive change that encountered should be aware of, okay,

Speaker 18 2:08:31
I appreciate it. And that really does get help our rangers out in the park a lot of times are meeting with people they have a lower level of violation at the current situation that goes to court and the judge decides what’s happened. So there’s a lot of uncertainty with this. This way, if someone’s out there, they have a dog off leash or fishing violations, the Ranger can make that contact with the officer who made that contact. And here’s the violation. And here’s what you’re being charged for. You can either pay that or that is your choice if you do want to go to court, but it makes a whole lot more certainty in the field as we’re trying to force these lower level rules and regulations.

Unknown Speaker 2:09:03
I like that Councillor Buckley?

Speaker 12 2:09:07
Thank you, Mr. Peck. Can you address the issue around amendment five that we had the conversation at? Grab about? It was kind of the end give us kind of a bit of a flavor of that.

Speaker 18 2:09:27
We’ll go ahead and restaurants up here and pull up your PowerPoint and we can pull that one up so we can take a look at that together and we’ll walk through that

Speaker 12 2:09:45
yeah, it’s just the right one. Yep. Just our conversation when we were talking about how we wanted to be careful about what we were talking about with, like sometimes people would want to spread the ashes their loved ones. Oh,

Unknown Speaker 2:10:01
I gotcha. That would be

Unknown Speaker 2:10:06
this one. Okay, sorry.

Speaker 20 2:10:09
Yep. So this new ordinance would be for, like you said, like spreading ashes depositing personal property things we don’t want to call trash right now that would fall under trash. And that’s can be disrespectful to certain items that are left behind. So by saying deposit store or install items of personal property, we’re not calling these items trash, but we’re also protecting the public lands

Speaker 12 2:10:40
I just want the general public that wasn’t, didn’t attend brab or watch the radio or that see this understand that? That nuance there. Because that’s, you know, kind of the flavor of our conversation there as the group and I thought that was really great that you, you made those distinctions. Because I, you can probably tell that people, the council that people are doing this, you know, out of the best intentions, but but probably not very health conscious for the community as a whole.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:20
Right. Thank you, sir.

Speaker 10 2:11:29
Do we have any other discussion or questions from Council? Okay, Councillor Crist. I have a concern about fines. I know that the public is responsible for understanding ordinances, but it is actually a large body of work ordinances for the city. And so I have a schoolmate that is a park ranger. And as sirpur, it’s probably 25 years. And at one time, they imposed fines. And he said it was really just just a mess. You know, first everybody wanted the fines, then everybody complained about the fines. And the thing is, you have a lot of choice when it comes to recreation in the state of Colorado. So then the businesses were concerned that it was driving away tourism. And so then I came back against the Rangers actually, that people that were giving too many fines were let go from the Ranger duties. And so it just became a circle of disquiet, if you will. And I’m concerned, I’m concerned about fine fines, because the public has come to us many times saying, you know, they’re upset about taxes, they’re feel like there’s a heavy burden right now in terms of costs, cost of living and, you know, taxes on, you know, we had maybe eight people come and talk to us about taxes about groceries, I think they would perceive this as yet another tax. And something that my my friend mentioned is, the thing is, you can never have enough signs in open space. So there’s always somebody who didn’t see the sign, who’s gonna argue this with the judge, they found in the very end that every every ticket they were giving was actually costing the city and he’s worked for a couple of different cities, at least $1,000. So they were never making back the effort that they were putting out. So eventually, they just decided that was more of a where he is now more of how to interact with nature in a way that’s safe for humans and preserves the natural elements. And that that interaction, betting kind of engagement has been more positive. So I, I would like to see less penalties and more, more engagement, at least at this time, and I guess maybe what I would like to see you come back with is if you could do some studies of cities in the area and what they might be doing, because I understand you were gonna when we’re talking about storing property and what have you on public lands and camping, I know we’re in a we’re in kind of a different situation than we’ve been in, in the past. So I just would like to know what other cities are doing, have some consistency in the region, because we will be competing with them for participation in nature and beautiful environments.

Speaker 18 2:14:48
Mayor Peck council member Crist, David Bell again and again. I think this I hear you’re saying I think there’s one of the reasons the Rangers brought this forward really, because right now this is going to court is taking the job Just time there’s uncertainty, that fine can be fairly steep, it can be less it can have jail time with it. So what this is really doing is trying to get down to a a, a known quantity for a violation. With our ranger group I have worked with arrange with Porter County price and Chelsea have worked with Aurora, and price up a button Rock has worked with City of Boulder, and Pitkin County. So we looked at all those different agencies trying to make sure that we were consistent with that. And that we were trying to put a little bit of teeth into rules and REG violations, where we don’t think that education piece is working for us. And our price can talk a little bit about the numbers we keep and how many warnings and educational contexts we make versus how many tickets we’re actually writing. So I do hear you’re saying that was really one of the driving forces is how be more equitable with our community? How can we make it easier for ranchers have contacts, but still how do we have the ability to make people recognize it if you’re hunting on open space, if you’re harassing wildlife on space, if you’re damaging our property, that some of those things do have consequences. And if you don’t mind, if Bob Rice you could talk about some of the numbers you you’ve collected this year with your contacts.

Speaker 20 2:16:17
So about you said it beautifully about what Rangers are trying to do. We’re educators not enforcers. Like they were saying our contacts last year, I think 97 enforcement context last year 97% resulted in a warning or just education, and 3% made it to the full summons portion. So basically, the way that we work as educators giving people the benefit of the doubt, first warning, second warnings, if you’re getting to the point where we’re writing you $100 $200 ticket, you’ve been warned multiple times, and you’re just disregarding the rules at this point. So even if you missed the sign, then that’s on the sign. Now I will speak to you I will relay what the rule is why the rule exists, how it’s protecting the resource, and give you that benefit of the doubt. It had to be a very extreme circumstance of why I’m writing you a ticket, first time I ever talked to you. So we’d like to be educators, we’d like to have that discretion. We trust that people that are in open space and public lands are trying to do the right thing. And maybe it’s just ignorance of the rule or not understanding how their actions are affecting the resource. And that’s what we’re here for. So we’re not going around handing out 100 lotto tickets every day. I think we wrote maybe 12 Last year out of 1000s of contacts. So it’s in the very extreme rare occurrence where our education and our warnings are going on listened to. And we’re kind of left with this as our final way to get people to follow the rules. But ideally, this is an extreme circumstance, and I don’t like writing tickets. It’s it makes for bad context. I’d rather be the friendly park ranger and kind of explain why the rules are the rules and get people to engage in why we’re protecting this resource.

Speaker 10 2:18:04
How are the 12 tickets that you wrote? Were they successful? Did you get fines?

Speaker 20 2:18:12
Yeah. They went to bed went to court because they were court summons. And then they were prosecuted in court.

Speaker 10 2:18:19
Yeah. And they ended up paying the fines because that was the other thing that came up in our conversation is then sometimes they don’t get the fines don’t get paid. And then you know, you’re trying to collect that

Speaker 20 2:18:29
or hear back from from the courts on what the final result is. Did they pay the fine or they delinquent? Did they get a warrant for failure to appear? I really don’t get that feedback. Unless I’m summoned to court to testify But to the best of my knowledge, most of them are paid but that’s that would be a guess I’m not sure how many FDA or didn’t pay.

Speaker 10 2:18:52
Okay, and what would you say are your main concerns in terms of violations?

Speaker 20 2:18:59
For like a ticket bull offense? See, most of them are dog off leash when I’ve talked to them 234 times. Every Ranger might have one or two that is just to ticket first dents like child without lifejacket if I contact a parent and their child on the water without a lifejacket. Could I give them a warning? Yes, but that’s a serious offense in my book. So I go ahead and write the ticket and let them know how serious that is.

Speaker 3 2:19:28
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Martin. Thank you, Mayor Peck. Um, in general, it sounds like you have a lot of discretion about whether you write a ticket or not. And I just want to ask a question to talk about how important that is. Now if somebody that is doing something like your child with a life jacket is a great example or or using a A powered water vehicle where it’s not appropriate, you know those things. fines for those things are great because they are a deterrent to the people that are going to incur those violations. I see a lot of, you know, fires in certain in certain places, and there may be some about camping. There’s a class of violations that are more likely and more able to be committed by indigence in the in the open space. And my concern is that fines are not really meaningful as a deterrent to an indigent because they never have any money and they’re never going to pay them. But they can become a you know, a stack of pin of overdue fines can become a deterrent when that person finally comes in from the cold and wants to enter coordinated entry or some other program that will help them become housed. And then they’ve got these pending fines. So are you aware of? Or are your Rangers aware of using their discretion and not finding people in that classification? So that that, you know, that bad outcome doesn’t happen, or is less likely to happen?

Speaker 18 2:21:29
Councilmember David Bell, as I just want to start this with, could answer that perfectly. But as the person that I think sets the tone for this, I want you to know what a great group Rangers they have out there. And their first piece is that education, but also providing information and services that the city provides. That’s the first contact they have when someone’s out there, and they’re experiencing homelessness is what do you need? First? How can you help you get to that they work in conjunction with other city services to provide that they call them as backup or support when they’re making those contacts. But again, sometimes it was always can progress. But we were doing that in a very methodical process as we’re working with our other agencies in house here. But I want to set that as a tone of this group that, again, our first piece of people are in that situation is we’re trying to help them access the services they need. But then at some point, we we have to make sure that they’re also responsible for activities, and we’ve had fires out on open space properties in our parks, because of people having an ad because they weren’t taking advantage of those services, it was going to share a piece too, when these nights are cold and stuff. Price has been out there with hot chocolate trying to get people to take services. So that’s the kind of range that you have out there. So that’s I’ll let you guys good. Don, if you want anything else was your price,

Speaker 20 2:22:41
you’re 100% Correct that what’s more likely to get someone to engage with without reach $100 ticket

Unknown Speaker 2:22:48
or hot chocolate? Yeah,

Speaker 20 2:22:49
we’re getting like risk management and harm reduction involved. That’s, that’s much more effective than adding to their rap sheet or giving them a warrant that it’s not helping anyone. Say we’ll do a lot of public outreach resource referrals. If it gets to the point where we have to write a ticket, then I mean, at some point, I might have to go that route. But like David said, as Rangers, I feel like we’re good people, we care about other people. And we do a good job of taking that discretion. We’re trying to use the least enforcement necessary to get the job done. So if a simple talking and an offering resources to get the job done, then why am I writing assignments? That’s, that’s overkill.

Speaker 3 2:23:33
So you do them carry materials, you that you can, can give way information that people can use to access services? Absolutely. Cuz I, you know, I had heard this said in the past, I just wanted to make it public that it’s still true, that you’re still doing this. One other question is, do you feel like the Rangers after a while get to know the people who are in and around Longmont and in that situation? You know who they are? Yep. Okay. All right. That’s good to know, too. Thank you, of course.

Speaker 1 2:24:11
Thank you seeing no other questions in the queue. I am going to move to direct staff to bring back the ordinance as presented. All right. Is there any more discussion? Seeing none, I moved the let’s see. It was ordinance 13.20. point oh, five vote. And it was seconded by Councillor McCoy.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:33
I think I’m sorry.

Speaker 17 2:24:35
You just need to direct this to bring us back. This is first reading, or this is zero reading. So

Speaker 1 2:24:40
it’s just in your back. And that’s right. That was the amended section. So bring it back.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:47
Let’s vote. Thank you. Council

Speaker 1 2:24:54
Passes unanimously, thank you very much. The next thing on our agenda is the 2020 For legislation bills recommended.

Speaker 21 2:25:13
Mayor pack members of city council Sandy cedar assistant city manager, we actually only have one bill today because Matt, just let me know that the pet animal licensing has postponed indefinitely. So you go. So the only bill that we’re discussing today is House Bill 2014 98. This is this is a tough bill. And I certainly recognize the support that we heard during public invited to be heard, it feels to me like it’s very well meeting and really trying to help people to stay in housing. But there’s some things that actually discourage housing, that are also part of it. So let me kind of go through it and and let you know, the analysis. And then of course, it’s of course, your choice. So this bill House Bill 298, concerning protections for residential tenants and requiring cause for the eviction of residential tenant really is, you know, as I said, I think it’s well meaning. But some of the details create less fair and affordable housing for example, the bill would effectively mandate the minimum 90 Day leases and eliminate the feasibility of month to month leases. Due to the non renewal noticing requirements. For anyone who’s needed that kind of flexibility month to month, renting is certainly a really good option. The bill would also only allow non renewal renewal of a lease in certain circumstances and would require the landlord to pay for relocation benefits for a non renewal of a lease outside of the allowable circumstances and it gives a list of what those look like. Sometimes non renewal of a lease is a less impactful way to settle issues with tenants with behavioral issues that cause problems for neighbors. If the bill passes, the only option to address behavioral issues is eviction, which is a costly route to take for the landlord and the tenant may pit neighbor against neighbor in court. And the record of eviction may impact the long term by viability of tenancy. Additionally, if a 12 month lease means that the landlord would also be subject to paying for three months of relocation expenses, there’s a concern that landlords will just increase their rents to be able to cover that risk of the higher risk of renting. Without the ability of landlords to set predictable lease terms, the prospects of renting overall may turn off some landlords to wanting to rent in the first place would hurt the housing market for low income households. The Colorado statutes already prohibit non renewable for certain renewal for certain reasons, including fair housing laws and protected classes. Obviously, affordable housing as a priority to the city council. While the bill is well meeting, there certainly are some big impacts that might be caused. And so the staff recommends City Council oppose 2410 90.

Unknown Speaker 2:27:49
Councillor McCoy,

Speaker 12 2:27:50
so Sandy, in this situation here, if a landlord has already has been identified for not doing certain things, and with the city or the state or whatnot, then they have to, to apply cause Am I correct and an understanding that, that they have to, if they’re going to let somebody go at the end of their lease, if they’ve been, you know, they’ve been neglectful about, you know, fixing a leak or some other thing or, you know, a faulty electricity or something like that, and they haven’t fixed it, haven’t fixed it. And then they had that tenant had to bring it to like our housing authority or some group like that, that handles that type of thing. Would that be then would they have to prove cause in that situation? You

Speaker 21 2:28:45
know, there are certainly some pieces that that really make sure that you can’t do non renewable, non renewable for fair housing laws for protected classes. In that particular situation, I guess it’s kind of complicated, because if they had, if they were using a section eight voucher, there are requirements that go along with that, that would require the landlord to give particular sets of cause. I think what this bill is trying to do is to make sure that landlords aren’t just kicking people out with no real reason. Right. And that’s very well meaning and a good idea. But at the same time, you know, I think some of the downsides of it, you know, create more problems, to answer your question specifically, I’m not sure that they would have to think of the

Speaker 12 2:29:26
answer. Yeah, if it gets cited for something they have to then my understanding that maybe I missed a misunderstanding it and maybe somebody can tell me differently, but that if you’re at that stage where you’ve had repetitive things where you had to go and get, you know, city or county or some group, like that involved, because the landlord’s not being responsive, then when they go to, you know, finalize the lease with that individual I have to give cars but maybe I

Speaker 17 2:29:59
So I think with this legislation is really, if you’re the landlord, and you’re going to terminate the lease in terms of terminating the lease to really see, it’s about cause and so it’s a little bit different than the tenant having an issue with the landlord, because then that will fall under this something fall under Fair Housing does it fall under habitability standards, that’s sort of the reverse coming in. This is really about the landlords and the actions they take with individuals,

Speaker 12 2:30:28
right, and just not having to give cause most landlords if they haven’t been saved for that they fixed it, but they feel like that the tenant has been released, you know, the squeaky wheel bad stuff, they haven’t involved some other entity into it. But they are always, you know, this needs pain that needs changing, that needs fixing. The landlord says, At the end of their 12 month lease, I don’t have to give you cause to do that. And that’s what this indicates. But if the landlord, what I was asking is if the landlord has been cited, and it has been brought to the attention of like a housing authority, or some sort of thing like that, not being sectioning vouchers, or anything like that. Somebody tried to force landlords to actually fix things they should have fixed a while ago in a prompt sort of way, according to their lease, then, then they have to give cause of why they’re letting breaking the lease or changing the lease or not extending the lease to month one.

Speaker 21 2:31:37
Yeah, I would assume that that’s a fair housing issue. I mean, the way that you’re describing it, so you’re saying that the landlord didn’t, didn’t do their end of the bargain. And then at the end, they got reported, that in my mind would be a fair housing issue. And

Speaker 12 2:31:49
I’m, what I’m saying is, I think it already exists. In those types of situations, it’s just for the ones where we don’t have any of that evidence that suggests that

Speaker 17 2:31:58
part part, this actually came up today in your housing authority Advisory Board meeting. And so you have landlords in the group, we have mediation members in the group. And they were pretty concerned about this. Because within this, while you don’t have to give cause it actually, one of the individuals that is a landlord indicated, well, I don’t have to give cars but I can raise their rent to $6,000 a month. And there’s nothing that this legislation fixes in that so they can essentially price them out. And dealing with this. Another thing that came up from the group was and we talked about this, one of the things that a lot of landlords do, when they’re working with tenants, whether it’s failure to pay, or it’s significant issues, they actually part of the process that you go through in terms of eviction court, as you go through a mediation process, it is not uncommon for landlords to agree to a termination of the lease, instead of going through eviction. And what that does is that eviction then is not on the record of the tenant. On the mediation side, they were incredibly concerned that what it’s going to do is push more people to go through the full eviction to deal with the issue. And once an eviction is on somebody’s record, it really limits their ability to rent another property. And so that that piece was in play. Another thing that they talked about is, when they look at this, what they’re hearing from and these are the local landlords, these are the small ones. A lot of them are really now starting to think do I even stay in this market, because of the expense and everything that they have to go through. And so there was some communication to us about people that are selling that are renting naturally affordable housing, actually starting to look at selling their houses to REIT switches a real estate investment trust, and then that starts getting managed not at the local level, but at the broader state and national level because of the expenses that were associated with this. And so that then starts changing how all of this comes to bear. You know, and as we had that conversation, the intense there. I think what everyone was really concerned about with this was really the unintended consequences that will come out of this and, and what was really interesting to me is the fact that in listening to that conversation, people are already having that conversation of, well, if I can’t do this, then I’m gonna do this or then I’m gonna raise the rents and and so all of that is I think quite we’re concerned about really what is the unintended consequence and at the end of the day, is this going to have more of a negative impact on someone who rents properties because people will start shifting Seeing how they approach it. And what was really interesting is I had in that room, there was a landlord on one side talking about it. And there was someone from our mediation program on the other side talking about it. And they were almost saying exactly the same things. You know, one of them said, you know, I rent properties, and a lot of times, I don’t charge late fees, and do these things I actually say. And I asked her if I could say this, when she said, If you give me some facility, then I’ll waive your, your late fees. What that’s going to do is really limit the landlord’s ability to work with their tenants in that way, because of the way that the this is structured. And I think, and in talking to the person who’s on the mediation, what he said he’s hearing is that really, a lot of the local landowners are really upset because they’ve been trying to work with people in some cases. And this is almost going to take that ability away from him. Now, we’re not experts in this. So I’m just conveying to you what we’re hearing, and then also what we have as concerns, because I will tell you from the housing authorities perspective, if this passes, a lot of times where we mediate settlements, and we go the settlement route, we don’t have the eviction, it will send us on many of these cases, through eviction court to deal with these issues, because we will have no other option to deal with it.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:31
Council yoga,

Speaker 11 2:36:34
Thank you, Mayor peg. This is this is a lot a lot of meat in here. And I know for me myself. Okay, first question I want to ask, so you so you’re thinking that this would affect the HUD properties? And tax credit hurts? Okay. So, um, for me myself, I won’t, I’m not gonna I won’t support the opposition, because I want to get more information. Because there’s a lot in here. And it’s a little confusing for me. So I, I myself, want to get more information and look up more information for myself so I can understand what I’m voting on. Because this is this is a lot in here. And it’s kind of like, Wait, how, what, it’s up for me, everybody else may got it, no problem. But I’m just telling you for myself, being a housing, and I just want to make sure that if someone emailed me and asked me, why did you oppose that? Or why did you approve that? I want to be able to give them the correct answer as to why I did what I did. So for me, that’s that’s my reasoning.

Speaker 17 2:37:45
If I can jump in, that was part of our conversation today. This is a lot to digest. And I think the one the clarity that came out of our conversation, is are we truly identifying the unintended consequences? There was Lisa was part of update on this legislation today. And I think there’s actually going to be a recording of it that we may be able to send to you all, okay, where are some attorneys are actually advising the broader rental Association. In terms of what this really does, I haven’t had a chance to see it. But if counsel definitely wants more time to get more information, what we can do is get that presentation, send it to you, I’m going to watch it to really try to judge some of my assumptions. We know that there’s problems with landlords that will take advantage of individuals, but doesn’t necessarily mean that every landlord is doing that. And what we’re concerned about is those that aren’t doing it, it puts them in a different situation that ultimately impacts the overall housing stock. That’s the worst fear

Speaker 21 2:38:54
in America, if I could also add that this analysis came from our housing folks. So they looked at it and was like, whoa, this this could really create some some issues. So yeah.

Speaker 1 2:39:06
Councillor McLean? Oh, it was oh my gosh, everybody’s in the queue now. Counselor, dog. Oops. No. Okay, here we go. All right.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:22
Thank you, bear.

Speaker 13 2:39:23
Oh, so yeah, I agree with councilmember Yarborough. It is a lot to digest. You know, as I was going through, you know, even the section on the retaliatory rent increase prohibit prohibited. It doesn’t really, you know, just even some of that language in there. I don’t think it really addresses so if you’re raising rents discriminatory, there is fair housing that addresses that return as well as retaliatory. I just saw I don’t know if it really addresses if the landlord cannot evict that person, then the only way that they could do it is by raising their rent. I don’t know if that language, the way it’s written, would truly address that that piece, as I’m looking kept rereading it over and over again, and I just I don’t know, maybe I’ve just fried but so, you know, so there is so troubling as a renter, you know, by husband, he does plummet. So we have this relationship with certain landlords that we’ve had it, especially the ones that we’ve had good relationships with, are the ones who do live in Longmont who are nearby. And, you know, we’re able to have that open conversation. And I’m fearful that some of this would close the doors. And while I do not, I totally agree, we need to do something about housing, we have to address some of the inequities that are occurring, especially among renters. But does this bill, you know, as written, would it address that? Would it really address some of the larger scale property management companies that aren’t even stationed in the state of Colorado? You know, so? Yes, I still, you know, as I was kind of scrolling up and down, and kind of, you know, I read it and kind of sit on it for a while. And I think there’s more that could be done with this, and some things that could be changed, I would really like to have an opportunity to well, as well, not just to see a presentation on this, but also find out from the makers of this bill, you know, did they analyze? What could be, you know, for this piece of language, what could be a negative impact, you know, looking at all, you know, all the possible scenarios. So I just, I want to be careful about that. I know, there was some compelling testimony about, you know, supporting this, and I don’t disagree with the intent. But I’m afraid that the impact might be more negative than what we can, then then what’s with what’s proposed here.

Speaker 17 2:42:16
If I can jump into one of your points, what are the things that came out of the conversation? Again, these are things we’re gonna have to truth test is that if all of us if you have now a three month relocation costs, and you have these additional legal requirements, we’re now having to put attorneys on retainer, we’re having to pay attorneys to deal with this. And we’re having to calculate the three months and all that’s going to happen is those costs are then gonna be embedded as part of the expense and then go into the rent. And that was one of the things that they were talking about, is that it? It’s just inherently going to add to the rental costs, because they have to recover those those expenses. Now, is it true? I don’t know. I just know that that’s what was communicated? And definitely we’ll look into it and bring it back to.

Speaker 1 2:43:05
So I don’t know who was first in this queue. So I’ll go with Councillor crest.

Speaker 10 2:43:12
Okay, so what I have heard is, if you want a good rental rate, go to an independent local landlord. And what I hear from the landlords is they really go the extra distance to make sure that the person can afford the rent, so they don’t have to have an eviction. You’re just not gonna get that with a lot of regulation. And also, we’re trying to increase our naturally occurring rentals with AD use. And a lot of you know, that’s on your property, you’re living very close with these people. So you want something that’s compatible situation. And I, I encountered when I was talking in my neighborhood with people that provide these types of rentals. They said they had a tenant that was working late hours, you know, they’d hear the garage door go up at 2am. It just wasn’t working out. So they actually agreed that it wasn’t their lifestyles were not similar. So the tenant found another adu more with a nurse, I guess, who was working second shift. And, and so anyway, these these are things that can’t be handled with regulation. And I think the more we leave that open to local landlords, the better off we are. So I agree with the opposition to this.

Unknown Speaker 2:44:41
No counselor might

Speaker 3 2:44:44
be Yeah, I mean, very, very reluctantly said why I agree, because I think the first unintended consequence is people who live close To the area that they that they rent will be exiting the market, especially if it’s on their property in anticipation of problems like this world, they will be trapped and not have control over their property. And it’s a real, it’s a really inconsistent thing for us to do. Given that, that we are in favor of increasing the number of ad use as as a way to provide more housing options. So, like I said, extremely reductively you know, people whose activities I really support, like Echo are on the other side of this, but being forward as matter of policy isn’t the same as being for it in practice. So yeah, I agree with Sandy’s recommendation as well.

Speaker 1 2:45:59
So we have two different all of those who would like to oppose it, please raise your hand. So that okay, with Okay,

Speaker 17 2:46:15
do you want us to bring it back with more information? Or do you want to do oppose unless amended.

Speaker 1 2:46:24
Let’s bring it can we have a motion then somebody make a motion as to what it is you would like to do? And then we’ll discuss it. So okay, yeah. Okay.

Speaker 21 2:46:38
Let’s try to get it listed on this. Okay.

Speaker 13 2:46:41
So, either either one I’m, I’m okay. So I would move to have this brought back with more information, so we can make a better informed decision.

Speaker 1 2:46:57
Hidalgo Perry was brought back with more information seconded by Councillor Yarborough. Now it’s open for discussion. Councillor Martin?

Speaker 3 2:47:06
Yeah, there was one question that I wanted to ask Sandy. Because, yeah, I think this is probably a good solution given where we are. But do you know when this is first scheduled to be heard by committee?

Unknown Speaker 2:47:25
Let me look that up real quick.

Speaker 17 2:47:29
While she’s looking that up, if counsel wants us to bring it back, I know, we’re going to try to reach out to the Fair Housing attorney that we’ve contracted with, to see if they obviously we’re going to have the information sent to you. But we also want our own. Yeah. Give it give us a read on it, too.

Speaker 3 2:47:47
Yeah. Because I want when you’re asking questions of that attorney. A good question is, is there a potential amendment that sort of, is a little bit more empowering to the landlords under this, and and still provides main protections to the tenants? Because this is a really, you know, it, I would want to exit being a landlord under this.

Speaker 17 2:48:17
While she’s looking at up, you know, to give you a sense, it’s tomorrow,

Unknown Speaker 2:48:21
Sandy? Oh. 130. Well, that’s

Unknown Speaker 2:48:26
the first hearing. Right. So

Unknown Speaker 2:48:28
transportation to housing and local government.

Unknown Speaker 2:48:32
Yes, Mayor 130. Tomorrow, it’s

Unknown Speaker 2:48:33
been assigned. Yeah. So.

Speaker 3 2:48:36
So one thing is what no matter what we do, it’s not going to affect that hearing. Right.

Unknown Speaker 2:48:43
I usually send these out tonight.

Speaker 17 2:48:46
Okay, send it back out tonight. One solution is you all could have you all could oppose unless amended, and then we could bring it back with more information as as a potential solution,

Speaker 21 2:48:59
or you could see if it comes out of committee before you continue down the road,

Unknown Speaker 2:49:03
right, because there are other shots. And this is true.

Speaker 21 2:49:06
That’s just yeah, this is just the first this would be the first committee.

Speaker 3 2:49:09
All right, well, then let’s go ahead and vote on Susie’s.

Speaker 1 2:49:14
Seeing no one else in the queue. Let’s vote. Let me see what the so it was to direct staff to bring back to 98 with more information. No more discussion. Let’s vote.

Speaker 1 2:49:34
That past six to one with Councillor Crist in opposition. Thanks, Mayor.

Speaker 1 2:49:47
It’s worth discussing. Let’s see. We are now at final call public to be invited to be heard. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address Council Thank you. Seeing no one we’ll move on to Marin Council comments. Anyone want to make a comment? Seeing no one in the queue? We’ll move on to the city manager remarks. But let’s go quite right to Eugene city attorney remarks. No comments, Mayor. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:50:25
So a lot of times, you know, comments, Mayor Council.

Speaker 1 2:50:35
Okay, all those in favor. Aye. That passed unanimously. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai