Longmont City Council – Regular Session – December 17, 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEM_HJ4oTk
Video Description:
Longmont City Council – Regular Session – December 17, 2024

9:48
We’re waiting for one more person. Councilor Yarbrough,

9:54
I don’t know. I.

10:00
She actually done. She’s done. You

10:35
and welcome to the City Council, regular session, meeting of December, 17, 2024, this meeting can be viewed at the city’s YouTube channel. It can also be viewed at Longmont public media.org, forward slash, watch and channel Comcast, channels eight or 880 may have the roll call please don

10:58
Mayor Peck present council member Crist mayor, pro tem Igo faring, Council Member Martin absent. Council member McCoy, Council Member Rodriguez, Council Member Yarbrough. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank

11:12
you. Let’s stand for the Pledge

11:16
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.

11:35
As a reminder to the public, only Longmont residents and employees of the city of Longmont may speak during the first call. Public invited to be heard. You must provide your name and address and on the sign up sheet before the meeting, or we will not call your name. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. Anyone may speak on the second reading or public hearing item, and you’re asked to add your name to the speaker list for that specific item before the meeting, anyone may speak during final call, public invited to be heard. Members of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar or abusive language, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with the business or orderly function of the council. May I have a motion please for the December 3, 2024, regular session minutes. 2024,

12:26
regular session minutes. As presented second,

12:28
it’s been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo. Fairing. Is there any discussion Seeing none. Let’s vote.

12:42
And that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent, we are now at the agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions. Do we have any revisions or documents to be submitted? I don’t have any revisions, Mayor, thank you. And motions to direct city manager to add agenda items. Do any councilors have motions that they want to add? Actually, I do so I am going to move to direct staff to develop, oops, this always gets me to develop a landing fee schedule based on a reasonable basis to defray airport and construction and maintenance costs. And I would like the report at the end of the quarter. It’s been moved by myself, Mayor Peck and seconded by Mayor I’m sorry, Councilor McCoy, is there any discussion Seeing none? Let’s vote.

13:56
And that carries six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. Thank you everyone. Let’s see we are not the city manager’s report,

14:09
Mayor Council, I do actually have one item for you. Okay, we have a staff position that serves on our cab that was previously held by Charlie Kana medis. Oh, yeah, we have had Nicole Manish serving in that role. And I just need Council’s direction to continue that. Okay,

14:28
I move that we direct staff to have Nicole Manish be the representative on our cab for the city of Longmont. All right, so that was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo faring, and I made the motion, any discussion Seeing none. Let’s vote.

14:54
And that carries six to one. I’m sorry, six to zero with council. Martin absent. We’re at special reports and presentations. We have 2024 Longmont community satisfaction survey results, and Becky Doyle is going to help us with that. She’s from the strategic integration team.

15:21
And here comes the team.

15:26
Good evening, mayor and council. I’m Becky Doyle from strategic integration, and I have with me here, Ana Castro, who’s on our data and analytics team, as well as Lynn yarmy, who’s the manager of data and analytics. We’re very excited to share with you the results of this survey, which is the first time that we’ve run the survey ourselves, and we think you’ll be really pleased with the results and with the with the work that we’re going to be able to do on a continuing basis With our new found resources. So take it away. Yeah,

16:18
let’s go back to the beginning.

16:22
Whoo, and

16:24
then let me see that real quick full screen,

16:35
right there. Thank you. There you go. Thank you so

16:42
i May I interrupt for you for just a second? Yes, it is not showing up on our screens. We have a question mark with HDMI as it tries to pull it up so we’re not seeing the presentation on our screens here. All

17:02
of you have that. Yeah,

17:19
here comes real, hell yeah, I’ll be right with you.

17:31
Mayor, Hang on, Okay? You

26:56
No contacts in the morning.

26:59
And just a quick note about that the content of the visuals that you’ll see in your packet will be exactly the same, but these were slightly optimized for the visuals presentation. So like Becky said, my name is Anna Castro. I’m a data and innovation analyst with the Office of data and analytics, and I’ve been with the city for 10 years. Nine of them have been with next slide, but in the last year, I’ve been with the data and analytics team, and so I’ll be going over the overview, results, methodology, and I’ll try to be as descriptive as I can to explain the visuals as we go through given the technical difficulties. So first off, we’ll start with the purpose. So the community satisfaction survey is a tool to gather resident feedback for continuous improvement, and also just to get an idea of how because this, residents feel in their community, and ultimately to improve the quality of life. So a quick background about the survey. The survey started running in 1996 it has been up until now, completed by a vendor. In 2020 it was paused due to COVID, and in 2022 it was restarted with a different vendor. However, like Becky said, this is the first year that we have in housed the survey with the use of a tool called Qualtrics, and this gives us a lot of new opportunities that we didn’t have before, such as having access to the complete data, being able to zoom in in certain areas, and to continuously improve our approach. And so for the methodology, we replicated the 2018 approach. And that started with taking 4000 randomly selected households that closely resembled the makeup of Longmont in the wards. So we divided the addresses into three wards, and also tried to resemble the breakdown of the types of homes with apartments and single dwelling homes, each of those 4000 addresses received a printed complete survey along with the letter from the mayor, and at the bottom of that letter, there was instructions for those who wish to complete the survey in Spanish on the website. Just a quick note, in addition to Spanish, there were multiple other languages available. Should the resident want to complete it in a different language? Interestingly enough, and I’ll get to that in the results, but I just want to mention this, we had less than 1% complete the survey in Spanish, but we’ll get to that in a moment. And then the other thing I want to mention is that in that printed survey, we did include a QR code, pushing residents to complete the survey via the website. Following the letter, we sent a reminder postcard, again, encouraging those who had not yet completed the survey to do so. For this survey, we took the 2018 Question set, and we mirrored it with slight modifications. The intention in doing that is to maintain some data continuity and establishing baselines. And we received a 16% response rate, which meets significant significance. The results that we’re going to be sharing are reported within a plus or minus 5% margin of error. And I want to mention that although we have the ability to slice and dice the data in many different ways, like in wards or different demographic sections, because we have such a small response rate, it’s best to just look at the data overall instead of to segment it. But again, in the future, we may be able to do that a little bit better. And then the other thing I want to mention before going into the results is that we are reporting the results rounded to the nearest whole number for simplicity sake. So some of the totals may not add up exactly to 100 okay. So for the results, this first slide that you see here is a breakdown of the neighborhoods. And I know that the text is very small, and so it may be difficult to read the names of a neighborhood, but the point the purpose of this visual is to represent that for some neighborhoods, we received many more responses than for others. So those that look gray white, we didn’t receive any, but the darker the blue, the more responses we received from those neighborhoods. And again, with the original sample, we try to evenly distribute those invitations. We we unfortunately didn’t get that perfect distribution and responses. But that’s, that’s, that’s what it is. I also want to mention that 59 of the 606 responses did so with complete anonymity, meaning they didn’t give us enough information to be able to map them in any neighborhood or region within the maps. So now to the demographics. The first one here that you can see is the breakdown of age. They’re categorized starting with 18 to 2425 to 3435 to 4445 to 5455 64 and then 6574 75 being the plus at the end. You can see here that the majority of responses are on the older end of the spectrum, and this is something to keep in mind as we go through the data, because there will be questions where the res. The results may seem surprising, but we have to remember who’s whose opinion we’re hearing from. Similarly, if we look at the ethnicity, you can see that the majority of responses are coming from people who self identify as Caucasian or white, at 86% moving on to gender, you see that the first the blue bar there is female, at 53% 43% male. So it’s a fairly well balanced gender split, with the rest of those bars being preferred not to say, prefer to self describe, or non binary, non binary, or third gender. The next one over is the number of years in Longmont. And this one was interesting because we asked, you know, how many years in long one have you been? And we received so many comments to supplement the year. So for example, you can see here that we ended this range at the end 61 to 84 that’s because someone wrote down 84 and for those higher numbers, we also saw people saying that, you know, this is a third generation, second generation. People were very proud of how long they’d been in Longmont. And that’s, I think that was significant, because they went out of their way to write all those, you know, extra comments on this on the sidelines that said, we’re also seeing a really high percentage of people who are newer to Longmont. So the very first bar that you see in the demographics there is zero to five. So you know, just something to think about as we communicate and think about how to communicate with the residents. This next visual is for housing arrangements. So we asked, you know where, what best describes where you live. And as you can see here, this first, the very first blue bar is at 73% which indicates 73% of the responders own the house that they live in. Again, this is going to be important as we move through the rest of the results, because when we talk about housing affordability and whatnot, just keep in mind that the majority of people are already homeowners. Then the next one here shows apartment or condos. Again, the blue one is owner, own, the red one is renting, and then the yellow is other agreements. Um, right below we split up the responses by Ward, so as you can see here, fortunately, we got a fairly balanced response rate from all three. Rewards. And that last fourth bar at the bottom is the 59 responses that I mentioned earlier that submitted completely anonymous responses, and we weren’t able to map them in either which way. And continuing, the demographics, this one here is highest level of education completed, and you can see that at 34% reporting to have a bachelor’s degree and 33% postgraduate degree, we’re hearing from a very educated, or highly educated resident base. When we look at the household income again, we’re seeing of very nice, even distribution of income. But at the bottom, you see that we have 17% who preferred not to answer.

35:53
We did ask what city the responders worked in, and 40% indicated that they work in Longmont, 16% in Boulder, 40% of them indicated other and we allowed for some open space for that other response. And we included a word cloud here of those other responses, as you can see, retired was a popular category for that response. And so we also saw remote and similar, remote related responses. So again, because we’re managing this survey, that tells us that for the next iteration, we might include retired and remote as other options that include are included one one more note before I move on from this one, keep in mind that retired, that high bubble of retired as we go through the results. And so before we finish the demographic summary here, I just want to show a couple of profiles. So the first profile here that we’re looking at is the 2018 survey demographic profile. So in 2018 when the survey was conducted. These are the people we were hearing from in 2024 these are the people that we’re hearing from. And you can see that in the middle column. So as you can see when you’re looking at those two first columns, the profiles are very similar, a little bit of an older demographic, higher income. I know the brackets are different. But again, money was different. 2018 2024 and ethnicity, we have a very close percent there. And education, similar profiles from 2018 to 2024 the second 2024 profile, that third column that you see there is a snapshot of the community, of what we actually have here in town. So the median age is 39.7 but we’re hearing from 66% over 55 in the survey. So we realize that it’s not perfectly representative of the actual makeup of our community, but again, this gives us opportunities to improve on the sampling process for future surveys. Okay, so now moving on to the results, but before I move on, are there any questions on the demographics? Thank you. So this first visual is we asked the residents how they rate their overall quality of life, starting with, don’t know, poor, fair, good or excellent, and the shades of blue indicate either good or excellent. So as you can see, with the majority of blue. We’re hearing very positive feedback from the community before I move on. I also want to point out that for some of these results slides, you’ll see a small number in a shaded gray box that’s indicative of the number of people who replied to this specific question because the questions were not required, meaning a resident could skip answering one question, these numbers will be different as we go through the results. So for that same question that I just showed the visual before, we took those responses and we mapped them across the three different wards. And again, the overall for good or excellent was 83% and you can see here that the three wards are very closely resembling that 83% with Ward two being the highest at 87% I also want to point to that small gray box at the bottom, that’s for the small number of people who didn’t provide enough address information to map out. Surprisingly, we did see a 55% excellent or good satisfaction rate from those who wish to remain anonymous and to bring things into perspective. Those total responses added up to less than 10% of the total and on that same question, this is just to represent how that response has trended from 1996 when the survey began being conducted, to 2024 and you can see that generally that trend has remained pretty high again, the 2024 being at 83% and those two gaps that you see there are when the survey was not conducted. So this next question here, we asked the residents about their favorite aspects and characteristics of Longmont in two different ways. In this first one, we we provided a list, and we said, tell us your favorite characteristics of Longmont. And these were the five that were most commonly chosen so close to family and friends, location, neighbors, neighborhood, natural environment and quality of life in general. And the red bar represents when the question was first asked in 2018 and the blue bar represents the 2024 response.

41:22
So in the next one, you see again, similar question, but this time, we provided a list, and we asked the residents to rate each of the characteristics, from their least favorite to their top favorite. And the five that are listed here are the ones that were most highly rated, so availability of paths and walking trails, cleanliness, ease of walking, educational opportunities and neighborliness of residents. And as you can see, those five have remained generally the highest over over the last years that they they’ve been asked. Now we asked this question, and it was one single question, but to to review the results, we split it up into two groupings. The reason we did this is because we recognize that some of these questions or some of these specific items may not be applicable to everyone, and so the first visual will show you the areas the topics that should be applicable to most people. So for example, in this when we ask them to rate Longmont as a place to live your neighborhood, and then Longmont as a place to shop. So you can see that the trends have generally been very similar. We’re not seeing anything super shocking. As a place to shop has been fairly low. It is slightly improving, but generally has been about the same. And in this next one, we ask people to rate the following three topics. The first one is Longmont as a place to raise children, Longmont as a place to retire, and Longmont as a place to work. And a quick reminder, I mentioned, the demographics are going to impact how these results are coming up. So when we’re thinking about long one as a place to work and long one as a place to raise children, again, let’s just think about, you know, it’s possible that they may not necessarily apply to the people answering these surveys. So this next one, we asked people to rate how safe they feel in the different areas of Longmont. Before going into the specifics, I want to point out the gray light gray shaded areas near the right side, particularly on the bottom four that light gray indicates that the person had no opinion on that matter, and that no opinion is going to impact the percentages, which we’ll be reviewing and in the next slide. But generally, the more blue you see, the safer people feel. And we are seeing a lot of blue here, so the darker blue indicates that they always feel safe. The medium the lighter blue indicates that they’re usually feeling safe. Great news is we’re seeing very little of that red, which indicate that they always feel unsafe. And just a quick without reading every single one here, I just want to read the last top two, bottom two. So your neighborhood during the day and long run overall during the day scored the highest feelings of safety. And then at the bottom we have recreation facilities and downtown Longmont at night. Again, I say lowest, but there’s a lot of blue in these two. So in that same question from the prior slide, this one here is showing the total percentages of. Those who indicated that they’re usually, that they always, usually or sometimes feel safe. And this is charted over time. So the first dot that you’ll see is for the 2018 response, then for the 2022 and now the 2024 so generally speaking, you’re seeing you know about very similar numbers the recreation question was not asked in 2022 so you see that that there’s only that one spot. And I’m mentioning this one because you’re seeing that at the at the lower section. So for recreation facilities, and I mentioned in the prior slide, there was a lot of gray, because people did not have an opinion on that. And so as a result, the percentage may appear lower than it otherwise would be okay. So we asked residents about their person their opinions on the speed of growth of the following four areas, similar as before. The gray shaded areas indicate that they don’t know, have no opinion on that specific area. But the first item on this list is retail growth. So again, the blue here we are seeing a lot of it indicates that they’re much too slow or somewhat too slow growth. The next one is the physical size of the city, we’re seeing some mixed results, with much too slow, somewhat too slow. Being at 45% total job growth was an interesting one, because that one we’re seeing 52% of people, indicating that it’s moving much too fast. The last one on here is population growth. And for the population growth, we see 37% somewhat too fast. 7% much too fast. And growth came up as a concern in many different areas. So this here shows kind of a variety of responses that are all over. But before I move on to Are there any questions?

47:05
I’m not seeing any.

47:10
So for the following question, we wanted to hear about residents concerns, and we asked that. We asked that question a number of ways. The very first way we asked was by providing an open ended question, tell me your top three concerns for long one, and with those top three, with those open ended responses, we fed it through a tool and Qualtrics, that grouped it into different categories. And then we group those categories by council priorities, the larger the bubble, the more topics that fit into those concerns. I also want to mention that we did not specifically ask about whether there are children in the household. And so it can be assumed that given the older demographic, it’s possible that there are no children in the household, and that could explain why education is not a top priority or concern for the respondents. In the other topics, you’ll see that that’s a fairly large bubble. The top two concerns that feed into that larger bubble include cost of living as well as growth. Any questions before I move on from this one,

48:29
I do just want to make a remark on equity, safety and sustainability. It’s interesting that safety is in there when safety was a huge positive on the other slides, yes, and

48:46
we can get into that one in in the next couple of slides, we do touch on those things too. Okay, so in, in this one here, we took those concerns that we asked about in the prior question and we mapped them out across the three wards. So as you can see here, the three topics are the same, just in slightly different orders. So for example, grow Ward two and three. The top concern is too much growth in Ward one, the top concern is homelessness. But the three are are the same across all three wards. I Yeah. So I mentioned that we asked the concerned questions in different ways, and this one was one of them where we actually presented specific topics, and we asked for the residents to say whether this was a household worry a lot of the time, a little not at all, or whether it wasn’t applicable at all. And so that light gray shaded area indicates that it was not applicable for the person taking this survey. Again, you can see that there is very small amounts of red in all of the concerns that we asked about. Out, but I’ve organized them by the most concerning one, and at the very top of the list, we have paying for health and dental care and insurance. Again, to add, you know, some context you’re seeing that come in at under 20% of people, indicating that it is a lot, you know, that they worried about that a lot. We have paying for food and groceries, paying for unexpected costs, and then at the very bottom, we’re seeing paying for child care or addressing risky behaviors affecting school age children, once again, reminding the group of the demographic taking this survey, so using those same that same question, the bottom visual is showing you how people scored these over the 2018 which is the yellow bar, 2022 and then the 2024 survey. So nothing hugely different, except in the middle there you see three where they’re only blue bars. That’s because those questions were not asked before, and that includes paying for home internet, finding mental health or substance abuse treatment, and paying for IN HOME assistance or elder care. Any questions about this son.

51:21
And so another way that we asked about the concerns here in Longmont was, to what degree, if at all, are each of the following a problem in Longmont, and the first one on this list is trash accumulation and illegal dumping. Then we have run down buildings, noise, graffiti, weeds, crime, drugs, vandalism, traffic congestion, junk vehicles, train sounding their horns, meth lab scams, home foreclosures and homelessness. And I really want to emphasize the gray area once again, and that’s because all the gray indicates that they don’t know, thus they have no opinion on these matters. And I’ll refer back to why this one is important, particularly around home foreclosures or meth labs. But otherwise, before I move on, I just want to highlight that that traffic congestion, homelessness were certainly concerns for people, and we saw that throughout the results.

52:22
So we took the responses from the prior visual and broke them down into four different segments. The first one is traffic. Over time, we see definitely that traffic congestion has been on the rise as a concern. We’re at 95% of the respondents indicating that it is a concern for them to whatever degree. Then we have junk vehicles, as I mentioned before, that’s a newer question. And then lastly, we have trains sounding their horns, which actually went down some there, and is at 68 the next one here is overall appearance problems over time again. This was the first time that trash accumulation and illegal dumping was asked. So there’s no historical data on that one. And that one was at 89% being the highest in this section here, we have run down buildings which has generally trended the same. Noise was slightly higher at 84% we have graffiti which was a few points higher, and then weeds, which again slightly higher. In the public safety. Over time, we were seeing crime, drugs, vandalism, meth labs, scams and fraud. Scams and frauds is a new item, so no historical on that. And I want to draw attention to the meth, meth labs here at 93% if you recall in that, to what extent question you saw a lot of gray shaded area. That’s because there was a lot of people who indicated that there was no opinion or they, you know, they didn’t know about that. So that percentage is appearing higher than it otherwise would be. Similarly in this housing over time, you’re seeing that foreclosures is 82% but we saw a very high number of no opinion or No, no, don’t know, responses on that. So again, 82% is higher than it was previously, but we had a lot of no responses. And then homelessness did come in at 99% because for 99% of the people, it represented a concern to whatever degree it was. And you saw the the breakdown in the extent visual Any questions before I move on. Okay, so for this next question, we ask. Asked about how they acquired information about the city, and the five that are listed here were the most popular ones, where people very frequently got their information at the top here we have city line newsletter followed by quarterly long one recreation brochure, word of mouth, long month times call and long one website. And just as a quick note, I feel like it’s important to once again, remember the demographic of who’s responding to the survey to kind of get an idea of of where that specific group of people like to get their information. The second visual on the bottom is informational opportunities. So the first one is, how likely are you to attend coffee with council meetings on a Saturday morning? Followed by, how likely are you to attend an open forum city council meeting where the entire meeting is devoted to public discussion on any topic? And then the last one is, how likely are you to visit a city council table or a tent at a community event such as rhythm on the river or Cinco de Mayo? And as you can see, those have generally stayed about the same. The only one that went slightly down is that third one and and I say slightly, it went from 54 in 2022 to 51 so very minimally. Decrease any questions.

56:25
Nope, you’re doing good. Thank you.

56:29
Okay, so

56:30
this one here, we asked the residents to think about their most recent experience with a city of Longmont employee, and we asked for them to rate whether they felt like they were treated with respect, whether the employee had knowledge of the issue. We asked them to rate the willingness to help or understand their overall impression how easy it was to get in touch with the employee and how quickly the issue was handled. So as you can see here, and I know the lines are kind of, you know, smooshing into one another, but that’s because we’re not seeing a huge change. Over time, we saw some mild improvements, and particularly around the treating you with respect. You see a few points up there were, you know, two, three points up plus or minus on the majority of these items. But I think the overall picture is that as a whole, you can see that the community feels that the employees are doing a generally good job. And before I move on, any questions about any of the results that we’ve gone over so far. Any

57:41
questions? Seeing none. I think this is impressive. Okay, another presentation. Is this the last of this presentation? Or is there another

57:53
No, just the conclusions, and then the wrap up. The wrap up. Yeah. Okay. I do

57:59
you want? I have questions. Mayor

58:03
Pro Tem Rodriguez.

58:15
Mayor Pro Tim May, pro Tim Hidalgo ferry. Thank

58:20
you, Mayor. So yeah, I had to really stray myself to to look at the looking at it through the lens of the age range, age range that was responding so at 32% of the participants were at that 65 to 74 and then, in looking then the next highest number of people who participated, at 17% of the respondents were in that age range of 55 and 64 and then 75 and over. So it was, you know, looking at that 55 and up. So that, you know, in what is the demographics of Longmont, you know, does that.

59:15
Thank you, does that. So then in looking at this data, is it really representing what is happening in our community and and what do we have? What strategies can we look at moving forward, to engage working individuals, people with children, and looking at at those, at those needs. And because I want this to to also guide our priorities, and I want to make sure that we are hearing from people who are busy, who don’t have time to engage and come every Tuesday to speak, but you know, we’re really trying to to maintain that quality of life. And are we reaching out, and are we tapping in? To the needs of the vast majority of our people? That

1:00:04
is an excellent question, and we actually addressed that in one of the conclusions next steps. So I will get to that in just a moment, because we recognize that. So the conclusions that we saw here is that there are areas of concern, but generally, we’re seeing very positive results and feedback from the community, particularly around the quality of life, location, proximity to friends and family, excellent walking past trails and the sense of safety, especially during the day. The concerns, as we mentioned throughout, the results, were traffic, homelessness and financial struggles. So future directions for for next iterations of the survey, the at the very top, we are wanting to ensure that we have representative community feedback, survey sampling to better reflect the demographics we we’ve talked about engaging with, you know, maybe different departments and finding alternative methods to reaching out, making shorter surveys. But certainly, we do have an ongoing list of lessons learned and future opportunities. And if

1:01:20
I can jump in on that, what was interesting when we talked about the responses, we talked about that my director’s meeting and I asked a question, and we represent a range, asked a question, who does surveys? The majority of that of that group who you would think, do surveys. We don’t do surveys. And so I think when you you think about, how do you engage? I think we’re just seeing this trend generally is I think we’re so bombarded with information, emails, text, all of these things, people just aren’t doing it. And that was kind of a point that we talked about that was really interesting for us, is, and it wasn’t talking about the city survey. It was talking about, when you get pinged for a survey, do you do it? I block it because it overwhelms my inbox, and so there is a piece of this where we’re going to have to get really creative in how we engage a larger segment of our community. Because I don’t, I think what we’re seeing is also reflective in what we saw in the group that we talked to about this. It’s the same thing, there’s a piece of being overwhelmed and participating in all of these things, and so we spent a fair amount of time talking through this to say we need to figure that out.

1:02:55
One of those, one of those things that we saw as we’re processing this is that despite making the survey available on a digital platform, 66% chose to write a printed survey response and mail it back to us, 66% and so again, that reframes our approach for the future surveys and and as Harold was, was talking about, you know, we’ve talked about, you know, How do we make it shorter, more succinct, more immediate? And one of the ongoing conversations is, how do we leverage this new technology that we have access to, this Qualtrics or other technologies, to expand the communication with and engagement with the public? But before I move on, I want to mention that, along the same lines of expanding the communication opportunities, I want to invite Becky over to share a little bit about what that would look like in the in the future.

1:03:59
Hello, I didn’t always talk about this. So having some opportunity to, you know, to be where the public is, you know, in like the museum, in the library, have kiosk type feedback, is something that we’re going to be able to do with this new technology. So, and certainly, this is a great way. We’ve, we’ve, certainly, we’ve been able to replicate a prior results, right? And so from this point, we can just improve that by meeting people where they are, and having those, those kind of briefer interactions that are that are more specific to the, you know, the visit or the thing that’s happening right now, as opposed to kind of this survey, which is a bigger picture piece.

1:04:57
Councilor yabra, thank you, Mayor i. Um, so thank you for all of this information and putting all this together now we have a you putting this in the dashboard and all those things really good information. Have we thought about like, look how many people are here tonight who could have taken that survey? We have board meetings. How many people could take a survey for our like transportation board and airport advisory board? I mean, I think just kind of thinking outside the boxes according to how many, how many times we have people that are already in a group setting that can also take a survey. Is there a way in? I’m not trying to get people cussed out or nothing, but when they come and pay their bills, can they do a quick survey at the, you know, at the window? I’m just saying that’s representative of the people that’s in our city, right? Working, hard, working people as well. So I’m just thinking of ways where we interact with people on a daily basis that maybe we weren’t thinking about how we can ask them for their information. And I agree with you too, Harold that we are all in your data with all kind of surveys and getting it on your text, you know, a text message on your phone. But let’s look at when we have these coffee with counsel once a month. You know, we can have a survey. So I’m just, I mean, all those things that I’m thinking of, that we can have those opportunities for people to voice their opinions about the city. You know, it may not be a good survey with coffee with council, I’m just saying, but still, it’s information and as someone that’s able to speak and to give then give us their opinions, you know, and their experience. So I don’t know when you all was talking, I was just thinking about those are opportunities like, how many people are here now that could have taken that survey? That’s all. Thanks.

1:07:22
Councilor Christ.

1:07:24
Councilor Yarborough, I like your idea. They come to Coffee with council thinking they’re going to ask us questions, and we’re asking more questions. So I’m ruminating on this, and I’m combining ideas. I don’t know if it’s so far afield that the age group that completed the survey, because we are having an aging demographic in town. And then I noticed that 40% work in Longmont and 40% work outside of Longmont, and then the other box, the rest were retired. I do know that nationally, people are working until they’re older, into their 70s, so I don’t know if it were that far afield in terms of people who are actually participating in all the aspects of Longmont. I am concerned that economics didn’t come up much notice. It wasn’t in one of the highly rated characteristics. So economic opportunity was not in there. It was actually the characteristic that brought me to Longmont in my 20s, so and then also the place to work was kind of taking a dive. And we’re, we’re assigning that. You know, people are not working anymore, but it seems like maybe, you know, 40% are working in town, 40% are working out of town, so maybe that’s leaves you another 20% that are not working out of that group. I don’t know if that’s how the numbers work. I’m just saying, okay, yeah. I’m just saying workers were included in that so. So this is leading me to believe that we, we do need to work on and this seems to be, I think the the bar graph showed that it’s kind of been a continual issue with Longmont is that maybe we need to work on our economics a bit more in town. Need to have more work opportunities for people here, and that’s come up more than once in different venues. So, yeah, they said one too fast. Jobless growth is too fast. That was kind of confusing, okay, and I don’t have an answer for that. I don’t maybe. So maybe it’s because people are potentially concerned about losing their jobs. Oops, it’s a stretch. I don’t know. I don’t know. I was puzzling over that too,

1:10:07
interesting tensions in this, and that’s one that we picked up on, you know, another one is when you see a need for housing, but then you see growth, and, you know, the there’s some so there’s some things where they’re saying here are important issues, but they’re moving in different directions. And so there are things we’re identifying that, you know, we even scratched our heads. So what does this really mean? And in many cases, you know, and we’ve seen this in previous studies, we need affordable homes, whatever affordable means to the person, but you have this other thing saying, Well, this is an issue, and it’s things that just don’t quite make sense to us. And I think what they said is, we’ve now replicated it when we’ve done it, but now we have the ability, unlike when you contract it, to start digging into some of these things. The other thing, as I talk about, is we’re starting to move into Salesforce, and Salesforce gives us the ability to now tap into to the what we were talking about, the services that people are using. So when you look at things like recreation, and you saw a lot of not applicable, what that’s telling us is they’re not using that service. What we want to do is hear from the people that are using the service to see what they think of the service. And so where we’re moving with Qualtrics and Salesforce is going to give us the ability to get that real time feedback, to really see what people think of the services, because this is a two year snapshot, but what we want to see is what’s happening on the ground. What I want to see from a staff perspective is, how is your interaction with Sandy, and how did that go? And I think those are things we’re now going to be able to do with the technology we’re bringing forward. We haven’t been able to do it to date. Take

1:11:57
some deeper dives into the questions exactly. That’s

1:12:00
all that I was going to mention as well, is that usually, when we give this presentation, you’ll ask those same questions in the in the consultant says, Well, if you have some extra money, we could, we could dive into that, but because we’re doing it in house now, we have that opportunity. So as you see those things that you’re like, Hmm, I wonder what this means. That’s a great thing for us to flag to be able to do that additional surveying with the tools. Yeah.

1:12:20
So are we going to have, I, you know, pads so that while we’re at coffee with council, we can start filling out the surveys as we’re asking questions.

1:12:30
You tell us what you want to know, and we’ll put those, those iPads out there, so sure,

1:12:38
it could make it kind of interesting.

1:12:42
Councilor McCoy, thank

1:12:44
you Mayor Becky, Anna and Lynn. Thank you so very much for pulling this together. It was along those lines that Harold was bringing together in regards to the top three concerns per ward that I think is one of the things. And I wonder, if we don’t look at, you know, when they talk about too much growth there, maybe it’s a particular type of of housing that seems to be hitting that market. People like on, hey, we want more purchasable homes, opposed to just sheer apartments and that type of thing. So to council member Chris point, you know, that’s probably a valuable thing to have at our boards and commissions and and at events, and whether it be coffee with council or whatnot, or even things like this, have people come in and be more specific about what they mean by that, and maybe reach back out to a few of these folks and see if they can clarify that, because you know that then guides us where we need to go as a staff and a council and a community so and You know, we’re going to be coming up here in February with our retreat as a council, and it would be nice to have some of that analytics figured out so that, you know, we can start to relook at our document here, if the rest of the folks out there in TV land have not seen this before, but kind of some of our priorities and those sort of things, so that would be something I think would be valuable for that discussion at that time, and just in general, thank you

1:14:38
Seeing no one else On this list. Thank you so much for the presentation.

1:14:51
Very cool. So we are now at public invited to be heard. Remember that we would like your name and address and you have three minutes the. First person on the list is Lance Whitaker.

1:15:08
You know they’ve asked to be taken off usually.

1:15:22
Well, hello, mayor and city council. My name is Lance Whitaker. I’ve been residents for 44 years now. I’m sure you’re all sick and tired of me by now, I’d like to remind you that, oh, I live at 1750 Collier street too. Today is National maple syrup day. Today is also national say something nowadays. So if you got something, say something, and today is also national. Wright Brothers day, they flew on 1903 on this day. But more importantly, we’ve been flying hot air balloons since 18 or 1786 so long live the balloon. I would like to address the survey that if you want to get a hold of some of the younger people, you might want to put the survey on paper and put glitter on it, because our younger generation seems to have an addiction for glitter. So if you want to get them more response from the younger generation, maybe we’ll just put a little bling on the survey and we can get them in you got all have a nice day, and thank you for your time and patience, and an extra shout out for staff for all the work and ordinance 202501,

1:17:09
thank you. Thank you. Lance. Greg Morrissey,

1:17:19
good evening. City council. Greg Morris, 1648, Harvard Street. And I come with today with a question I’d like to know that, with Councilor Martin leaving for us to go in the future, what is the process to get so that for Ward two, all people have to vote for the new person to come in, not just going through the application procedure. A lot of people I’ve spoken to have all said it should be voted on, not going through like an application process. And I’m just wondering, who can I contact? How do I approach that correctly to get those changes made? And if people want those changes made, they should be made.

1:17:58
Let’s talk after okay, if you’re here at the end. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jordan. Person

1:18:16
Good evening, members of the council. My name is Jordan. Person 640, Bucha and Lane, I’m here tonight asking for your support and approval of amending chapter 6.70 of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding marijuana hospitality licenses and to set second reading and public hearing for january 2025 ordinance oh 2025 has the power to change my life and the lives of many others by increasing economic opportunities that will draw young professionals to Longmont. I’ve been attending these meetings with one goal in mind, to open a cannabis spa here in Longmont. I have been a nurse for 23 years, and have been a massage therapist for 18 years, for the over the last decade, my work has been centered on wellness and the therapeutic potential of cannabis. My dream is to offer a unique, unique safe and healing environment that aligns with our city’s values and brings something innovative to this community. I want to express my deepest gratitude to the mayor, to the members of the council, to the City Clerk’s Office and the city attorney’s office, for your tireless work on this ordinance throughout this entire year, your dedication to thoughtful policy making makes dreams like mine achievable. I am hopeful. I look forward to welcoming you and your constituents as patrons to my business together, we can make longmon a leader in forward thinking, responsible and community focused wellness. Thank you for your time and consideration.

1:19:50
You’re welcome. Thank you. Jordan Gary Hodges, you.

1:20:04
Good evening. Gary Hodges, 2148 Stewart Street, I’m speaking again on the appointment coming up. Just wanted to follow up on something that Mayor Peck said last week about the pre session, about that’s not where policy is made. It’s just discussed, and we all understand that. It’s just that it sure seemed like there was a gentleman’s agreement at that time about how this was going to proceed. And so I think that, like Greg kind of mentioned there a minute ago, it’s kind of thrown people a little bit for a loop. So word coming out of Ward two is a strong preference for a candidate that represents the desires of current residents, not the wishes of people who may or may not move to Longmont into in the future. They want the appointed candidate to be an agent of the neighborhoods and not global desires a person who cares about the city and the people who live here, not how it and we can be shaped to serve larger agendas. Shall Be encouraged that several strong candidates have explicitly stated an intention to pursue the important pursue the appointment, or are seriously considering doing so. Overarching hope of war two and many others in the city is that the appointment is not being approached or will not be approached with a favored candidate in mind that behind the scenes advocacy is not occurring, and all candidates will be viewed and assessed honestly and without personal bias. So I stated last week there’s a rather large portion of city residents who do not believe their values are adequately represented by our Council’s current makeup. Much is being made, excuse me, much is made of being equitable in city decisions as a common refrain we hear in these chambers. So this is your opportunity to demonstrate these statements are not just meaningless platitudes by putting equity into play in a meaningful and substantive way. And I want to again, follow up with some comments Greg made, and also I thought was going to be discussed at last week’s council meeting, is that, how we might avoid this in the future, and what, what plans you guys have for amending the charter to avoid this, to allow one person to really drive this, as Councilman McCoy said in his comments in the paper, and I think that’s what we all see has happened, is that one person has really driven this process, and it’s unfortunate it occurred that way, and now you guys are in the situation of appointing a candidate. And you know, I mentioned last week how you can do that without, well, without showing obvious favoritism. So it’s a big deal coming up, and I’m really looking forward to seeing how it plays out. So there’s a lot of people that are watching it and are interested in what you guys do. So thank you. Thank

1:23:00
you. Gary. Steve ALTSCHULER,

1:23:13
I thought I was further down the list than that short list tonight. Steve ALTSCHULER, 1555, Taylor drive, I’d like to say I think that was an excellent presentation. It was very informative. Lots of lots of good information, not just information. Couple thoughts that I had to kind of go along with Councilman Yarborough was saying, coffee with council will give you a lot more of the senior crowd. And I can say that because I’m one of them. I was thinking something like the sunrise stampede, the Friday night jazz night that is in the fall. And even farmers market, you can arrange to set up a booth. I wouldn’t do it every week, but if you did it one or two weeks over the summer or one time at the Friday jazz thing, and get a cross hatching of different types of people. And I know at the farmers market, they have probably several, but at least one booth where the guy just sells coffee. And you could set up right next to them, and you could say, we want to buy 100 coffees from you and give people a free coffee for coming out and sitting down and filling out the questionnaire. So not only you’re getting a better cross hatching of people, but you’re helping a business in town also. So it’s a win, win. So I would again, coffee with council is great, but you’re getting a lot more of the senior people. I think a mix of things where you can get people in their 20s and 30s and 40s would help balance out the responses from the questionnaire. And other than that, I don’t I think this is the last meeting of the year. So. Would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah. Thank you, which are both the same day this year. Thank you. Good night. Thank you.

1:25:09
Now that is the end of our people on first call, invited to be sir be heard list. Oh, okay, so we’re now at the consent agenda. Don Would you mind reading the consent agenda into the record?

1:25:27
Absolutely, Mayor, the second reading and public hearing for ordinances introduced on this consent agenda will be held on January 14, 2025 and I do have a correction with the exception of item nine, a regarding chapter 6.7 D, regarding marijuana hospitality. That second reading will be January 28 2025, Item nine A is ordinance 2025, dash oh one, a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 6.70 of the Longmont municipal code on marijuana stores regarding hospitality licenses. 9b is ordinance 2025, dash oh two, a bill for an ordinance approving an economic incentive agreement with stored energy systems a limited liability company. 9c. Is ordinance 2025, dash oh three, a bill for an ordinance amending section 15, oh 7050, of the Longmont municipal code to adopt amended city of Longmont public improvements design standards and construction specifications. 90 is ordinance 2025, dash oh four, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance brand municipal, airport hangar, parcel H, 34 d2, mile high, skydiving center 9e. Is ordinance 2025, dash oh five, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance brand municipal airport hangar, parcel H, 39 to trustee Tassie devil LLC. 9f is ordinance 2025, dash oh six a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as the Carnegie Library building, located at 450 7/4, Avenue, Longmont, Colorado, to Longmont public media. 9g is resolution 2020, 2024, 92 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the contract for services with the city and Longmont public media for public educational and governmental access television services. 9h is resolution 2024, 93 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with visit Longmont nine eyes. Resolution 2024 dash 94 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with the Colorado Enterprise Fund. 9j is resolution 2024 dash, 95 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an amendment to the 2024 agreement for economic development services with the Longmont you can have an economic development partnership. 9k is approved for Apple capital improvement program amendments, and 9l is except 10 capital improvement program amendments approved by the City Manager.

1:27:55
Thank you. Don councilor Christ,

1:28:01
I would like to remove nine a and I just want to say it’s very timely. We have this survey talking about economics, and we have all four real power hitters in town represented here, but I’m not going to pull them, so I will move the consent agenda minus nine a the

1:28:25
consent agenda has been moved by councilor Chris, seconded by councilor McCoy. I see no discussion, so let’s vote.

1:28:38
And that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent,

1:28:48
let’s see. We have ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. The first one is a bill 020, 2483 it’s a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14 point 32 on rates and regulations governing electric service. I would like to comment on this. Oh, where is it?

1:29:21
And the reason I want to comment on this is that I’ve had several, and I don’t know about the other councilors, several emails about the electric services. And I see some of you signed up tonight to speak on this. So I did have conversations with LPC as to how to respond. So I see them, all, three of them back there, and if I make a mistake in this explanation, I’m sure they’ll run down and tell me I’m wrong. So I want to just explain how this works a little bit the city purchases all of its electrical energy from Platte River Power Authority, and those costs are equitably. Divided throughout the city, including people who have solar, but the subset of that are the subset of those rates is solar. For example, residents who have solar installed will theoretically pay less for the electricity purchased from prpa. Theoretically, that is not equitable for all residents, because those who don’t have solar will pay more to the city to cover the cost paid to PR PA for our city, hope that makes sense to make it equitable. The city will buy solar from residents in order to smooth the cost equitably around for everybody, those payments appear on the bill as tax credits. So for example, if your bill is low, is higher than I’m sorry, everybody’s bill is the same, except for people, if you have solar, that would be let the lower economic part of our residents will pay more because the solar people are getting their solar from what is generated through wind or solar their energy. So in order to make it equitable, so the lower economic part of our city doesn’t pay more, the city will buy solar by energy from the solar residence, so that everybody’s payment is the same. Those payments, again, are on your bill as a tax credit. Those who install solar in 2024 were given a static credit on their bill as an as an incentive to install solar, and they’re considered legacy residents, their credits will be ineffective for 15 years. So that means, if you install the solar, you get the same we’re going to buy it back from you as a tax credit for the same amount for 15 years. However, that ends in December, so the incentive to to install that the new tax credit 2025, is less than the legacy solar customers will be getting. Does that make sense? I don’t know if that’s what some of you are going to talk about, but I thought it’s kind of complicated. And I see Darrell Hogg going to come down here and tell me he got that part wrong. So it’s just, I think having it explained might be a little bit better than you started off. There you go.

1:33:00
Thanks, Mayor Peck members of city council. I just want to clarify that it’s not a tax credit, but it is a credit on the bill, if

1:33:06
that makes sense, yes, yeah. I’m so used to saying tax credit, yeah. And you’re

1:33:10
right. The big sort of line, the dividing line, is folks who have already, or are in the process of installing solar before the end of this year, will be on that legacy rate, which is a little bit higher any and so if they made any decision to install solar on the roof based on the economics of what they would receive back from the city on their bill that is intact for them, like you said, for the next 15 years. But then going forward, anybody who installs solar on or after January 1, would it be, would be at this slightly reduced rate to account for what you were talking about in terms of that

1:33:43
equity, right? Just to smooth that the cost to everybody.

1:33:48
I don’t know if a smoothing as it is just ensuring that we’re not that we’re equitably compensating them for the energy that they are providing to the city in excess of what they use themselves,

1:34:00
and not making our lower people who do not have solar pay more.

1:34:05
It’s actually everybody, including those who have solar, who would be but yes, and in general, that’s right, it’s, it’s, it’s to make things just more equitable to for those who do not have solar, exactly. It’s

1:34:17
probably as clear as mud. Thank you. All right. So do I have any are there any other comments from councilors knowing that then I’ll open up the public hearing on 2024, 95 we do have a few people signed up. The first one is Mike Baum, yeah, I think I misspelled that. I mean mispronounced,

1:34:44
okay, oh, and turn on the No,

1:34:49
hello, hello, hello. That’s better. Yes, I am Mike Baum, and I live at 5026 William place Lamont. And yeah, it was a great explanation. Thank you. You. So mayor and council members. My name is Mike Bau, and I’m a member of the Board of Directors at sustainable, resilient lowmont. So SRL is very proud to be part of Longmont leadership in supporting the movement to a renewable energy future, and we are proud lowmont power has leading edge programs to encourage renewable energy adoption, like the efficiency Works program and we’re proud. Lowmont has a high adoption rate of EVs, heat pumps, rooftop solar and all home electrification to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. However, SRL is concerned that the city’s changes to solar rates for net metering go against your stated goal of encouraging renewable energy adoption and increasing the amount of distributed energy resources in the LBC, LPC rate analysis, you would estimated, I believe, $64,000 of solar generated electricity was not purchased from prpa, and therefore is the loss to the city and sales tax. Well, rather than a loss of sales, why can’t we begin to think in terms of good for the city by not polluting, good for the community by encouraging renewable energy adoption, you already do the right thing by subsidizing homeowners of heat pumps, induction stoves, EV chargers and many other renewable energy projects. Turns out it’s $143 per solar customer that you’re subsidizing, and that’s considerably less than what you would subsidize somebody who buys a heat pump. Prpa subsidizes $900 for that. This $143 is simply noise compared to the quarter of a billion dollars prpa plans to spend on a new fossil fuel generation plant. Prpa and LPC talk about decreasing the need to build additional power generation by decentralizing with virtual power plants supplied from communities. If residents don’t install rooftop solar because it is cost prohibitive. How far down the road, are we kicking the can? It takes up to 20 years to regain the money we spend installing solar. Folks may not want to pursue participate if this is the or if it makes the payout even longer. And I frequently hear how difficult it is to install solar in our community. Imagine how much faster renewable energy adoption might happen if we actually encouraged rooftop solar. So my main point tonight is I would like to stress the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels. I know that getting there is a challenge, and at times we have other priorities. However, this is an opportunity for the city to continue to be a leader for a sustainable planet. Thank you. Not

1:38:09
very loud. It was very Do you heard that? Right?

1:38:10
Yeah, okay. Elaine, dear, yeah.

1:38:31
I just want to say, We install solar because Longmont promotes sustainable energy. Okay, now by taking away what we have purchased, not only are you penalizing us, but you’re penalizing the solar companies that are in Longmont. They’re going to have a hard time selling sustainable energy if they don’t get anything back from it. So I would ask, please don’t pass this.

1:39:06
Thank you. Megan DAW,

1:39:14
that is the correct pronunciation. Thank you. Hello, Mayor Peck and city council members. My name is Megan da. I live at 2045 Longs Peak Avenue. I am a new homeowner in Longmont, and I’m currently a non solar rate pair. I work in commercial clean energy, and I will be a new board member of the sustainable, resilient long month for 2025 but tonight, I’m speaking for myself. I urge the city to take another critical look at the proposed solar rate and changes and how this would impact the city’s goal of 100% renewable electricity by 2030 this year. That seems to be driving this change is a reported cost shift from solar customers to non solar customers. As a non solar customer myself, I appreciate. City’s effort in looking for ways to adapt to a cleaner energy future while being mindful of rate payers in city funds, but I believe there has to be a different solution that works for everyone and promotes a cleaner electric future for the city. Additionally, the conversation seems to be how solar on the grid negatively impacts low income residents. However, nationally, solar is a primary mechanism to reduce electric costs for low income residents. This proposed rate change will make clean solar electricity less appealing for residents in hamper adoption. I’m curious if staff have calculated the expected payback period for residential solar customers under this proposed rate, as was done for the existing rate, if payback greatly increases, there will certainly be residents who decide against installing solar. The city will be providing an economic barrier to renewable energy adoption, and subsequently, the city would instead need to procure electricity from other sources to meet our growing electricity needs. Visit additional generation may not be from clean energy. I encourage the city staff to reconsider the rate change entirely in the absence of completely rewriting it. Here are my notes, first, in the spirit of giving existing customers a grandfathering period, this should apply to customers who already started a project prior to these rules going into effect. The current proposal would affect anyone achieving PTR, which is permission to operate on January 120, 25 that would impact residents who made the decision to install solar under the existing policy and then changing on them at the last minute common practice in the industry is to base solar rate on the interconnection application date and not PTO from the published document, it appears that the value of solar only considers the cost that excess generation poses to the city and does not consider the holistic benefits that solar customers provide To the city, such as the avoided cost of generation and distribution when solar customers are self consuming. Additionally, from the way the new residential self generation rate reads, there will be no net dean of consumption. I encourage the city to only apply the new value of solar to excess generation policies like this. Thank you, Megan, thank you.

1:42:25
Claire Schlosser,

1:42:34
good evening. Thank you. I just got this notice November 15. It’s December 17. That’s a very short period of time to allow people to do anything. I know. I’m grandfathered in. I own my own solar panel. Oh, by the way, I’m Claire Schlosser at 1510, Harlequin drive. Thank you, Claire, sorry. So there’s two lines in this letter, which is the only information that I have on this one is replacement. Please note that any increase in the size of a legacy customer system, replacement or upgrade of the system, or ownership changes in the property served by the system, will move the property to the new net metering rate described above. So if I want to add a battery wall. It doesn’t say whether that would apply to that. What if I have a solar panel that goes bad? Does that mean I lose my whole grandfathering and this is 15 years of maintenance. I have no idea what this applies to. The other thing is, the new rights are designed to credit customers for excess solar generation. I don’t know if that’s instantaneous. So the sun is during the day, and then at night I charge my EV car. So am I going to be paying whole basically selling wholesale during the day and then paying retail for electricity during the night when I’m charging my car. This is not clear. Thank you, Claire.

1:44:07
We do have the LPC people in the back. Perhaps either Daryl, David or Kathleen can

1:44:16
help you. Okay, but I think this is not enough notice,

1:44:20
and they’re the ones that can explain that yes vote. You guys are going to be voting whether to do this or not. Right? Thank you. Thank you. Lawrence Bucha,

1:44:37
hi, Lawrence Bucha, to Western Sky circle. I have a solar system that I installed, and obviously there’s a, there’s a large upfront cost to do that on a home. These things are calculated pretty closely by the people who charge you to put them in as to how much and what you’re going to get payback period over, over the lifetime of the system, I probably save about $1,000 I think, a year in power. Charges, right by still pay money that I never get power for free. It’s not, you know, just because I have solar in fact, I believe I pay more for my my meter than than other people that just get standard powers. I need to pay about 1514, to $15 a month, whereas I paid 20 to 50 per month, right? So I’m paying the same charges they are, plus a little bit extra. And even if I get that that $1,000 savings that just goes off the money that I invested when I put the system in, so it’s going to take more than a 25 year, you know, payback period, to recover that expense, and that’s even with the credit that I get at the end of the year for any excess power that I’ve generated over the course of a month. Right now, I think we get about 10 and a half cents. So we pay 10 and a half cents, or that’s what we pay if we buy power. And I do buy power during the year, and then I get credit if I have any excess that I’ve generated over the course of your 10 half cents, also I get maybe 85 $95 at the end of the year, at most, back from the city as credit of power. But then I immediately have to pay for it, because they credit me in the winter, when now I have to buy power. So, so I would always love if they do it some other month, but, but, okay, this is when they’ve chosen to pay me back it. Then December 31 and so, so I immediately have to buy a lot of lighting power in the in the winter, then winter months when there’s very little solar power I can create. So, so I’m always gonna have to pay for some power at the start of the year, and then maybe at the end of the year, I get some of that money back, but I actually don’t get back, I think, as much as I’ve purchased at the start of the year. So I’d like you to reconsider. I think knocking down the credit for this. These systems are very expensive to install. I paid $1,500 I believe, per panel, to put my system up pretty much, and I think now slight difference in if you do it today, maybe 13 to $1,400 you know, do the same, but it hasn’t, hasn’t dropped at zero, right? So, and you’re right, if we do put in something like a power wall, like the lady mentioned this prior, that’s a nice upgrade, and that actually helps smooth power back onto the grid. And but it isn’t clear as to whether or not that would be considered an upgrade to my system that would cause me to now have to get back a legacy amount or lose my legacy amount and get the the new credit. So I think it’d be a good idea to reconsider knocking down the people’s credit for this, for this change. So so if you could consider to, like, keep it at the 10 absence, I don’t think it’s going to be huge expense to the city. Obviously, you’re getting the power, and you’re using it somewhere else, right, you know, and then they’re just crediting the people back who made access, and most people don’t make too much excess, I think, over the course of year. Thanks for

1:47:31
your time. Thank you. Lawrence Ezra Gillard, you

1:47:51
Hi, good evening. My name is Ezra Gilad. I live at 1511, Lark bunting place. I’m here to today to urge you to reject the proposed changes to chapter 1432, of the Longmont Municipal Code regarding net metering for distributed solar generation, this proposed reduction in the energy credit rate represents a step backward for our community and has a far reaching consequences, financially, environmentally and ethically. First and foremost, these changes unfairly devalue the investments of homeowners who took a bold step forward to adopt renewable energy. Under the new scenario, solar energy generated during the day by households would be credited at only five cents per kilowatt hour, less than half the retail rate of 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, the excess energy reproduced would be transferred to LPC and resold to our neighbors at full retail rate. When we as solar doctors, need energy at night, we are required to buy it back at that same full retail rate. This is not just an imbalance, it’s exploitation. LPC would profit directly from energy generated by private households, while penalizing those very residents who invested in 1000s of dollars to adopt solar energy. For homeowners, this change would more than double the payback period for their systems, drastically undermining the financial case for solar energy adoption. Second, this proposal actively discourages future investment in residential solar energy by reducing the value of solar credits, the city is signaling to residents that renewable energy is no longer a priority worth supporting. Instead, it incentivizes dependence on centralized power from the prpa, which relies primarily on coal and energy source that accounts for more than half of their supply. Coal is not the clean, sustainable solution that Longmont has committed to pursuing. While hydropower and wind are part of the prpas energy mix, they too come with limitations. Hydropower can be affected by drought conditions, and wind power is variable. Residential solar energy is different. It empowers. Need individuals to contribute directly to clean energy production while reducing good demand during peak hours. By undervaluing this contribution, we stifle grassroots momentum towards a greener future. Lastly, this policy undermines the very values that Longmont stands for, fairness, sustainability and community driven progress. Our residents choose to invest in solar, not to save not just to save money, but to be part of the solution to combat climate change. By adopting this change, the city would reward their efforts with diminished returns, while prioritizing the financial interests of LPC. We cannot afford to make decisions that discourage innovation and burden those who took a proactive stance towards clean energy. Rejecting these changes is not just about defending solar adopters. It’s about ensuring a sustainable, equitable energy future for Longmont. Let us continue to encourage progress, not penalize it. Thank you for your time. Thank

1:50:53
you. Ezra John bales, applause.

1:51:08
Hi, I’m John bills, 1511, lock bunting, thank you all for all the work you do for the city. Think you all should definitely get paid more. I want to talk about the solar credits as well. So the portrayal of what the solar credits, how they work, I don’t think, is really fair. The view of like we’re taking away from our resident, like their neighbors, making them charging them more, is not, I don’t think the right perspective for this. The perspective that should be is that we’re producing solar. We’re part of your local grid, and our the solar we produce goes to our neighbors. What your the proposal makes it seem like is we sell, we get to the grid. I’ll put in dollar terms. We give to the grid for at the low grade. Now, let’s say 50 cents out of $1 and then you sell it to our neighbor for $1 so you’re profiting. And then that, you know, goes into the pile. But we’re like, treat us as part of your grid, we give you $1 you sell it to the neighbor for $1 and that, I think, is much more better perspective to look at this. You don’t need to profit off of us, just like part of your grid. And but I do appreciate that you took the consideration to give us a 15 year grace period. Thank you for that. I think you can go a step further and make it towards more closer to reflect the lifespan of the expected life, then of a grid which is 30 years. I’ve done the math looking at my previous year’s generation versus cost, and it’s going to take 25 years, at the current rate, to get back the cost to pay off, make break even on solar. And with the changes, it’s definitely going to bump it up. It’s hard to calculate the exact cost for how much it’s going to bump it up, but anywhere between, like around 30 years, maybe, and hopefully our solar still working after that, so we can make somewhat of a profit off it, making doing some good, but it’s, it’s really hard because, like, we only did this because the federal credits, so it’s actually somewhat useful, but pulling back on The promises now is really going to hurt us, but, yeah, I think their perspective should definitely be changed, and add in the make it 30 years. That’d be greatly appreciated. Thank

1:53:51
you. Thank you, John, seeing no one else on the list, I’m going to close public invited to be heard, and we need to have a motion on 2024, 83

1:54:07
councilor. Yap, Thank you, Mayor. I’m not gonna make a motion, but I do. I would like someone else to come back down and address everything that the last five people talked about. I think it’s important for sounds like there’s not enough clarity of what everything looks like. I appreciate sorry I forgot your name, the questions that the lady was asking about. So is there anyone that can come down and kind of Thank you? Appreciate it. I

1:54:43
Right. Good evening, Mayor, Members of Council. Hannah Mulroy, energy portfolio development manager, I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to come here and try to correct the record a little bit and speak to some of the issues that were brought. Up. I’ve spent about two and a half years working on this analysis, and, excuse me, quite a lot of best practice research and thought and analysis went into this effort. Don’t exactly know where to start, but I do want to correct the credit rate. There’s been some misinformation that the credit is somewhere between four and a half and five and a half cents for solar, it’s, in fact, 8.56 cents, which is about 25% less than the retail rate. So the information going around about five, five and a half cents is just incorrect. Something that seems to be lost in some of this conversation is, in addition to considering lowering the rates, we are going to be greatly expanding opportunity for larger solar systems, beneficial building electrification. EVs, so on and so forth. In my two and a half years here at the city, one of the biggest things we run into is having to fail people that want larger systems to accommodate heat pumps. EVs, things of the sort. We generally have the stance of that we’re happy to let you have a baker system. We can’t continue to pay you retail for that excess generation, particularly if we’re going to allow you to have a larger system, because again, that cost is being spread out across all the residents of the city. Well, I think the gentleman mentioned there’s $64,000 a year in subsidy. That was at $2,020 I think we had said that based on the projected solar growth of 81 megawatts. You may recall that we did graph a couple times to all that it’s as much as $2.2 million a year in subsidy. 20 years from now, if we continue to see solar growth the way we anticipate that solar growth is based on data that takes into consideration that we are going to reduce our net metering, right? So we worked with a resource projection firm to estimate how many EVs, battery, solar, everything that we were going to get that 81 megawatts is what we use to present financials to you all, and that is based on the assumption that we as well as the other owner communities, because this is the trend nationwide and utility wide, are going to reduce that to a value of solar payback. So we don’t think it’s going to hamper growth. We expect there still be quite a bit of solar growth. Excuse me, I’m getting over cold over the next 20 years. The other thing I want to mention to most of the folks in this room that have solar is how we do it. Month to month, essentially gives you an entire month to use that energy that you’ve produced at night, on the weekends, whatever the case was. I think a gentleman mentioned that, you know, excuse me, you’re buying at night. If you over produce, say, 1000 kWh in a month, we give you a whole month to use that up and then only credit you back for what you haven’t used. Does that make sense? So you could use 800 of the kid extra kWh to present produce, and we would only credit you that 200 at the end of the month. So we do because of the month to month, and then the state statutory requirements to do it month to month and then pay out at the end of the year. Essentially gives you a whole month to use your energy production, so that credit at the end of the month doesn’t necessarily reflect what you’ve used and produced and consumed on site. Does that make sense? Thank any other upgrade of the system? Yeah, so upgrade, expansion or a change of ownership would require the as it’s written, and that’s something we talk about, would move you to the new rate maintenance, to her point, if a panel broke, get hail damage, that would not that would you would continue to get your legacy rate and as well as the battery edition. So I know a couple people mentioned if they wanted to add a battery that would not move you away from that legacy rate. And as I mentioned previously, the kind of proper valuation of excess net metering can is shown again nationwide utility all the country. It drives folks towards battery adoption. Because not only what you consume in a month is what I say, like inherently retail. You’re not buying a kWh from us because you’re producing and consuming if you store that on site, it’s also a retail value. So it really is only that excess energy that isn’t stored or consumed that would be paid back at that little bit lesser value. Does that make sense? So again, addition of a battery would not move you from the legacy rate repair like replacement of panels would not it’s just whole new system, bigger system change of ownership, which, again, is kind of a standard across utilities.

1:59:36
Councilor Rodriguez, hi

1:59:39
there. I was just wondering if you could maybe address the 15 year versus 25 versus 30 years that has been brought to question tonight. As you may

1:59:51
recall, when we first came to council, we had actually done some estimates on a 20 year legacy rate, some feedback we had gotten from Council and others, was to look at a little bit. Lower rate. We looked at how long some of the systems have been in place, and how long, essentially, we think they have left in their lifespan. I know the gentleman mentioned 30 years. It really industry practices 20 to 25 years. We haven’t really seen the end of life of these solar panels. So they could, you know, theoretically, last 30 years. But what we did was try to give folks essentially 15 or 20 years worth of the legacy rate based on their installation date, so that they get somewhere between 15 and 20 years that they’ve had their system in, where we get that retail rate.

2:00:35
Thank you. And the other thing that I think we forget is that prpa is putting in a huge solar array in severance Colorado, one of the largest that they have done so far. And as far as coal, that raw height, is supposed to be retired in 2028 giving us two years to make sure it’s going to be working before we totally get rid of it. So prpa is working with everybody to make sure that we get to renewable energy by 2030 The reality is, it might be 2035 but we’re shooting for 2030 and always working on it. So

2:01:20
if I may make one, excuse me, one more comment, just to the public. It’s something I honestly took the last two and a half years of moving to the utility understand this is that kind of to everyone when you’re producing solar. So is Platte rivers 200 megawatts of solar, and we actually get excess solar in the middle of the day that then we have to dump into the market or get rid of for free. So the concept of you’re over producing and I’m selling to the neighbor isn’t exactly correct. What I most of my job is focused on is shifting that demand. So getting folks to store their solar on site, charge their EV when the sun is shining, reduce their demand. Get electric heat pumps again, use that month to use all of the energy you’ve produced on site. More solar isn’t necessarily distributed. Solar on the rooftop isn’t necessarily getting us closer to 100% renewable goal, which I think gets lost in the conversation sometimes, if I’m honest. Okay,

2:02:16
thank you so much for that explanation. Anytime. Thank you. And with that, let’s vote, did we make a motion? No, that’s because she had a question. Counselor Yarborough, do you want to make the motion? Since you were can somebody make this motion? It is for 2024. Dash, 83 i It

2:02:44
seemed like she hopefully addressed everybody’s questions, and if she didn’t, please go back in the back and ask more questions, they put a lot of staff, put a lot of work into this, and did a lot of research. So I move ordinance 2024 dash, 83

2:03:04
second. Okay, it’s been ordinance 2024 dash, 83 has been moved by councilor Yarbrough, seconded by councilor crest. Let’s vote. And that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. I voted for it because I am on the prpa board, and I see how they’re moving very fast towards this and working with LPC. So hang in there. We’re going to get it. The next one is 2024. 85 this is a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations and expenses for the liabilities of the city of Longmont. Wait, where am I?

2:03:47
84 more. 84 the one, the yellow one. Oh, I’m I’m

2:03:51
sorry. I thought I had that one. All right. The next bill is 2024 84 it’s a bill for an ordinance approving an amendment to the Vance brand municipal airport hangar, parcel, age 60 lease and authorizing the consent to assignment to Richard F shayden LLC, tenant. Are there any questions from Council on this bill? No, I’m going to open the public hearing on 2024 84 is there anybody in the public that would like to address this bill. Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing on 2024, 84 and ask for a motion. Second, it’s been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by council or, excuse me, Hidalgo fairing, let’s vote. Second,

2:04:45
that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. Now we’re at 2024, 85 it is 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 are there any comments or questions from councilors? Seeing none. I’ll open the public hearing on 2024 85 is there anyone in the public that would like to address this bill? Seeing no one. I will close the public hearing on 2024 85 and ask for a motion. I move

2:05:22
2024 85

2:05:25
It’s been moved by councilor Chris, seconded by councilor McCoy. Let’s vote that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. Our next bill is 2024, 86 this is a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of one utility easement located within the boundaries of the proposed Stafford subdivision replat A generally located at 733 kin Pratt, excuse me, Boulevard, west of South Main Street and south of Ken Pratt Boulevard. Are there any questions or comments from Council? Seeing none. I’ll open up the public hearing on 2024, 86 is there anyone in the public that would like to address this bill? Seeing no one. I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

2:06:12
I’ll move ordinance 2024, dash, 86 Second. It’s been

2:06:17
moved by Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo faring, seconded by councilor Crist. Let’s vote. And that passes six to zero, with Councilor Martin absent. The next one is Bill 2024, 87 this is a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of three easements and a portion of one drainage easement located within the boundaries of the fairgrounds, marketplace, final plat generally located south of Rogers road and west of South over road. Are there any comments from or questions from Council? Seeing none, I will open up the public hearing on 2024 87 is there anybody in the public that would like to address this bill? Seeing no one, I’ll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.

2:07:08
I move ordinance 2024, 87 second,

2:07:12
it’s been moved by councilor Rodriguez, seconded by councilor Crist. Let’s vote. I

2:07:23
that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. The next bill is 2024, 88 it’s a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a slope easement and a drainage easement and a portion of an emergency access easement, all located within the boundaries of the proposed ms strong subdivision. Filing number two, replat B, generally located north of Great Western Avenue, east of Third Avenue and south of Kim Pratt Boulevard, Colorado, Highway 119 Are there any questions or comments from Council, seeing none. I’ll open up the public hearing on 2024, 88 is there anyone in the public that would like to address this bill? Seeing none. I’ll close the public hearing on 2024, 88 and ask for a motion.

2:08:17
I move 2024, 88

2:08:20
second, it’s been moved by councilor Chris, seconded by councilor Yarbrough. Let’s vote

2:08:32
that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. Excuse me, I gotta move this our last one is a bill 2024, 89 it’s a bill for an ordinance amending section 14.2, 0.1, 50 of the Longmont Municipal Code concerning notice of utility Service. I’m sorry, notice of Discontinuance of you utility service. Councilor Crist,

2:09:06
I just want to recognize Becky Doyle and her group for providing us with examples of the old tag and the new tank. Nice job, and it’s a great improvement. And I will move in this. Are you opening you’re fine. Going, Okay, I’m gonna move 2024, dash, 80 I’m sorry,

2:09:24
do the public here? We still need public here, going, going ahead of ourselves. Is there anybody in public that would like to address 2024? 89 Seeing no one. I’ll close the public hearing and now ask for a vote. Councilor Christ, I

2:09:40
move 2024, dash, 89 second, it’s

2:09:43
to move by councilor Chris, seconded by councilor McCoy. Let’s vote that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. Now we’re going on to. Items removed from the consent agenda. Councilor, Crist, I think that you were the one that removed. A,

2:10:14
oh, I’m sorry.

2:10:17
Okay, so I do have one comment about this, and I think I remember that this is what was voted. Majority of the council is for four new, four new permits or licenses to be issued, which doubles the amount of facilities, or, you know, within the city of Longmont. And I just want to make a comment that from a business perspective, we’re asking people to start them or giving them the opportunity to start a hospitality business. It seems like something we could do in terms of social justice as well as just opening a new business, is to give them a little

2:11:07
being first in line for maybe a year or so, you know, give you a little head up ahead of the competition before other people start competing with you. So I just wanted to throw that in, but I am not able to vote for this, or I cannot vote positively for this, as long as it’s federally illegal. So I will not move this item. But if somebody else would like to move second.

2:11:52
120, 25 dash oh one has been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by councilor Yarbrough. Let’s vote. I

2:12:11
and that carries four to three. No, I’m sorry, four to two with myself, Mayor Peck and Diane Crist in opposition and with Councilor Martin absent

2:12:28
mayor. And if I might just briefly point out council did direct us to bring back or to include a preference for locals that is included in here, that I believe is what you were saying, Council Member Christ, I just wanted to point that wanted to point that out in under the selection section, I could find it for you. Give me just one second,

2:12:55
in case it matters. Of course, it’s not jumping out at me.

2:13:13
It is on page. Well, I can show it to you, but I’m not. It’s not jumping out to me right at this moment, but it is included that for local residents seeking a license, there is a preference. Thank you. Don You’re welcome.

2:13:36
Okay, we are now at our general business, and this is a resolution. It’s resolution are 2024, 96 it’s a resolution of the Longmont city council, conditional, conditionally approving the in and out, conditional use site plan application. So we’re going to have a presentation, and then we’re going to open a public hearing on it.

2:13:59
And Mayor, if I might interject My apologies, since we had the technological challenge earlier with presentations, and these are ones you’ll want to see up, I’ve loaded these presentations as if they were an attachment, so if you all refresh your browser, you can now see those up close. You will just need to scroll in sync with the presenter does that. So you should now see them at the very bottom of your attachments list for this item, which is 12. A, you do have them? I hear some. Oh, yeah, okay, I’m very

2:14:37
familiar with what

2:14:39
I’m happy to come help if anybody needs

2:14:41
us at the very last 112 Yes, thank you. Don, I think we’re ready. Don Burchette not. Don

2:14:54
Thank you, Mayor Peck Don Bucha, planning, development services here to talk to you tonight about the in and out. Restaurant conditional use site plan, and I’m going to provide a little bit of background, just so that everybody can understand why the city council is the decision maker tonight and why you’re going to have the public hearing. So I’m going to quickly go through some background just to give you that, and then I will do a quick overview of the development. We do have the applicant here tonight who has a brief presentation to walk you through the site itself, along with some other information on the in and out franchise. And then, in case you do have questions, we do have staff members available, and there are consultants as well for the applicant that are here in case there’s any questions that you need to have answered in order to make a decision tonight. So with that, the background that I want to walk you through is that the area that the in and out is located in was part of the Irwin Thomas first and second annexations the map that’s on the screen right now with the kind of the goldish colors show the boundaries of that annexation. The site itself that you will slowly see come to place is located approximately where the pointer is on my screen, which for you would be cell, I believe it says one on the map that’s on this that you have up. So if you’ll notice, to the north of Highway 119 when the Irwin Thomas annexation came into the city of Longmont, it was made up of 245, acres. Of that, approximately 30 acres was owned by the city of Longmont as open space. And those 30 acres are shown as cells seven and eight on the maps, and it is located south of the river and north of cell one and two. So the property itself was owned PUD because in Boulder County, there was already a mining plan approved for this to be graveled. And so when we brought it in, we had to allow for the mining to occur. We presented that to the council. Council agreed that we would annex this and allow the mining to get to happen within the city of Longmont. So we approved a PUD with the regulations for the mining, and then we brought it in. Then in 2020 the cost code development started to come to fruition. This slide that we have up now shows the area that was excluded from the mining plan. So we have kind of this darker charcoal gray color that was excluded. We still kept the other mining cells south of the highway, and then also the portions that are on the city’s property to the north, again, open space purchased by the city of Longmont. The part of the plan when Costco was approved through the process, the reclamation plan was also modified. They were shown for future ponds on portions of the properties, as well as on the city of Longmont properties to the north. This mining plan and reclamation plan is an estimate. Obviously, the future of what that will look like and whether the ponds are there depends on how much extra, I don’t want to say spoils, but extra dirt and and stuff that they can’t use to get the gravel out. So it’s it’s really based on what’s left after they get the gravel out of the ground. So the next screen then shows the red dot, which is the location for the in and out proposed restaurant. The yellowish orange north of Highway 119 shows the property that is owned by the city as open space. Back in 2021 the City Council approved ordinance 2021 16, which required that all major development applications in the city of Longmont if they are adjacent to a park, Greenway or open space, had to be approved by the city of Longmont. So we are bringing this forward to tonight to meet that requirement that was put in place in 2021 and this is the first time that we’ve ever had a project actually fall into this so you get to be first with this one, and just to make sure everybody’s on the same page, this is the wording out of the regulation. And when it was passed, we specifically asked whether right of way was supposed to be included, and council directed us that it was. So that’s why you’re seeing it, even though it’s across the highway that was considered to be adjacent by council at that time.

2:19:43
So okay, go ahead

2:19:45
tonight, the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation for you. The recommendation was for condition approval, and tonight, you will be making the decision then based on the review criteria for conditional use and for the. Review criteria, which were outlined in your packet, and staff made a finding that we believe they were met, as well as the planning commission when they made their recommendation. So tonight, we are at Step Seven of this process. You’ll hold the public hearing, as was talked about earlier, before I began to take any public testimony on this, the applicant does have, again, a brief presentation, and then you’ll be considering the resolution. The resolution that you have in your packet reflects the planning zoning Commission’s recommendation. So if you do not agree with that, then you would want to modify that. All right, so really quick again, the location we have Highway 119 that cuts across the screen east to west, right to left. We have Harvest Moon, which goes down North and South, adjacent to the property. The red dot, again, is the location for the site, for where the in and out is going to be. Costco is here, this white roof building here down to the bottom left, and the property to the north is the open space parcel that we were talking about the Envision Longmont identifies the area where the in and out is going to be as regional center in envision Longmont, and the zoning itself is reflects that same thing. It is mixed use regional center. So that’s the red. The pink shows the PUD boundary for the mining plan, as well as the house pad development to the south. On the screen is a picture of the elevation for the in and out. They are proposing a 3800 square foot drive through restaurant with indoor seating in the zoning district conditional secondary use. The secondary use restriction prohibits certain uses from taking over some of our zoning districts that are meant more for retail. And so this is a secondary use, and it does meet the review criteria for the secondary use. They are seating for approximate 105 guests. They have parking and stacking to accommodate 29 vehicles within the area that starts into their drive through. So you can fit 29 vehicles. We know that parking and the amount of folks that will be visiting this is sometimes a concern for communities, so staff has been looking at that and working with them to ensure that we have adequate parking for what’s anticipated based on this use. And then we also have 39 parking spaces. We also include EV ready spaces that meets the requirements that the city adopted after the state passed those regulations last year. This is a view looking towards the towards the northwest from the south east side of the building. So this shows a view of what it would look like at night. And Council options. You have three tonight, approve the conditional secondary use site plan. Deny it or approve it with conditions. Again, the planning commission made the recommendation to the City Council to approve it with two conditions, one being that we complete the replat of the property. They’re splitting that property into two lots, so we want to make sure that’s plotted before we approve the site plan. And the second deals with pedestrian access and trying to provide additional connectivity down towards the Costco and other pad sites to the south. That’s the end of my stuff. I’m happy to answer any questions again. The applicant does have a presentation, so

2:23:52
Okay,

2:23:53
counselor Rodriguez, Thank you, Mayor Peck just a quick question about the retail building to the east. Why would? Why would that not trigger the similar

2:24:05
process? So the retail building to the east is a site plan. It is an allowed use, permitted in the zoning district that it’s in because it’s not conditional secondary use, because it’s not a conditional use, correct, whether it’s conditional or conditional secondary, a conditional use would require City Council’s approval. All

2:24:25
right, I just wanted to clarify that, because I know some people might ask that question, yeah. Thank you. Yep.

2:24:31
So Don that also was going to be my question, and that also, because it’s not secondary, means that it can be adjacent to the open space or not

2:24:44
so it is the the the regulation that the city council passed does not say that they cannot be located there. It just required a higher level of review by the city council against. Standard regulations and against the standard regulation, staff and the planning commission recommended approval. Okay,

2:25:06
I was on council, actually, when we made that and couple of three of us were at least and I never assumed that it would be divided by a highway. I thought it would be absolutely their boundaries would touch or so. This is, yeah, this is very interesting that we didn’t perceive that

2:25:31
explain.

2:25:35
Thank you, Mayor Peck. A big reason that we said arteriales Or right right away is, for instance, development that would have been across a much smaller Street, like, say, directly across from McIntosh Lake, correct? So as a highway, still right of way, it gets included in this, even though, obviously that’s quite a big distance as of separation between the two. And that’s, I think, why we enumerated it the way we did those years ago. Yeah,

2:26:05
and it makes sense from the standpoint of that if we would have said local street or collector streets or arterial when we did the new comp plan, we now have minor arterials and major arterials and certain levels of collectors. So right of way gives you the ability to make a determination of whether or not it is impactful or

2:26:23
not. Okay, I don’t think it’s impactful. So is there anybody else that would like to speak to this? Then we’re looking for motions and, oh, the applicant, yes, please. I can’t see where he is. There he is there. He is.

2:26:48
Thanks Don Thank you Council. Thank you members of the of the of the city, for inviting me. I’m very excited to be here. And Donald attest in Europe, the planning commissioners will attest to, I can’t help but be excited. Working for in and out is truly a an incredible experience for me, and we hope it will be for the city as well. We bring a lot, and we’re excited for the opportunity. So a lot of what Dawn went over is somewhat going to be redundant, but I’ll try to go quickly through it, just to kind of give you a little bit of background of in and out who we are, and you know, some of the things that we’ve accomplished over the years. So good evening, because Don does such a great job. I’ll try not to repeat too much of what he said. My presentation this evening will primarily be focused on providing some insights into who we are as company and how we plan to be a valuable partner for the city and the residents will serve in an Alberta was founded in 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder. Over 76 years later, the company remains family owned and is now led by Lindsay Snyder, their granddaughter, who continues the legacy of quality service and community. We take pride in being a truly American company that reflects values of hard work and integrity. Our focus has always been on building strong connections with every community we enter. Our mission statement is more than just words. It’s a guiding principle that shapes everything that we do. It’s why we remain dedicated to serving the highest quality food, creating a supportive work environment and contributing to the well being of the communities we serve. It’s a statement that is so deeply embedded in our culture, we make sure it’s present on every associate’s paycheck and all of our business cards and in and out, we understand that our associates are the cornerstone of our success. We foster a team oriented atmosphere that encourages growth, provides extensive training and ensures that every associate feels valued and supported in 2024 earlier this year, in and out, burger was rated one of the top six companies in the nation on Glass Door with an over 89% recommendation. This commitment translates into a positive environment that benefits not only our team, but the service we provide to every customer. Our project is designed to align with the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan and the land development code we support the city’s aim to create sustainable, connected spaces and promote multi modal access and community interaction. One of the most emphasized goals in the plan is fostering vibrant, livable areas that bring people together, which we support through our site design, pedestrian walkways and commitment to sustainability, including several EV charging stations. Our proposed project is an In and Out Burger drive through restaurant located at 735 Harvest Moon Drive near Ken Pratt Boulevard. This 1.64 acre site is currently vacant and ready for development. The restaurant will feature a three. 1887, square foot building, complimented by spacious, 1100 square foot outdoor patio for comfortable seating. In total, the restaurant will accommodate 105 guests, offering welcoming environment, both indoors and outdoors, for families and visitors alike. Our project has been designed to meet in several areas exceed the city of long months land development code and comprehensive plan requirements. Specifically, we have 39 parking spaces, including four EV ready charging spaces, exceeding the city’s requirement for a single EV charger designed to drive through queue with a total stacking distance of 490 feet, significantly surpassing the minimum requirement of only 180 feet integrated multi modal pathways ensuring seamless pedestrian and bike access to connect with long months larger trail and street network. Our strategic location at the corner of Kent brat Boulevard and Harvest Moon drive integrates with the existing retail and residential infrastructure. This not only facilitates easy access for local residents, but also enhances economic activity by attracting visitors, making Longmont an even more vibrant regional hub. Our site is thoughtfully designed to integrate with the surrounding infrastructure, including existing pedestrian walkways and existing bike lanes and roads. Our site has been carefully designed to minimize any potential impact on the adjacent city owned space to the north. Key mitigating factors include approximately 175 feet distance between our drive through and the open space. What sets us part as an employer, we are proud to offer starting pay significantly above the state minimum wage, currently beginning at 1950 per hour. Our full time associates benefit from comprehensive perks, including paid vacations, flexible schedules and health coverage. This commitment reflects our belief that a supported team leads to a better guest experience and stronger community ties. We actively contribute to the communities we serve through donations, partnerships with local charities and participation and community events. Our goal is to be more than a restaurant. We aim to be the to be trusted and supportive community partner. This slide highlights our commitment to giving back to the communities we serve. Over the years, we’ve supported numerous organizations throughout Northern Colorado, many of which have likely benefited Longmont, directly or indirectly. Our contributions have helped bolster programs that support children, families and individuals in need, reinforcing our role as a dedicated community partner in and out. Burger is proud to contribute to the economic vitality of these communities where we operate. Our new location in Longmont will create numerous local job opportunities, providing competitive wages and comprehensive benefits that support career growth and stability beyond employment, our operations stimulate local economic activity, encouraging spending and supporting nearby businesses. Thank you for your time this evening. I appreciate it, and I look forward to any questions you might have. Thank you.

2:33:24
Thank you. Before we open the public hearing, we need counselor comments. Counselor Rodriguez,

2:33:31
Thank you, Mayor Peck I just want to say, as a family friend of retired executive vice president of HR, Ken Erie Art that I’m very excited for in and out to be coming to Longmont. So

2:33:44
great. Are there any other comments from counselors? Councilor Crist, is

2:33:50
there going to be a light there where the turn in is coming from? Ken Pratt, let’s let me look. Go back a little bit. I had, okay, so we’re looking at slide nine here. I see a left turn as people are traveling west on on 119 I did have one email. I guess there were actually two emails concerned about traffic in that area. So I see there’s a left turn going west, there will

2:34:28
be a light there. Yes, there is an existing traffic

2:34:31
signal. That’s right. This is right where you get into, okay, correct? So I think that’s what the concern was, is their concern that the traffic got quite a bit worse with Costco, but I think it was just an adjustment of people learning that things had changed there. Yeah. All right, let’s see one other question. I. I can’t think of it now. So if anyone else has questions,

2:35:08
I don’t have a question, but I would say I am concerned about the traffic, so I suggest everybody get into the ride long vans and go right, right out there, leave your cars at home.

2:35:23
We have the great Greenway too. I mean, we’ve got it all. So, yeah.

2:35:30
So Seeing no other comments from Council, I’ll open up the public hearing on 2024, dash 96 is there anybody in the public that would like to address this. Sure come on down.

2:35:49
Mayor Peck members of council, Jake Mars saying, 1880 Red Cloud Road, beautiful Longmont, Colorado. I did not intend to speak on this, but I’ve been inspired by the process. First and foremost, when I was 14 years old, I use my lunch period at Longmont High School to make a Facebook page called Bring In and Out Burger to Colorado, and to say that that 14 year old boy would be thrilled by this conversation this evening is an understatement. You know, council member Chris earlier tonight mentioned economic drivers, and when we talk about primary employment, yes, in and out is not a primary employer, but they are another business opportunity that that serves employment needs. I understand the traffic concerns, but I think this is something that council and the planning and zoning team has worked really diligently on. I wanted to really the reason I wanted to speak is just I was, I was so impressed by the process that this council went through to recall things that had discussions council member Rodriguez, discussions that had happened years ago about processes and decision making and why things are considered. We value our open space in the city of Longmont, and we want to protect it. And I appreciate that this council has taken the initiative to ensure that projects like this, that may even look to encroach on open space, on publicly owned open space, are considered thoroughly and diligently, and I am just very thankful to staff and the Council for this and urge its adoption, because I cannot wait to get my first double double animal style, and I was looking forward to it. Thank

2:37:10
you. Thank you, Jake, seeing no one else. Oh, Lance, come on down.

2:37:23
Something Unfortunately, my name is Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street.

2:37:29
Lance, can you pull that microphone up? You’re pretty tall. Yeah, I am tall. There you go.

2:37:36
All right. There you go, about the In and Out Burger snow, the burger joint, to me, I think we have quite a bit of that going on, and I know there are a lot of residents would actually prefer it to be open space. I know you guys ain’t going to vote that way because of expansion, but I just like to remind you that you know you are eliminating open space.

2:38:07
No, no, no, not. It is not open space.

2:38:10
Okay. Well, then I’ll just say, what another burger joint. And that’ll be all I’ll say on his just another burger joint, I so long as it’s not impeding on open space. I really don’t have much to say on the Well, thank

2:38:30
you. Anyway, you have a good day. Gary, did you want to speak?

2:38:37
Yeah, thanks. I like hanging out a lot. I eat there probably once a year every time go to Las Vegas. So I’m a fan like seeing here. They’re everything I’ve ever read about them. They’re a great company, so that’s great. The gentleman spoke, and he said that they’re planning to exceed the EV charging spots. And I’m kind of wondering why. Because right there in the name it’s like in and out. I mean, is there time who’s charging their car when they’re just running in and running out? And I know the state has mandated it, and that’s been litigated and passed, but I guess I see no reason to clog up a space that might not be used because of the quick natured access of their delicious hamburgers and hitting the road again. And so maybe just stick to the whatever the state requires and don’t exceed it would be my comment. Thank you.

2:39:38
Sounds like management has really looked this over, though, so I trust them. Matt, Greg, Greg Morrissey. Greg

2:39:49
Morrissey, 1648, Harvard Street. For a while, I worked for the city of Aurora. I built the city Aurora when they opened the internet burger down there, it was so popular they had. Traffic jams that went out and around was just It took a while, and we heard some reports to some of the people waited 12 hours before they got their burger. That’s true, and I don’t know, but let you know when it’s open, it’s going to be crazy.

2:40:13
Well, if they, if they’re that good and they want to wait 12 hours, it’s up to them. Thank you once again. Ride Longmont electric bikes. So can I Oh, let’s see councilor Yarborough.

2:40:30
Thank you, Mayor. So are there veggie burgers? I would like to know, do we have some veggie burgers? We are what we have animal style.

2:40:48
I’m sorry. I’m not prepared to speak on our menu right now. I’m

2:40:51
sorry. Okay, okay, as of right now,

2:40:54
we don’t have veggie burgers. We do try to be as accommodating as possible, but we, you know, we can get creative without the beef patty. But, yeah, I’m not prepared to go over our entire menu, but I can assure you, okay,

2:41:09
I just wanted to know if you have veggie burgers, that’s all. And it would be nice if we you have veggie burgers in the city of Longmont. I

2:41:17
will report back to my supervisors that are likely watching this right now. Oh,

2:41:22
well, great supervisors, please create a veggie burger for the city of Longmont, only not Colorado Springs, not Aurora, but the city of Longmont would love to have their own veggie burger. Thank you. Thank you,

2:41:39
Mayor Pro Tem, your Hidalgo fairing,

2:41:41
you’re calling everybody.

2:41:43
We’re also important up here. I just you know, so thank

2:41:47
you. Um, I’d like to move resolution 2024, dash, 96

2:41:53
resolution has been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo faring, seconded by councilor McCoy. Let’s vote. I

2:42:06
and that passes six to zero with Councilor Martin absent. And this has been really a fun a fun one. Thank everybody. We’re not board and commission appointments and Mayor,

2:42:22
if we could just take a break, quick break, so I can get set up. Thank you. To give you all time. I’ve mailed your ballots out to you via email so you could Now begin voting those as well.

2:42:37
Wasn’t okay. Oh, oh.

2:43:19
We’re going to take a break until it’s set up. So Relax. You

3:05:33
We might have to do some more things. This is true. Thank you, Mayor and council. So we are going to go through your city advisory board ballots and see where so you all have voted by electronic ballot. This is what we were paused for. And we will go through each one, and I will note for the record that Mayor Peck will show is Sandy cedar, because we had to log in as Sandy cedar, just for the record, Sandy is Sandy for mayor. All right, so on the airport Advisory Board, there are two regular member terms ending 2020, 722, vacant seats. We asked you to vote for two. And so Charlie shilling received six votes. So majority Charlie is clear, and we will need to come back and vote on the second person, because Matthew Mensa and Talis Salah Mateen and Matthew Gibson each received one, and the do not appoint received three. So we need four votes for one option there. I’m going to keep going. We’ll come back to that to the second person. Callahan. Advisory Board has two seats open for 2027 we have two winners, Julia Brown and Jeffrey Gallagher.

3:07:00
I Callahan

3:07:02
has an unexpired regular member seat expiring 2026 and a 26 and it looks like Diana Lask. This is really challenging my eyesight to read this screen. Diana LASIK will be the filler of that seat. Golf Course had has various vacancies but one applicant. So the question here was flipped, which seat would you like Jesse brankin to fill, or would you like to not appoint at all? And you all chose the seat ending December 31 2027,

3:07:48
historic preservation has an unexpired alternate member term ending December 2026, with a vote of four, Sue Henderson will be the appointee there. HPC has another unexpired alternate end during ending, December 2025, and in that seat we have Mary Frances, odia od odea, who will fill that seat. So far, good housing and Human Services has three seats open ending, December 2027, Mark Sisler with a vote of six. Katie Torres with a vote of five, Martha Wilson with a vote of six. So all three of those seats are filled with the one ballot. Library Advisory Board has two unexpired terms ending June 2026 there were two vacancy two spots, and you all appointed Barbara Holt house and Charlene Kelsey unanimously. Master Board of Appeals is, is like the other has a lot of vacancies, and one, one good person applying. Thank you. Noah Huber, question is, Which seat would you like him to fill? And you all picked the longest one regular member term. Ending, December 2027 unanimously, museum has one expired regular term. Ending, June 30. 2027

3:09:13
unanimously, you all picked Michael Gallo, free Parks and Rec has two seats ending December 2027 the two appointees will be Aaron angel with five votes, and brandy Reyes with five votes.

3:09:35
Planning and Zoning has two regular terms ending December 2029 these are longer appointments. You all voted to appoint Tom Lang and Amy Saunders to reappoint them, better said, since they are current, current board members, Tom Lang with five votes and Amy Saunders with four. Senior citizen advisory board has two regular terms. Terms ending December 31 27 you were asked to choose to David Brenna, reappointed vote of four and Martha Valenzuela, Valenzuela Moreno, appointed by five votes. Senior citizen advisory board has an unexpired term ending December 2025 we do not have a clear winner here, Pillman with three Martha was already appointed so and as was David Brenna. So this will be one that you should be able to go back to if you voted for David Brenna or Marta, or you could make a motion. You could do that right now

3:10:55
and then, if you just do a raise of hands. Unanimously, six to zero. Thank you all.

3:11:17
Regular member No, those are going to be on page two, I think, yep. So on the next part of the ballot, Kellen has two regular member terms, ending December, 31 2027, so this one, I asked you not to vote because we didn’t know who we would remove. So who do we remove from here? Sandy, this is where I need help. So

3:11:44
Diana LASIK is the one that I thought was supposed to get the one unexpired term that it was Julie Brown and Jeffrey Callahan that had the two regular

3:11:56
terms. So Julia Brown was appointed and Jeffrey Gallagher, and then you

3:12:01
said exactly. Said,

3:12:07
let

3:12:08
me just scroll back. Let’s just

3:12:21
Yeah. Yeah, this is a different seat. So this this extra so this was the term ending 26 this other question that you have not yet voted is for term ending 27 now you can vote that yes the

3:12:37
two regular members. Term ending December, 3127 ending December, 3127

3:12:47
Julie and Jeff, I confuse myself, my apologies. This is an extra ballot, in case we got tangled. We don’t need this one. Moving on. My apologies. All right then planning and zoning. This next one, let me just get there. You have an unexpired regular member term ending December 31 2027, this one, you have not all voted. There’s only two votes, showing here, showing here, so you cannot vote for Tom or Amy, those, those were already appointed. That’s why this one falls later. You could make a motion, if you wanted to do that by motion. Could you update

3:13:32
our on here? Can we vote on

3:13:39
here? Or you could, you can go back in and vote this contest. You should be able to yes and number vote, number 16, one question.

3:14:01
It wants you to

3:14:16
do it by motion. It says one

3:14:22
question, do you before going it’s the first one. It’s wanting us to

3:14:27
revote the entire ballot the airport advisor, oh yeah. Charlie shell has

3:14:42
to right?

3:14:50
We might be going back to paper ballots,

3:14:57
so I’m right. I can email you a completely separate ballot, but it’s going to require you to redo all those contests to get to the one

3:15:10
where I think is more complicated, if it will allow you, yeah, and we will ignore that vote.

3:15:21
But you need it.

3:15:25
I You need an airport advisory board vote. Didn’t

3:15:28
have four for anybody else. Oh, right. I hear Yeah, back to number one, yeah, back to number one. Yes. How many are we supposed

3:15:40
to vote for his county? How it says

3:15:44
the each question tells you how many Right, right in the question, if, what did it let you council member McCoy, do you? Can you just fix airport and move on all the way to go back all the way to number? So, I number 16 is what we’re trying to get you to.

3:16:10
Number 16 is what we’re on for planning and zoning, unexpired term. Five, five, and there’s six. Okay. Thank you for hanging with us, planning and zoning. Unexpired regular member term ending December 2120 27 will be Harrison Earl. So the next one we held, because the next question, number 17, is, if you appointed Harrison Earl, we wanted to be prepared. You did. Oh, that one at the very end. Sorry, that’s 18. Now let’s do 17, which is the three alternates. There we go. So I have four votes, not six. Two people have I’m mean, you do have four, four, Jacob Arment, Andrew Jordan and Warren Wang by a vote of four. And then the last question you need to appoint somebody to fill Harrison seat, since you’ve appointed him to Planning and Zoning now he will, he will resign. So we need, we have five votes there. We don’t have a clear winner on this one, Matthew and Talis don’t they’ve already been appointed to regular seats. Yeah, they

3:17:51
okay. We went. We have to go back to that ballot. Okay, not appointed anywhere.

3:17:54
Spencer Adams, Michael tomato and

3:18:02
Drew, vote the are we doing?

3:18:08
Planning the final

3:18:20
only one that they appointed on airport was Charlie showing

3:18:34
Okay, so your your direction on Harrison’s vacant seat on airport advisory board is to not appoint by a vote of four, to not fill Harrison’s seat on our airport advisory board. But

3:18:52
you still don’t have a second regular one either, right? Yeah.

3:18:56
So go. I’m gonna go back up. Okay? Back to airport advisory board the second

3:19:09
regular term, and now this is

3:19:17
I’m going to Charles, Schilling was already chosen. So we’ve re, we’ve re entered those votes. So he’s showing an extra, a duplicate amount of votes you had to get click to get back right. I’m just rectifying for the benefit of all of us out here in the land. Matthew Gibson would be your second appointee was six. So Matthew Gibson and and Charles Schilling are two regular terms ending December 31 2027, is I just want to double check back to the vacancy created by Harrison. Do not appoint. Just want to confirm that that was. Major the majority vote. That was the majority vote. That was the very last question.

3:20:11
Okay, I just want to confirm that. Since we got confused, are there any other outliers, Sandy that we didn’t catch? Let me just

3:20:18
MC Callahan house the unexpired term. You had said Diana LASIK, but then you said, No, we didn’t vote that yet. We only

3:20:29
got confused because there’s the extra ballot.

3:20:33
Let me just scroll back up to Callahan and make sure we’re good. So Callahan, we have two regular members, Julie Brown and Jeffrey, and then we have an unexpired 2026, and that was Diana LASIK. Then you’re good, then we’re good, okay, that’s all we needed. With a little bit of pain.

3:21:00
You still think this is better? Need some why? Thank you. I have two separate we can we can talk theory later, but thank you. We will notify people tomorrow, and if we miss something, we’ll bring it back. You.

3:21:37
Final call.

3:21:40
Thank you Don we are now at final call. Public invited to be heard. Come on down Gary and Lance.

3:21:50
Thank you, Council, Mayor, Gary. How does 2148 Stewart streets? This is regarding comments on the survey from tonight, and this just kind of off the cuff thoughts on some of these things. I saw 73% of the respondents own a home. So I think that really gets to something that Councilman McCoy says a lot, which he would like to see places people can purchase, because then they’re invested in the community, and they do things like turn in surveys, and they probably participate in boards. It’d be interesting to see how many homeowners are on these boards. I bet it’s a large portion you get on next door, Voice of Longmont and such. And the apartments that are going in the quantity of them, it’s, I would say it’s an easy majority of people that live here that are not happy about that. Okay, so next 180, 2% scored good, slash excellent, on quality of life. And I think that goes toward housing costs, which I didn’t see this Timeline Item, at least I don’t recall, like I did two years ago, and where, basically, you know, it’s like four or five for all these things about what’s great to live here, but then housing cost was a low. Was low, but it’s like, we want our cake and eat it too. I mean, housing costs are high because people like to live here. And at that time, two years ago, looked in what a house cost in Pueblo, and there’s a significant, there was significant stock of houses in Pueblo under $200,000 and so, you know, do we want to be more like pueblo? No. So, I mean, you know, we pay to live here, and it’s just kind of a reality, all right, a place to raise children. It went from 83 to 61 it’s a pretty big drop. So who knows really, why that is, but I’ll give you one data point. My daughter husband, live here. They have three children, four and under. And my daughter said to me earlier this year, she said, Well, Joan and I, we always wanted to buy a house here in Longmont. Now we don’t really know if we want to live here. They’re seeing a lot of crime on our street, which we the two families, my family and their family both live on the same street. There’s been some wild stuff happening in the last couple years, and I live in pretty nice place. I mean, it’s a slightly below medium household values in Northwest long on all right, trash accumulation, 83% this is something you really need to think about if you start trying to put punitive measures on forcing people to do things with their garbage or recycle. So Seattle have two sisters there. Public dumping is a huge problem, and it’s largely attributed to, you know, raising costs and monitoring garbage and all this stuff and people like, forget it. I’ll just throw it in the woods if you make it a problem. Sad, but it’s kind of a reality homelessness that was still a big issue. Time’s out. Thank you, Lance, I don’t

3:24:58
know. Yeah. Done, mayor and city council. My name is Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street, third time up to the podium. I guess I just like to address fruit trees in the parks and along the trails. The more and more I get out in public and talk about fruit trees and berry bushes on city land and in parks, the more and more people that just I mean, they flood my ear. So if you guys would discuss with some people, it’s, you know, in public about fruit trees and parks and along trails, I’m sure you get your ears filled up with it. So please take some of the burden off me, and like I said, I’ve always supported fruit trees and parks. I think it’s a great idea, and I think Mayor and council should look more into it and discuss it with some of their the public in their districts. I think you’ll find overwhelming support in this area. Thank you. Have a nice day.

3:26:27
Happy Holidays, Lance and Gary and Greg. Jake, all y’all, we are fine. I’m sorry, Mary, mayor and council comments. Councilor McCoy, Thank

3:26:42
you, Mayor. I just wanted to wish the community a Merry Christmas, a joyful Hanukkah and happy holidays and New Year’s to all in our friendly community.

3:26:57
Councilor Christ,

3:27:00
well, I echo what councilor McCoy said, merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, joyful Kwanza. Blessed Winter Solstice. And however you celebrate, I hope it’s a good one, full of joy and time with family, and we’ll see you in the new year.

3:27:20
I’ll add Felice Navidad. And I just want to say that the parade this year was amazing. There were so many people there. It was four and five stacked back, and it was amazing, so many entries. So thank you staff for pulling that together. That’s all I’ve got to say. No one else is here. So city manager reports, no

3:27:45
comments, Mayor, council, city attorney remarks,

3:27:50
final words of the year, no comment.

3:27:58
Second, it’s been moved by councilor McCoy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem hoodoglfering, to adjourn all those in favor, All those opposed, we are adjourned. Good Night, everybody. Happy Holidays.

3:28:11
Thank

Transcribed by https://otter.ai