https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZNLVu3ZXvY
Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – November 12, 2024
5:10
Good evening, everyone. I would now like to call the November 12 2024,
5:16
regular session of city council to order
5:20
there are only four of us here tonight, which is enough to have a meeting, because the other three people are in Tampa, Florida for our National League of
5:32
Cities meeting.
5:35
Sean and I will be leaving in the morning for that meeting, so we have a very small council tonight.
5:43
You can watch this meeting on the city’s YouTube channel or on Longmont public media.org, forward slash watch or on Comcast channels eight or 880
5:55
we have the roll call please.
5:57
Mayor Peck here, Council Member Crist, Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo, faring,
6:04
Council Member Martin present, Council Member McCoy, Council Member Rodriguez and council member Yarbro. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you. Let’s stand for the pledge.
6:19
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
6:38
As a reminder to the public, in accordance with the council’s rules of procedure. The rules for providing public comment are as follows, only Longmont residents and employees of the city of Longmont may speak during the first call public invited to be heard, and you must provide your address on the sign up sheet before the meeting, or I will not call on you. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. Anyone may speak on second reading or public hearing items, and you’re asked to add your name to the speaker list for that specific item before the meeting, and anyone may speak during the final call. Public invited to be heard.
7:16
Members of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar or abusive language, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with the orderly function of the council
7:26
we need to approve the October, 22 2024, regular session. Minutes can I present
7:36
it second that’s been moved
7:38
by those
7:40
minutes have been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by councilor Christ. Is there any discussion?
7:47
Seeing none. Let’s vote.
7:54
And that passed unanimously.
8:00
We’re now at the agenda revisions. Are there any agenda revisions? Don
8:05
I do not have any Mayor, thank you.
8:09
Do we have any motions from councilors to direct the city manager to councilor Martin?
8:17
Yes. Thank you, Mayor Peck
8:20
is I think this is just something obvious so that it can be voted on by
8:26
a four member forum. Lately, it seems that a number of residents have been very much engaged in the
8:37
by the letters that are sent by the US, Postal Service to neighborhoods, to people affected by a road closure,
8:47
new park opening, a bunch of stuff like that.
8:51
And I suspect every council member has had the experience of getting a letter or a call from a council member or from a resident, and they expect you to know what’s in that letter, and typically we don’t even know that the letter has been sent, because we’re not on those lists. So I would like to move that we direct the staff to look into publishing those letters in some accessible way, like on the search portal,
9:22
so that we don’t have to ask the resident who has a complaint about a letter or a question about a letter, what the letter says, because they expect us to be better prepared than that, and we should be.
9:38
So that’s my motion.
9:40
Before I second it, can I ask a clarifying question,
9:45
are you talking specifically about road closures in the city, or is it about everything I’m talking about? Yeah, I’m talking about every letter that is sent to a targeted group of.
10:00
Residents by the US Postal Service. So, you know those, there are statutes about when a mailing like that is required, and I would like the, you know, they’re not that many of them. So I would just like when, whenever a staff member is is preparing such a letter and getting ready to send it out, that they would also be able to submit the letter to some mechanism that is
10:33
accessible through the internet, through the city or intranet, such as the city citizen search portal. And I’m not saying, you know, directing how I would just like i It seems wrong that we don’t get have any way of getting this other than asking the resident themselves for the letter. So I’m just asking the staff to look into the cheapest and most expedient way of making those event letters available to us when they happen. Okay, thank you for that. I’ll second that.
11:09
So it was the motion, and I’m going to try to, I’ll read it. Put, Dawn, put, she probably captured it. Okay,
11:17
the motion that councilor Martin made is to direct staff to publish letters to residents on search portal or other mechanism, so we don’t have to ask the resident what the letter says in the cheapest And most expedient way.
11:36
Is there any discussion? Post? Okay?
11:43
Okay, let’s vote, then there’s no discussion.
11:53
And that passes four to zero with counselors Yarbrough Rodriguez
11:59
and dongle fairing absent.
12:04
Thank you. You’re welcome. So I I have a motion because all of city council received an email from the chair of the airport advisory board about an incident which occurred at the last board meeting. Based upon that email, I move to direct staff to send all the council members the YouTube video, just a moment, just in my way, the YouTube video of that meeting and the associated 911, call. Please email those two items to the councilors as soon as possible and put the related discussion on the December 3 meeting agenda.
12:43
All right, it’s the motion has been made by myself, seconded by counts
12:48
councilor McCoy. I am really not going to open this for discussion, because it’s really important for the councilors to read and listen to the YouTube as well as the 911 call, and then we can have robust discussion on December 3,
13:11
kind of order,
13:13
there was no 911 call.
13:17
We are going to go with this motion, and it was seconded by councilor McCoy. Is there any other
13:26
discussion? Councilor Martin said there was no 911, call, but there was a call, so I would like the motion to go through.
13:37
So is there any discussion other than that one?
13:41
Let’s vote then.
13:53
That passes,
13:55
321,
13:57
with Councilor Martin in opposition. And
14:04
actually it was three to five, three to four.
14:10
I’m not used to having everybody gone with Councilor Martin, three to one with okay, I said it correctly with Councilor Martin in opposition. And councilors Yarbrough, Rodriguez and Hidalgo, faring absent.
14:30
Are there any other things that we would like to put on the agenda?
14:34
Seeing none Mayor
14:37
based on individuals being out? I think Eugene, can we use this time to appoint
14:46
council member Chris? She’ll be the only one in town and Eugene. What do they need to do in terms of just a point as
14:56
mayor and council, Eugene may city attorney. I’m.
15:00
The charter, if the mayor, Mayor Pro Tem are out of town or absent, then the council should appoint an acting mayor for that period. Okay, then I move that we appoint counselor Crist as the acting mayor for the rest of the week.
15:17
Right? It’s been
15:21
made by myself, seconded by councilor McLay. Is there any discussion?
15:26
Let me see if I can see,
15:29
no, let’s vote.
15:37
Whoops, up and down. I
15:47
Who are we waiting for?
15:51
Council member, Martin? Are
15:57
you going to vote? Martin?
16:00
Oh, thank you. So that passes four to zero with councilors Yarbrough Rodriguez and Hidalgo faring absent.
16:14
We’re now at the city manager’s report. Do you have anything for us?
16:22
No report. Mayor Council, all right, we have a proclamation tonight
16:28
for next light. It’s a proclamation designating November 2024 as next light birthday month in Longmont, Colorado, whereas on November 1 2011 the voters of Longmont strongly supported using our city’s fiber optic resources for the betterment of the community. And whereas on november 5, 2013 Longmont voters even more strongly supported a bond issue to quickly build out what would become the next light municipal broadband network. And whereas on November 3, 2014
17:01
next light connected its first internet customers amidst massive community excitement, and that excitement and support has only grown as next lights performance and quality have been repeatedly celebrated, both locally and nationally, and whereas next Lights, example, as Colorado’s first municipal network has inspired other communities to explore their own broadband options, and has now outlasted the state of Colorado’s former restrictions on municipal broadband, which were repealed in 2023
17:35
and whereas next light has continued to be a network for All of Longmont connecting our communities, homes, schools and businesses, as well as working with struggling households to help them close the digital divide. And whereas more than two thirds of the Longmont community has chosen next light for their home or business, internet provider with subscription numbers continuing to grow, and whereas next light is now celebrating 10 years of service to the city of Longmont, and has even begun to grow beyond the city limits. Now therefore I Joan Peck, Mayor, by virtue of the authority vested in me and the City Council of the City of Longmont, do hereby proclaim November 2024
18:17
as next light birthday month in Longmont, and invite our residents and businesses to join me in celebrating our community on network and the fiber fast future that it continues to realize. Yay. And I want to add something to this that I learned when I went to the SV VSD
18:37
Gala.
18:39
It was a very fun event, but I learned that the spvsd is the only school in the United States that has a drone certified group, certified by the FTA FFA,
18:58
and that is because of next light, because, as you know, drones are computers, and you need a huge internet service
19:09
in order to be able to use those
19:12
to be able to program all those drones. And there were 300 drones that the
19:19
Innovation Center kids used for our Fourth of July show. So that’s something that we can be really proud of. The only school in the United States that does that because of next slide, I would like to ask Valerie Dodd to do you have a few words to say?
19:41
No,
19:46
how’s that? Perfect? Good evening, Mayor, City Council, Valerie Dodd, the executive director of next light. And I really just wanted to take a minute to thank you all and your predecessors for really creating the vision for.
20:00
Providing the direction, the support and the guidance. So without you, we couldn’t have done this. Thank you so very much. Secondly, I have to thank the community behind me and online and elsewhere, we have been overwhelmed with the support and advocacy of those customers, and we don’t take them for granted ever. R team members work countless hours, day and night, trying to take care of our network, take care of technical questions, help with our customer service issues, etc. So we’re incredibly dedicated to our community and our customers, and I just really, really, thank you all very much, and I want to thank city leadership, including my boss Harold here, and others that have partnered with us and really helped make this happen and help allow us to build alongside some of the infrastructure. We already had special call out to LPC, which has been a really exceptional partner organization. Without that foundation, we wouldn’t be here either. So thank you to them, and then also want to thank probably most importantly, our team, our next site team. We have roughly 50 employees that work on our team, again, countless hours. We have people working behind the scenes. We’ve got wizards pulling the little curtain. We have people making sure that our customer experience and employee experience is exceptional. So we’re always focused on our processes, on our people on our systems, and, most importantly, again, our network. Also, it’s really important that we maintain favorable pricing in the marketplace, and we also have special pricing for those people that may be income qualifying. So without the work of all of the people in the room and beyond, we would be here again. Thank you so much. We look forward to serving you into perpetuity and again, I can’t thank you enough, and I wouldn’t be doing my job if I did encourage people to go online and check out on my next light.com. Any special offers that we may have for existing and new customers this month in celebration of our birthday months. So thank you. Happy 10th birthday. We appreciate you so much. Thank you for you and your whole team for providing this. Do you want a picture with your we’re little light tonight. Y’all are little light tonight. Does anyone want a picture of us? Yeah. Thank you, Sandy. You
22:20
words
22:28
here and
22:35
you can
22:37
hold that
22:39
For us tighter.
22:42
Guys, I just
23:02
like this,
23:20
we are now first call public, invited to be heard, and I’m going to augment the agenda just a bit and address the Dry Creek issue, because I see a lot of people here that are going to address it.
23:35
First of all, I’ve read all the emails that have been circulating. A couple of them stated a disappointment in the mayor not responding, and the reason for that was that there were already two councilors responding to these emails. If another councilor or myself started commenting that would go against the Sunshine Law for elected officials. So I have a couple things to say you may not like them, but in my opinion, the area you want to stay just as it is because of the prairie dogs isn’t going to happen. That area has always been designated as a park and future Recreation Center. Long before any of your homes were built. There are over 1000 homes in your area. Many of those residents are expecting that park to be built. Over my eight years on this council, the public in all parts of our city have been asking us, when are we going to finish the parks that were promised in their developments? To that end, council directed staff to start upgrading and building the parks on a timeline when we have the funds to do so. Dry Creek is the next park on the schedule. R staff has captured hundreds of prairie dogs and relocated them to Puebla.
25:00
Well, as you know, the Pueblo site has informed us that it cannot take any more prairie dogs, which leaves approximately 50 left at that site, dry creek. We cannot let them stay there, because they will start propagating, and next year, the city will be caught in the same loop, the same loophole that we are trying to trying to relocate all of them. I have met with two or more of you over the years about prairie dogs, and with your help, the council passed an ordinance for developers and the city to relocate as many of the prairie dogs on site as possible. We also set aside a part of Mac part of McIntosh lake as a prairie dog viewing site with educational signing. Signage.
25:49
Excuse me,
25:52
we also set aside a part of McIntosh lake as a prairie dog viewing site with educational signage. Our comp plan envision Longmont states having walkable, bikeable amenities in our neighborhoods. I admire the effort, and I even
26:09
understand what you’re saying
26:13
that you put out a petition, but I’m a bit frustrated that on your change.org position for your petitions, you didn’t state the city’s position, and made me feel and believe that these were all residents living in the area of the park, because change.org is
26:36
is out to the public, so I’m Not sure that the people. How do I say this? Some of you are living in different parts of the city, and you have your park built for you. So it’s easy to come over to another part of the city and say you don’t get the park that was promised for you, because we’ve decided, even though we don’t live over there, that you should not build that park. You should save those prairie dogs. You can’t tell us that you don’t want a recreation center because of the traffic or a park because you want to watch prairie dogs on the land we set aside for those amenities as the southwest part of our city has grown. So that’s my frustration. I’ve worked really hard with this group of people to come up with an ordinance caring for as many prairie dogs as we can,
27:33
and we will continue to relocate prairie dogs, but at this point that park is going to go in, in my opinion. So that was hard for me to say,
27:45
with that I am going to start public, invited to be heard, and the first one on the list I have has to I have to ask James Sherman, first of all, you have your name on two different lists. Do you want to speak on both issues? I want to speak on the
28:02
the of Dry
28:05
Creek Park. Okay, your first step then.
28:17
Hi, y’all good?
28:23
You. Thank you for making your position really clear.
28:29
Permission to speak freely.
28:32
Okay?
28:34
Any soccer mom, California soccer mom, can drive five minutes in any direction to get a soccer field, prayer dogs, eagles, wolves, foxes and the other people, the other critters who share Our
28:56
habitat do not have that in that option.
29:02
What? Are you thinking? There is a tiny fraction of the front range that is still preserved,
29:11
and it’s on your watch to preserve it.
29:18
And I know I’m not going to convince you of anything, but I’m here to make a stand, and I’m here to stand for Colorado. Thank you. No clapping, please. Thank you very much.
29:30
John Lemke,
29:39
good evening. My name is John Lemke. I live at 744 stone bridge drive, which is in Ward two.
29:46
I’m here to talk about something that’s really important to me, and what I believe is my also my daughter’s future. I brought with me a book that I read to my daughters frequently at night about a little girl named Sophia that goes to six.
30:00
Hall to speak to the mayor about a topic that she’s really passionate about. So when I read this book again, in the future, I’m going to tell my daughters all about how I went to speak to Mayor about something that’s important to me. So why am I here? I’m here to support ranked choice voting. There’s a group of us here, also from Longmont, that support it. You may also have heard it called instant runoff voting. It requires a candidate to get a majority of the vote. So in some elections, three people will run, and a person can win with less than 50% of the vote.
30:35
If we have ranked choice voting, whoever has the least number of votes would get eliminated, and their second choices would receive those votes. I’m also
30:45
going to introduce two speakers that will come up after me, Dylan Rankin and Michael hibinski, that will be have a few more things to speak on it.
30:55
But how does it work? So you rank candidates by who you love, who you like, and who you can live with.
31:04
It can also be used for our multi winner races. So if there are three at large seats that are getting voted on, or two
31:13
and there’s say 510 candidates, the tabulation ends up working very similarly. It eliminates the person with the least amount of votes, and those ballots get
31:25
the votes get reassigned to people up the ballot until you have however many seats
31:31
that you’re trying to fill. That number of candidates left, I
31:35
submitted the paperwork to the city clerk to form an issue committee, and that was accepted. So we plan on continuing to push this issue forward, I would love, and what I’m for us to be able to use ranked choice voting in the city election in 2027 which gives us a fair amount of time. I do know that the non partisan primaries, which bundled itself with ranked choice voting was recently defeated. I want to make it clear that this is a very different ask than those folks,
32:05
and I really appreciate everything that you do, and I’m going to turn it over to Dylan. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Dylan.
32:19
Good evening mayor. Good evening, Council. I’m also here with ranked choice voting for Longmont R group here and now that John has kind of introduced our group and introduced what ranked choice voting is, I want to briefly talk to you about two of the biggest benefits to ranked choice voting. First and foremost, ranked choice voting helps prevent money from dominating elections. So when you run an election under plurality voting, which is a system that Longmont currently uses to run its elections, there is an incredibly, incredibly strong correlation between the candidate who raises the most money and the candidate who ends up winning that election. And what ranked choice voting does is by providing people an alternative pathway to victory, by being a lot of people second or third choices, it actually makes it cheaper to run a Winning Campaign, and it allows less well financed candidates who have good ideas to run for office and win office. So for example, a study that was done in Pierce County Washington both before and after the county adopted ranked choice voting in its elections before the candidate with the most money was winning five out of every six elections. After ranked choice voting was introduced or implemented in that jurisdiction, that number decreased to three out of six. And so ranked choice voting can help put the emphasis back on issues and candidates and not on fundraising. Secondly, ranked choice voting stops candidates from acting as spoilers. Often, voters will complain that elections come down to just two candidates, and this is because in plurality voting, it’s a built in part of the system, candidates have an incentive to not let or convince candidates who are aligned with them from running for office in the first place, because they stand to lose votes in that circumstance, those additional candidates can siphon off votes that would cost the original candidate victory. But what ranked choice voting does? Ranked choice voting allows voters to support more than one candidate. They get to rank candidates in the order of their preference, and so if one candidate gets eliminated in a given round of voting, a candidate who’s similar to them stands to pick up a lot of those votes as the redistributed in a future round. And this allows more candidates to run, to add to our discussion about the future of our city, without fear of costing a similarly aligned candidate victory in any given campaign. And so it allows for more choice, it allows for greater ideological diversity, and it allows for more people to join the discussion about our city’s future. So we support ranked choice voting because one, it decreases the emphasis of money in our elections, and two, it allows for more voices to be added to our city’s future and to allow voters to vote their values without fear of that ending up.
35:00
Exhausting them. So we hope that you will support us in that effort, and I’m now going to turn it over to Michael to conclude our little presentation. So thank you.
35:10
Oh, it’s the same as his dad.
35:16
Michael COVID ski, Hi. I’m Michael
35:21
hibinski. I live at 1111, left hand drive in Ward two.
35:26
So like John and Dylan said, I’m here as well with R CV for Longmont. Now that we’ve explained what ranked choice voting is and why it should be adopted, I want to conclude by describing the process that Longmont have to go through to start using ranked choice voting. It’s in its elections. So there’s two parts of this, one is legal and the other one is logistical. So legally, we believe that long one would need to pass an amendment to the city charter to in order to adopt during choice voting. In order to do this, we would ask you the city council to draft a ranked choice voting amendment and vote to refer to the ballot that way Longmont voters would have an opportunity to approve it. If a majority of residents voted yes, the amendment would be passed and ranked choice voting would be added to the city charter. Logistically, the state of Colorado has made it pretty easy for cities to start using ranked choice voting in their elections. Longmont is a somewhat unique case, because we’re located in two counties, Boulder and Weld County, and so there’s two different counties to oversee its elections, but the Colorado Secretary of State’s office is already committed to drafting regulations that will allow multiple counties to hold coordinated ranked choice voting elections beginning in 2026
36:33
Furthermore, Boulder County Clerk Molly Fitzpatrick, one of the two clerks involved, already has experience with ranked choice Voting through running elections for the City of Boulder. So we know that adopting ranked choice voting in one month will be an involved process, but the benefits the system offers over the status quo will make it worth the effort. Thank you very much for your time, and we look forward to working with you to make our city elections the best they can be. Thank you, Michael, thank you.
37:01
Zoe Galloway,
37:16
so your new Am I
37:19
smart meter plan
37:22
has left me homeless for the last three months
37:26
because I had to flee from my house because your smart meter has so much radiation, pollution, fog that
37:33
it was leaving me with
37:36
so many health problems I almost ended up in the hospital.
37:41
I have an opt out meter, but it is different from the old meter I have, because it has a kilohertz frequency, and the science has shown that even at three kilohertz,
37:51
you can have neurological damage,
37:54
and I need to have
37:58
this opt out meter removed for something that has
38:02
no killer, hurts frequency. But I also live in a duplex, and so I’m also getting some of the radiation, pollution, smog from my neighbor, and I can’t expect my neighbor to pay opt out fees, just so that your product that you’re forcing on as doesn’t continue to harm her neighbor.
38:19
So I’ve been trying to reach out. I’ve left voicemails, I’ve left emails, but I need the city council to work with me and my neighbor and the utility company
38:32
to help fix this problem so I can move
38:40
Zoe,
38:43
we have two gentlemen in the back that I’m going to refer you to, David Hornbacher and Daryl Hahn.
38:51
Would you two gentlemen, or one of you take her down her contact information for us, and
39:00
then we can talk about that, opting out.
39:06
Would you mind doing that?
39:13
Oh, you have been.
39:15
We have been communicating. But it was also the issue of my neighbor, you know their opt out meter as well coming through the walls, because I live in a duplex. So there’s also that issue, but I still don’t have,
39:31
I still don’t have something I need. Just need to move back into my house, and it’s not going fast enough. Can you give your contact information to
39:41
our city clerk, Zoe, and then
39:46
I’ll contact you.
39:49
Thank you. Jamie, Farina,
39:57
Hello, Mayor Peck and city council. I.
40:00
I’m here on behalf of the Dry Creek Park and
40:04
the community members that care deeply about preserving the natural habitat that’s there. For those not aware, the extermination is scheduled for tomorrow, and we have been requesting, respectfully requesting, a 30 day pause on that so that we can collaborate and find a plan that works for both the recreational needs and these natural space needs that the community clearly has as well. We are not asking for the astroturf to stop being put in or the the fields to stop development, but there is, as part of the
40:37
document that David Bell sent over on Friday, it mentions that the area on the west side of Mountain Drive could be designated as a space for wildlife in the future. There’s nothing planned for it in the immediate five years coming,
40:52
except for the extermination
40:55
50 you mentioned 50 prairie dogs. That’s a gross underestimation. I know from our volunteer efforts that we did not capture in that area because we just didn’t have the time. Given the constraints, I’m sure there are more than 50 in that area alone, like 100%
41:15
and we’re not asking for the development to stop, like I mentioned, just that these 10 acres are designated for wildlife now, instead of the future, protect what life we have there currently. Instead of making it a graveyard and then protecting what’s left later, it’s backwards to me to kill them and then give the public the option to give input five years from
41:41
now, he mentions, you know, it’s changing from one ecosystem to another at a point.
41:47
But what the prairie dogs that are there already support Fox
41:54
hawks, a lot of wildlife, over 30 species. So again, can we please protect the life we have instead of killing them, doing nothing with that area, and then coming back in five years,
42:08
we have ideas. He mentioned too that a prohibiting factor would be cost for the barriers. There are ideas we have. We’d love to propose them to you, to collaborate with you on this, the 30 day pause would not impact the development schedule. Preceding would happen in the winter after a few weeks after this.
42:30
And sorry, all over the place, and I know it’s a little less prepared than last time,
42:39
but yeah, just would love to see this park develop to hit both natural space needs and recreational needs at the same time. I feel there’s a plan that could happen and make this work if we’re given the opportunity. We’re told that council member Martin couldn’t make this decision on her own and would need the rest of the council to help out. So please, I urge you to do that. Thank you. Jamie Scott Stewart,
43:12
Mayor Peck members of council, Scott store 229, Grant Street, walmont,
43:19
tonight, I’m asking a simple question, why are we still discounting the administrative transfer fee to the airport that the airport
43:27
pays page 74 of the budget, out of the budgets, out of the budget. It speaks about the airport fees and charges will be reviewed annually to determine whether all operating expenses are recovered. Why do we continue to give them a discount on this when it says, right in our our budget, that we’re supposed to be reviewing this and making sure that all expenses are recovered, it does look like
43:55
everything is copasetic. When you look at the just the line the Page Page 657
44:01
but if you go back to page 71 it describes the discount. If you go back to page 74 it describes the rules of how we’re supposed to handle this.
44:12
You know, having 600 pages in between, I don’t know how many citizens look at this, but I’m on a mission.
44:20
It’s clear that the airport has revenue issue.
44:23
It’s time to implement a non disc discretion or discriminatory weight based landing fee. I’m not talking about a landing fee for touch and goes. I’m not talking about, I’m talking about a weight based one so that the heavy of the aircraft. We just heard the other week that what we got $2 million where the runway repairs. He got some heavy planes going on the south side of the runway. Why are those planes not helping to pay for those fees? With those fees, if you do a weight based fee, all aircraft, the systems, pay a little bit, five to 10 bucks. The bigger plate planes pay a couple of 100. That’s.
45:00
Per landing,
45:02
you will have some secondary benefits potentially, which is
45:08
something that other people are interested in, but let’s get this under control.
45:14
The other thing I got to say is some of the stuff that’s spoken about about the airport, I was just looking at the promotional video for the airport on the city’s website.
45:25
Does anybody believe that 22,000 people enter Colorado through the Longmont airport annually? Does anybody believe those numbers?
45:35
It really seems like a gross overstatement.
45:40
That’s 60 people a day. Every day, it’s, let’s, let’s truly understand what the numbers are. Let’s get some monitoring at the airport so we can understand where the planes are coming from. Are they staying here in town? Are they buying in the $100 hamburger? Are they doing all these things? Let’s, and honestly, if somebody’s coming into town to buy $100 hamburger and they’re flying in with their Cessna. They can afford eight bucks for a landing fee. It’s not a burden. Thanks.
46:08
Thank you. Scott Anna Rivas,
46:19
evening, Mayor Peck and council members,
46:23
Anna Rivas, 4501, Nelson road. And yes, I’m here to speak about Dry Creek Park. I’m not as prepared as last time, either,
46:34
but I wanted to kind of
46:38
talk about you had Mayor Peck, you mentioned earlier how it doesn’t seem fair that people from outside would come in and dictate how that the prairie dogs remain at Dry Creek and that not be developed into the community or the Yeah, the park that many people want. But by the same token, does it make sense for the people who live directly around there to not be given a major say in what happens to it. Those are the people that we talked to when we were out there helping with relocation. The people we talked to and met were people who use that space on a daily basis, or at least a weekly basis, because they live right there. Those were the people who expressed outrage at what’s happening. They’re not people who are living like, you know, on the other far away parts of town, their neighbors who live right in the neighborhood and go there for their daily walks and walk their dogs and multiple times a day. One, there was one gentleman who said he would walk out there four times a day. And these are the people who want it to remain a little bit of a natural area.
47:45
I understand the need for soccer fields and recreational fields for the younger people, the youth. However, those of us who work full time working adults, we don’t need those recreational fields. What we want and when we really need is just a place where we can go and unwind after working all day and going for a walk in a nature area filled with what you know, the most endearing feature that we love watching, even if they’re not all over the place like they used to be, I understand they’re gone, they’re not coming back. But if there’s like a small pocket where they could remain, it would mean a lot to the people such as myself, who utilize that area in a different way. We’re not asking you to spend a lot of money on creating something it’s the opposite. What we’re requesting would actually be cost less, in my opinion, I think than building it all out, it would just we’re just asking you to leave it alone. Leave it be. Leave it as a natural area that we can enjoy. We don’t want ball fields. I mean, people in my age group, we’re not going to be out there playing in the ball fields. We want to go for walks. We want to go for bike rides. We want to just be in nature. So it sounds like the direction it’s going. It’s going to eliminate the way that people like myself use that area, and it’s going to be used the people who are living in other parts of long run, apparently, are having more say in the matter than people who live directly around it, and that doesn’t seem fair either. Thank you. Thank you. Anna
49:15
Nicole, words, you
49:25
I thank you, and I appreciate your allowing me to speak. I’m also here about dry creek, Nicole words at 910, Venice Street.
49:33
I’m new to this issue, but I had lived over in dry creek for about five, seven years, and loved that area very, very much. And I understand, and I want to respond to what you were saying earlier this evening regarding the emails, as well as to what these people were also saying,
49:51
the way that is progressing. It seems so unimaginative and so unoriginal to that this is a very.
50:00
Smart and intelligent and highly educated staff. There is a way to produce this so that all parties can enjoy. You don’t need our turf. You don’t need stadium lights. There are other ways to produce this and have both a recreational area that adheres to people who play baseball and people who like to be outdoors and walk and enjoy nature, I think it’s time to pause and reassess how you are proceeding with this, as opposed to just killing everything, eliminating everything and just going as planned.
50:42
This is an election year, and it’s been very disappointing for a lot of people, because people just don’t listen. I know you guys can do this. There is other way. There are other ways of having both the park as well as a recreational area where people can walk and enjoy nature without having to mow it down and make it out to be some sort of a parking lot. Thank you for your time.
51:09
Ingrid.
51:15
I don’t want to, I don’t want to butcher your last name, but
51:19
Ingrid, so note and I live at 816, vivid street, and I also want to say that I failed to understand why we can’t have a park and preserve the wildlife that’s there.
51:32
I’m a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, and I’ve dedicated my life to saving wild animals, sick, injured and orphaned wild animals and return as many as possible to the wild. And
51:47
the vast majority of animals that come that I see are there because of a negative encounter with human beings. And the most negative effect humans can have on wildlife is habitat destruction. We are losing so many wild animals on a daily basis, and I don’t think we can afford to lose more. Prairie dogs have already been decimated, and we know that they are a key species and that so many other species depend on them. And so we are. We are also losing, losing those species for routine as hawks, many, many other other species. So I really urge why ask the city to do what they can to preserve the wildlife and to have, like I said, a park and also the wild animals and to live together. Thank you. Thank you. Ingrid, Lizette aldoret, you
52:47
good evening, Mayor Peck and city council members. My name is Lizette. I’m here today in regards to the extermination of the prairie dogs at Dry Creek scheduled for tomorrow for the new amenities being added to Dry Creek Park, we are asking for 30 days postponement of the extermination so that we may have time to work with the city to create a sustainable plan to perceive, to perceive a small space for their habitat. We want to protect the wildlife and the ecosystems. Prairie dogs are a keystone species. They have a large impact on an on an ecosystem, and the removal of them will cause significant changes to it. I’ve lived in Longmont my entire life. I care about the wildlife in my town,
53:29
and I care about preserving it, and I believe, and I believe that an earth without wildlife is life without beautiful things. I understand your frustration, and thank your efforts in perceiving wildlife in Longmont these 30 days of post moment we are requesting should not impact the development schedule. Thank you.
53:49
Keith James,
53:58
Mayor, Councilman, Keith James, 1756, Juniper Street. I’m just sitting back there observing everything. I came here to speak about one thing first, and it was about the police. I come here and I try to give our police the benefit of the doubt for anything, but it’s really tiring when they have their own little emergency, whatever they want to put on their book, and they’re blocking the door to all the businesses. If that was a person that just blocked the business because it was a shoplifter or something like that, then we would be giving them a ticket. The police show up three vehicles at a time, and they just think they can park wherever. That’s ridiculous. The lights on the top of the vehicles are way too bright, and they’re using that as a tactic to pull people over at videos and watched it main streets, 25 miles per hour. I guarantee you guys did not set your cruise control to 25 and drive in today, because I can watch cops go by me with my 25 that said the heart of our downtown.
55:00
The heart of this city, like we all sit here, and you guys are trying to figure out all these problems. Let’s figure out the small stuff first, and then the bigger stuff, because the hearts where the city is, and if you guys can’t fix any of the infrastructure or anything to make that the next generation, or maybe a generation curb right now, of learning, getting some younger people in and trying to coach and mentor them so we can see where their minds take us to the next 50, 100 years. It does nothing for you guys to sit into a chair that
55:34
does what
55:36
it’s better to coach and mentor somebody, in my opinion, than to just let you guys sit there and then sit back and watch the cities fight. This is a great city, but if we can fix these little things, I think it would be a lot better. And you guys have started. I’ve heard tonight, you guys are the first for next light all these things. Why don’t you guys become a generational cap and do something new and just be part of the new world and make it our city better. That’s all I ask. Thank you. Thank you.
56:06
Michelle.
56:14
Good evening. My name is Michelle Christensen. I’m at 22 09, Spinnaker, circle Longman. Good evening, Mayor, pick and counsel. People
56:23
can’t believe I have to be up here saying this, but I don’t know how, if you know how hard is to have a mentally ill adult son.
56:34
So he barely talks, and today he said, Mom, you really have to go out there and help the prairie dogs, because they need your help. And, you know, it just tore me apart because he barely ever talks. But
56:48
I’m just hoping that we can coexist with these little guys and just, please don’t take more joy away from us that there’s it’s already with everything that’s going on in the world, with all the wars and everything, do we really have to go after our wildlife and the joyment? I mean, when I was out there helping first time,
57:14
really joining the prairie dog people and learning how to trap them and everything, I became pretty acquainted with them, and I feel like it’s
57:23
really we shouldn’t be doing this. I mean, I’m sorry, but I think if you want to go kill them, you should do it yourself. It’s just wrong. It just wrenches at my heart, and I don’t say this lightly, because I don’t normally do this. I don’t go in front of council people and talk like this, but I feel like I need to, and I feel like really reach into your heart and ask yourself, Is this really the right decision? Can we not have nature in our ballparks? I have grandkids, so I know how important that is, but can we please do both? Thank you very much. Thank you. Michelle,
58:03
Linda,
58:07
Tim here.
58:10
Victoria Morgan,
58:18
hi there. How are you? I’m sorry I’ve never been to one of these before, so,
58:23
but I’m here simply for the prairie dogs as well. I moved to Colorado two years ago, moved to this area, and it has been the best thing I could have ever have done for my life.
58:35
And the prairie dogs were just kind of like the little symbol to Colorado that really warmed my heart, and the way that they all kind of joined, I don’t know their family structures, and just couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t come here tonight to just also, I think, support this. Sorry, just 30 days, I think, is all worth asking. Thanks. Thank you, Victoria. Seeing no one else on the list. I’m going to close first call public, invited to be heard and move on to our consent agenda.
59:12
Don Would you mind reading the consent agenda and to the and reading by title of first reading ordinances?
59:22
Absolutely. Mayor, the second reading and public hearing for the ordinances introduced tonight will be held on December 3, 2024
59:29
except for Item 9b regarding rates and regulations governing electric service, which must be held for 30 days before second reading and public hearing. Therefore second reading and public hearing on Item 9b will be held on December 17, 2024
59:45
Item nine A is ordinance 2024 82 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 Item 9b is ordinance 2020
1:00:00
Four. Dash. 83 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14.32,
1:00:04
on rates and regulations governing electric service. 9c is resolution 2024, 74 a resolution of the Longmont City Council authorizing agreements between the city of Longmont and the James L Ziegler and R Nancy Ziegler joint revocable living trust agreement dated nine for 18 for the purchase of real property at 500 Boston avenue for the extension of Emory street between First Avenue and Boston Avenue. 90 is resolution 2024 dash 75 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and City of Boulder and the in between of Longmont Inc to administer 2021 home investment program, AMERICAN rescue plan, funds for the Wesley townhomes project 90 is resolution 2024 76 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and City of Boulder and the in between of Longmont Inc to administer 2023 HOME funds for the Wesley town homes project. 9f is resolution 2024 77 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for CDBG funding for personal finance counseling. And 9g is approved city council and lha board of Commissioner. Meeting schedule for january 2025, through January 2026
1:01:24
Does anyone want to pull any items from the consent agenda?
1:01:30
Seeing no one, can I have a motion
1:01:35
Second? It’s been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by councilor Martin, is there any discussion? Seeing none. Let’s vote.
1:01:54
And that passes four to zero, with Councilor Rodriguez Yarbrough and Hidalgo faring absent.
1:02:05
We are now on to our general business. And this is a request for waiver of development fees for the in between of Longmont incorporated the Wesley town homes. I’m sorry, project, our ordinance is on second reading, missing from your script. I
1:02:23
Is there a page missing?
1:02:26
Oh, second reading would be next, or is it,
1:02:30
it is, I’m sorry, they stuck together. Okay, thank you so ordinances on second reading, I skipped ahead. The first one is 2024, 78 it’s a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a 20 foot wide mutual access easement and a sanitary sewer easement, generally located southwest of the intersection of Highway 66 and alpine Street. Are
1:02:58
there any questions from Council on this
1:03:01
bill?
1:03:04
Seeing none. I will open up the public hearing on 2024 78 is there anybody in the public that would like to address this bill?
1:03:15
Seeing none. I’ll close the public hearing and ask for a motion ordinance.
1:03:20
2024 2024,
1:03:25
78 second did move by councilor McCoy, seconded by councilor Crist. Let’s vote
1:03:36
that passes four to zero, with Councilor Yarbrough, Councilor Rodriguez and counselor Hidalgo faring absent. The next one is 2024. 79 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of two electric easements, two sidewalk easements, easements and three sections of satisfaction circle right of way within the Wallace edition. Fourth filing generally located southwest of the intersection of pike road and US Highway 287,
1:04:07
are there any questions from Council on this
1:04:10
bill? Seeing none. I will open the public hearing on 2024. 78 is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this bill?
1:04:20
Seeing none. I will close the public hearing on 2024, 78 and ask for a motion. I just want to clarify, Mayor, that’s 7979
1:04:33
I move 2024, 79
1:04:37
It’s been moved by councilor Chris, seconded by councilor McCoy,
1:04:42
let’s vote
1:04:47
that passes four to zero with Councilor Yarbrough, Councilor Rodriguez and councilor Hidalgo faring absent.
1:04:59
The.
1:05:00
Bill 2024 dash 80 is a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving.
1:05:06
Excuse me, there were,
1:05:12
there’s two parts to this one. There’s C on the same on 2024, 79
1:05:18
Okay, the second ordinance on 2024 79 is ordinances for vacations of Fletcher and sunset easements for enclave at the peaks project. It’s 2024 80 a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of an electric easement on lot one of the Fletcher minor subdivision plat generally located southwest of the intersection of Nelson Road in court way. Are there any questions from councilors on this bill?
1:05:50
Seeing none. I’ll open up the public hearing for 2024 80. Is there anyone in the public that would like to address this bill?
1:05:58
Seeing no one. I will close the public hearing on 2024,
1:06:02
80 and ask for a motion.
1:06:09
I’ll second that.
1:06:12
Let’s vote the
1:06:20
next one is a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a portion of a utility and drainage easement on lot two block three of the sunset diagonal business park, generally located south west of the intersection of Nelson road and court Park court way.
1:06:39
Is there any discussion or questions from councilors?
1:06:43
Seeing none. I’ll open up the public hearing on 2024, 81 is there anyone in the public that would like to address this bill?
1:06:52
Seeing no one. I will close the public hearing on 2024, 81
1:06:56
and ask for a motion.
1:07:01
I moved ordinance 2024, 81
1:07:05
It’s been moved by councilor Chris, seconded by councilor McCoy. Let’s vote.
1:07:17
And that passes four to zero with councilors Yarborough, Hidalgo, fairing and Rodriguez absent. Now we can move to general business.
1:07:29
On general business, we have a request for waiver of development fees for the end for the in between of Longmont incorporated Wesley townhomes project.
1:07:39
Is there a presentation on this
1:07:44
Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. I’m Christy Wiseman, the city’s housing investment manager. I don’t have a formal presentation. I just have a few notes. And we do have Tim racco, who’s the executive director of the in between. In case you all have any questions about this project, I did want to offer a point of clarification related to the council communication. So earlier today, we received new guidance from the city attorney’s office that the council compact it incorrected incorrectly listed to light items that are actually not eligible to be waived. That is the Boulder County sales tax at $27,088.65
1:08:24
Estimated Fee, or excuse me, tax, and excuse me, the county sales tax that estimated $20,980.43
1:08:35
and then the restricted portion of the city’s sales tax, which was that 27,000 number. So neither of those are waivable in this particular case. So that just changes the estimated total additional fee waiver amount from $188,018.64
1:08:53
to $139,949.56
1:08:58
so it’s a change of about $47,000 so that was new legal advice based on that how the
1:09:06
fees are calculated. So I just wanted to make that point that does not change the applicants request, which is to waive 100% of the applicable additional fees.
1:09:17
And overall, this project, the Wesley townhomes project, has been before you multiple times for various funding applications. As a reminder, it’s 11 total units, a mix of two bedrooms and three bedrooms and a multi purpose room on land donated from the heart of Longmont church at 350 11th Avenue, all the units will be permanently affordable at 40% AMI or less, offering transitional housing for individuals and families exiting homelessness. And as I mentioned to him, from the in between is here, if you have specific questions, thank you.
1:09:51
Do any counselors have questions for the in between?
1:09:57
Do you councilor? Christie.
1:10:00
I
1:10:04
actually, I’m so glad that accounting weighed in on the tax issue, but I also would like to know what other sources of revenue could make up the difference for the amount being waived. You know, we have a very tight budget for 2025 and we had already reduced it by 132,000
1:10:25
so I’m wondering, you know, how do we come up with the other 188,000
1:10:32
Yeah, I can have Tim speak to his sources and uses for the project, if you like. I do know that they plan to apply for State Division of Housing gap funding that application will happen early next year, and the goal is to reduce that gap as much as possible with the additional fee waiver request that will make their state application more competitive by reducing their gap funding Ask per unit.
1:10:59
So would that lower the amount to be waived? Probably not. There will still be a gap for the project, even with this additional fee waiver request. Our hope is that by the city approving, if the city does approve, the additional fee waiver requests, that is likely to make their application to the state more competitive, by requesting an overall smaller gap funding amount, okay,
1:11:27
but that doesn’t help us with our budget issue, because we need to know where would this money come from?
1:11:36
And I’m thinking the city manager is going to weigh in. So these are fee waivers. So it’s not that we’re giving them money. They’re just not paying the fees that they would have paid into the system. So we’re giving them the service. So those services are not covered. I mean, they’re not compensated by fees. Is that correct? Correct?
1:12:01
And so when we work through the budget, and
1:12:07
we have generally, we make estimates on the fees that we’re going to receive,
1:12:15
and I think Jim’s behind me, but I think when we talk about this, we also know that it’s not unusual for us to have projects that come in that meet the requirements of the ordinance, that do receive these fee waivers.
1:12:28
But I don’t think this was included in our revenue estimates. Was it this project? So this wasn’t included in our revenue estimates.
1:12:37
Was not
1:12:40
I would like to see just a better plan as to how to it’s 188,000
1:12:45
how we would
1:12:48
subsidize that, if you will. I don’t know what the word I want to use is there, because we’re actually giving services for free, is what it is. And you know, there’s a cost to that. So I guess I would like some information from accounting as to
1:13:07
how to translate that amount into the cost of services we’re providing, and if our budget will handle that in the time allowed for this project, because it’s coming up pretty quickly. I think
1:13:21
is that correct? Christy,
1:13:24
yes, the Home and the Home ARP, agreements that you just approved as part of the consent agenda were the two federal funding documents that once those are executed by the City of Boulder, which will come after your approval tonight, that’s what’s been that will enable construction to begin. So the construction is imminent.
1:13:45
Well, I see Mr. Golden’s coming down here so,
1:13:50
and
1:14:01
I was asking, Jim, there’s not a budgetary impact on this.
1:14:07
Now, is it revenue that we’re not receiving? Yes, it’s revenue that we’re not receiving,
1:14:14
but it’s not impacting the budget that we’re in or the budget for next year, because that’s not something that we were budgeting the revenues for in terms of that case. Now,
1:14:26
if council
1:14:29
as a body wants to direct a different policy change in terms of how we approach this, the council can do that. And I think based on
1:14:40
what I think is the question, and so I’m assuming is, is, how do we come up with the funds to offset the expense of the fee waivers?
1:14:49
Then, in order to facilitate,
1:14:53
essentially, the gap financing of the affordable projects that we’ve been doing through fee waivers, we would need.
1:15:00
Need to create another revenue source, again, utilizing general fund dollars to then pay for the fee waivers.
1:15:10
Otherwise, the system you’re in is for these affordable housing projects.
1:15:16
It’s just another gap to fill in terms of creating the units.
1:15:23
Historically, what we would do in terms of the water funds is the affordable housing fund would reimburse the water fund for some of that. But what we realized is it was minimizing the impact. Or do we still do that on the for the water fund fee waivers, we still reimburse for. Yeah, we have, in the past, used the affordable housing fund to
1:15:49
offset the cost of certain fee waivers. That has not been proposed in this specific case, but that is something we could explore. I think those ordinances were changed in order to allow us to do some other things, is that correct?
1:16:06
The ordinance allows us to come to council to request that the offset portions of the fees no longer have to be offset by the Affordable Housing Fund, which is part of this ask correct, and that was part of the change that council directed when we went through this process, because it limited the affordable housing funds that you can put in on the other side of the project to get these units built.
1:16:30
When are you applying for other grant funds?
1:16:36
I would invite the applicant, Tim, if you want to speak to your doh application.
1:16:51
Good evening. Tim rock, with the in between of Longmont, thank you for the opportunity. March 1 is when we’re the target date for the Department of Housing gap funding that we’re looking at, and this request would just reduce the amount we’re still going to apply regardless of the outcome tonight. But as Christy had mentioned, it would, I think, solidified and create a little stronger argument. In this particular case, we really kind of exhausted other options, Boulder County worthy cause. We had two rounds of funding from that. Of course, the city of Longmont has already come through with some lending support, but with cash flow big what it is on projects like this, and we’ve actually reduced our AMI to four of the 11 units are going to be set at 30% AMI, the remaining seven at 40% so so it’s certainly very low income households that would be serving so. So anything we can do here, I think, helps reduce that gap. Otherwise we would have been requesting something near 500,000 from the Department of Housing, and this might help reduce that into more in the three and $400,000 range.
1:18:00
I think I saw 361
1:18:02
is that what you’re asking? Yeah,
1:18:05
okay,
1:18:07
okay. I see two other people,
1:18:09
uh, Councilor McCoy and then councilor Martin. Thank you, Mayor pick. Well, I just often think of when I see projects like this, and as as expensive as it is sometimes in the issues around waiving fees. The alternative is
1:18:27
you don’t get these people out of, you know, off the streets and out of homelessness, and moving them into a home and transitioning them, and I think there’s some serious value to that and to the community, and maybe even
1:18:46
is
1:18:48
significantly higher than then, you know, 140 some $1,000 in to the value of the community, added value to the community. And so that’s what I kind of think as we look at some of these there, if we’re really trying to
1:19:09
move the needle in a positive way, I think this is the sort of thing that we have to do when we don’t recognize
1:19:17
When we when we that may not be recognized
1:19:23
if we
1:19:26
were to put a, you know, $1 amount on absolutely everything. It’s kind of the quality of life that these folks are going to experience, the increased
1:19:37
quality of life that they’re going to gain from, you know, moving into a home and in the what we’re doing for the community, I think it’s so beneficial that I think it offsets this. So I’ll be supporting this.
1:19:52
Councilor Martin,
1:19:54
thank you, Mayor Peck, yeah, just to
1:19:59
is.
1:20:00
Essentially support the statements made by council member McCoy
1:20:05
the last time I checked for quantification of how much a homeless person
1:20:14
living on the streets costs a municipal government in various expenses which we can’t budget with any degree of precision as as to how many it’s going to happen, how many times it’s going to happen, but it’s about $60,000
1:20:31
per person. I don’t know how many people will live in these 11 units, but even assuming that it is one person per unit, then we would anticipate a savings to the city once the units are in operation of $600,000
1:20:51
per year, because people aren’t living in On the streets and incurring the hazards and
1:21:01
that the municipality ends up bearing.
1:21:06
So I think that’s the rationale behind having things like fee waivers in the first place to
1:21:14
encourage the construction of affordable housing like this.
1:21:21
Thank you. So the direction that you want from Council is on additional fee waivers. Is that correct? Correct? So this project has already been administratively granted fee waivers, but the ordinance allows us to present up to 100% of the applicable fee waivers for your decision. With those two that I mentioned earlier, the county sales tax and the restricted portion of city sales tax, those two line items
1:21:49
accepted from the council Column Based on recent legal advice. But yeah, that is the request. Okay, so when I look at the spreadsheet, basically of the the city development fees
1:22:02
and fees are, are these already included in the fee waivers that you’ve in the fees that have been waived, or are these some of the additional ones that you want waived? So the spreadsheet shows two columns, yes, the columns that the fee waivers that have already been granted, and then the column most on the right hand side would be the additional, okay.
1:22:30
Is there any discussion from other councilors on do we want to waive the additional requesting 100% of all the fees be waived,
1:22:40
whereas it says on the far left the percentage
1:22:45
of the fee that has already been waived.
1:22:50
So councilor Crist,
1:22:57
I’m realizing that a good portion of this comes from the water, the windy gap surcharge, the irrigation tap fee. And I’m wondering if we should have the water board at least
1:23:10
give their approval on this is they’re saying the full amount is 111,000
1:23:16
that impacts water,
1:23:19
as we’re looking at raising water rates. It just seems like we should consider
1:23:26
how this would impact that and how it impacts what the Water Board does. I’m looking at like building permits. I think that’s probably fairly easy
1:23:38
and administratively if they’ve already so in some ways, this spreadsheet is a little skewed, because you’ve already given an 11,000 reduction. If you’re looking at the first line and you’re asking for a full 22,000 so you’re really only asking for another 11,000 is that correct,
1:23:56
approximately? Yeah.
1:24:00
So and then
1:24:03
what we’ve learned is that we can’t waive this sales tax. So that pulls out another 48,000
1:24:12
so,
1:24:15
so I move that we
1:24:20
give the water board a chance to review this. I think they meet
1:24:27
next Monday, on the 18th and bring it back for December 3. Do we have room on November 19? I don’t think we do. So could we bring it back December 3,
1:24:43
I would also ask for direction. As a point of precedence, we have had several of these 100% fee waiver requests come to you in the last several months, including for Longmont Housing Authority projects. And I don’t believe the concern about the Water Board fees came up. So I.
1:25:00
I would like some clarification. If that’s
1:25:03
an item of concern to council, that’s not something we’ve heard before, whether that, yeah, let me just say this, that was 2024 and now we’re talking about 2025 money. And we’ve also been asked by the water board to have a little more input on some of these, and we are looking at raising rates going forward. So so I do need to follow up on this a little bit in that
1:25:28
so we’re operating off of an ordinance that dictates the process, and so if there’s a change to the process,
1:25:41
you know, the council can direct that to happen, but I think the council then also has to probably direct that we change the ordinance, and it’s a little bit more encompassing than just this, because when we look at where we utilize fee waivers for things like economic development and other issues, the same situations exist where we’re waiving similar fees via the ordinance structure. And so I do think there probably needs to be a bright if Council chooses to move in this direction. There needs to be a more holistic conversation in terms of how we do this, because we do not take those other items to
1:26:23
boards for their input into those conversations, and so it is a departure from the ordinance in the process.
1:26:33
So and before we make, ever make any of those decisions, I think the full council has to be seated. So, so I’m just asking that we extend this to December 3. That gives me a chance to run it by the,
1:26:48
you know, the water folks who will inform
1:26:53
as to, you know, how this all works. Oh, and I’m sorry. Councilor Martin also has input on that, and she’s knowledgeable in that arena. Councilor Martin,
1:27:05
thank you, Mayor Peck, I would add that
1:27:10
we would also need to
1:27:13
look at changing the charter of the Water Board, because right now, they not concern themselves with fees. They concern themselves with management of water rights
1:27:28
and the utilization thereof. So
1:27:34
it’s it’s really not appropriate to do that, and I think that there’s a little bit of a
1:27:48
different assumption
1:27:50
that perhaps we could be precise on on the
1:27:56
two sides of the balance sheet, in budget estimates at this level, you know, and we really can’t then, that’s why council member McCoy and I were talking about the ultimate value of the fee waivers, essentially the return on investment of making fee waivers and helping This housing get into operation as soon as possible. So there’s,
1:28:26
I guess, is there a motion on the table that we need to vote on? I kind of lost. No, there isn’t. We’re just going to give direction counselor. But I do want to back up what you said and remind that boards do not have input into any fee structure or financial they just advise us on
1:28:53
stuff.
1:28:55
So mayor, if I can off so there doesn’t make any sense, though, to, from my perspective, to ask the water board about these fees, because they don’t. The water board doesn’t have input into the fee structure. If I connect, um, if I
1:29:13
go ahead, counselor Martin, oh, was a motion just make. I was getting, I didn’t mean to give up the floor because I was going to move if there wasn’t a motion that we direct staff
1:29:27
to proceed with the fee waivers, with all of them that are listed here, all of the ones that are proper. Yes,
1:29:35
okay, so it’s been moved by councilor Martin to grant 100% of all eligible fees to be waived. Seconded by councilor McCoy. Is there any more discussion?
1:29:49
Sure. Councilor Christ
1:29:54
Well,
1:29:56
I would like to see a revised right column.
1:30:00
Yeah, because I think it presents it a little bit more attractively that we’re only adding on, you know, another, for instance, on line one, another, 11,000
1:30:12
but then also, I would like to have a full council. I still would like to see it extended to December 3. I
1:30:23
I guess I don’t agree with you on that third column, because 100%
1:30:28
of the requested is is the requirement of the fee. So it equals that. That is the whole
1:30:37
enchilada, even the whole in July. Well,
1:30:40
I mean even the guacamole.
1:30:44
Okay, are you making that into a motion? Councilor Christ or
1:30:50
okay, my original one
1:30:54
was okay. I don’t see any other comments on this. Let’s, let’s vote.
1:31:02
We’re voting on a request for waiver of development fees for the in between of Longmont Wesley town homes project.
1:31:17
So that passes three to one, with Councilor Crist opposing and with councilors Hidalgo, faring, Rodriguez and Yarrow, absent,
1:31:31
there you go. Thank you, and I’ll counselor Crist. We have already had discussions about ways to update this template to make it more user friendly. So we’ll take your comments into mind when we’re looking at updating this template. Thanks for your suggestions. Great. Thank you, Mayor. What I was also going to add is so different ordinances contemplate different issues, and so when we look at the fee waivers here, they in the grand scheme of things, tend to be,
1:32:02
in the grand scheme of large numbers, minimal to nominal impact on the respective budgets. In areas when we have larger projects that actually have more of an impact on
1:32:17
the respective funds. There is another section of the code where the city has allocated 1200 acre feet
1:32:25
of water and other issues. So when we think about what we did at Costco, we actually go into that allocation and attach it to that number, and that reduces over time that is contemplated in the pro formas, and so those are really projects that generally have large scale impacts to the fund, and that is part of the overall pro forma.
1:32:52
Thank you.
1:32:55
Okay, we’re going to move on.
1:33:02
I am going to augment the agenda again,
1:33:06
to make a motion just just to get everybody’s voice in here that we
1:33:16
put a 30 door, 30 day moratorium on the extermination of the prairie dogs at Dry Creek Park.
1:33:30
Okay. Is there any discussion
1:33:37
Seeing none? Oh, yeah. They popped in.
1:33:41
Councilor McCoy,
1:33:43
so what’s the benefit of this? As I hate to give hope where,
1:33:52
where we’re, you know, I don’t want to. I don’t want to give false hope to folks and and not have anything happen.
1:34:01
You know, I don’t want to go ahead and put
1:34:07
this moratorium in when we don’t have a place to put the prairie dogs.
1:34:13
And you know, I’ve been dealing with this in my entire life on whether I was on council in 2008 when we talked about this first. Or on the boulder, Boulder County Open Space
1:34:28
commission or, or now, you know, on the parks and open space, you know, the thing is, is that we have to have a,
1:34:39
have to have a plan of where we’re going to put the prairie dogs, otherwise, it just prolongs this. And I’m not into adding more pain to the community in a way that doesn’t really achieve the goal.
1:34:53
You know, I’ve I am an environmentalist that cares about the prairie.
1:35:00
Dogs and what happens to them and and I want them to be there for the purposes of of feeding the wildlife and the fact that they’re a cute little
1:35:12
animal of the prairie there, but I don’t see what changes. And that’s, that’s, that’s really the issue. How do we what does change? Because I don’t see how we change anything other than we just make people think we’ve got some sort of hope to make some sort of change, and not seeing that. Okay? Council crest,
1:35:37
okay, I see you. Councilor Martin, I
1:35:44
I see that Mr. Bell is in the audience, and I’m just wondering, how does this impact your planning and your performance on at that park? I
1:36:08
Mayor Peck Council, David Bell, Director, parks, national resources at the high level. I think for us, the impacts of the fact that is mentioned by council already here is that it pushes it down the road. I think right now, we have an opportunity where we have followed. I think what long has put together is a very good prairie dog policy. We’ve implemented the way we should, as staff, we’ve worked with the volunteer groups to remove even more prairie dogs and moving it down the road. I think just creates the opportunity that it
1:36:36
keeps going down the road. We have more prairie dogs at some point, either through immigration into that area, or through increased birth rates, but there’s more details on the plan for the park, or actually some of the biology, Jim Crick and Stephanie are here, but really, as of today, not a whole lot. But again, it really is the opportunity we had right now with Pueblo and our work with the volunteers. I think that really is an opportunity that we we have right now.
1:36:59
Okay, Councilor Martin,
1:37:04
thank you, Mayor Peck, I’d like to add that there has not been clarity on what was the prairie dog advocates or the wild land advocates hope to accomplish during this 30 days.
1:37:20
Obviously, it’s not sufficient time to find a new relocation site. And we’d also like to point out, or I’d also like to point out, having made some amount of study on the behavior of prairie dogs under relocation, that this, the this, these are the remnants of
1:37:39
of a colony, not a functional colony. So if one were to relocate these remnants, the chances of the colony taking on the new site or R are much reduced
1:37:55
and and I’m not sure I see the point.
1:37:59
Additionally, we’re not really sure whether we’re talking about a replan of the land use for Dry Creek Park, or whether we’re actually just talking about saving the lives of of some prairie dogs. And I actually understood that it was more about making a decision about the disposition or the design of the parks. And again, 30 days is not long enough to do that, and we have not even, well, I have actually begun to hear
1:38:31
from people who think we need more ball fields.
1:38:35
So I, again, I don’t see the point in in in making this change, some of the, some of the reasons for doing things like putting in artificial turf
1:38:51
are actually water saving, because you, you know, there have been failures in trying to establish natural turf in that area because of the nature of the soil. You know, it’s just 30 days. Aren’t enough to make any changes, and it would be expensive to replan the park after a new set of of community engagement. And as councilor Chris pointed out, in another context, where is the budget for this going to come from? So I will not be supporting making any changes. Okay? Thank you. I wanted, I wanted our residents to hear the voices of other counselors, since I was the only one speaking tonight, and to let you know exactly where this stands. So let’s vote
1:39:51
disappeared,
1:39:55
and I need to vote for my own motion. So that fails. Three, two.
1:40:00
Ah,
1:40:01
no. Well, actually, it’s,
1:40:04
it’s a tie, so it is a novel. It just fails.
1:40:09
So thank all of you for coming, and thank you for your passion. And
1:40:17
that’s all I have to say.
1:40:21
We are now at mayor and council comments. I want to say that the
1:40:25
pardon me own,
1:40:30
oh, final call, public invited to be heard. Is there anyone in the public that wants to be heard?
1:40:37
Here he comes.
1:40:40
They not he, thanks.
1:40:43
Yeah. Just wanted to respond to what you guys were just talking about.
1:40:48
We are not asking to relocate prairie dogs. We are just asking that the area to the west of Mountain Drive that would be considered for future development in David Bell’s document, it says that it could be considered as a natural space for wildlife. We don’t want to relocate any of the prairie dogs, just protect the ones that are there already. The budget could come from we have a lot of ideas. Actually, there’s some funds we’ve raised already that we didn’t need for traps thanks to donors instead, we have barriers funds for barriers at Kepler. I think the other property that Susan was going to be relocating at that had funds available that no longer need them, because she did such an efficient job at relocating there. Can we use that budget instead? There are natural features like I mentioned earlier, the creek. Other ways to keep these prairie dogs contained in an area across the street from where these sports fields are being planned,
1:41:50
I don’t believe it would take an opportunity away the extermination tomorrow could go through for that area. We are just asking for these 10 acres to be saved for them across the street.
1:42:04
That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
1:42:10
Scott
1:42:13
Scott Stewart, two to nine Grand Street. Mayor Peck members of council, just final thought. Next light is what separates this town from every other. It is, it is beyond good. It is,
1:42:28
it’s, it’s, it’s pretty amazing.
1:42:32
Anyway.
1:42:34
Other point, I’m really impressed with how this meeting went tonight, the thoughtful nature of in the interaction that came and, you know, not everybody gets what they want all the time or what have you, but to see the city the way that the city manager rallies the troops. I mean, the number of people in this room is, you know, well beyond what it ever used to be in support of city business. And the thoughtful nature of
1:43:01
this council is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Scott,
1:43:07
one more.
1:43:09
Michelle.
1:43:11
Michelle Christianson, 22 09, Spinnaker circle, I just want to say too that the majority of people that we talked to around the residents there supported keeping the prairie dogs there and keeping it wild so and if you need us to go around and get signatures around the neighborhood there, I’ll certainly go, and I’ll even help fund, you know, to get fencing in or whatever it takes. I’ll use my own personal money. So I just wanted to say that it’s my heart is. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle. Is
1:43:41
there anyone else that would like to address this?
1:43:45
Seeing no one, I will call close final call, public invited to be heard. Now we’re at mayor and council comments, and I want to say that the veterans parade was amazing, well attended, and the flyover was exceptional. So thank you, whoever put that on. City Attorney, city manager, remarks, no comments. Mayor Council,
1:44:14
sorry, I just wanted to piggyback on that and say how much I appreciated the establishments in town that did something extra out of their own pocket for veterans in terms of meals or, you know, just accommodating during the parade and beyond. Very much appreciate the support that veterans get in this municipality. You
1:44:43
let me see if councilor Martin has any
1:44:48
no city attorney, no comments, Mayor,
1:44:54
I’ll second that all those in favor of adjourning. I.
1:45:02
That passes unanimously, We are adjourned. You.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai