 Yes, Mayor Bagley. Mayor Bagley, obviously you are in attendance. I am indeed in attendance. Council Member Christensen. Here. Council Member Douglefairing. Here. Council Member Martin. Here. Council Member Peck. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Here. Council Member Waters. Here. Mary of a quorum. All right. Marsha, would you like to lead us in the pledge this evening? No, but I will. I hate doing it, which is why I call it different people. I know it's my turn. I'll do it next week. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I pledge allegiance to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And I'm going to call Harold Tim Don. And I think Joan wasn't on mute. And Susie, I think she was on mute. Susie. Yeah. I'm going to call them all out of order for being on mute and I'll do it again. I'll do it again. I'll do it again. I'll do it again. I'll do it to everybody who was on mute this week from now. That's the order right there. Next time. No, just kidding. All right. Anyone wishing to provide public comment, just a quick reminder, you have to be watching the live stream. Then once the call in information is displayed, you'll enter the meeting ID. And then you'll be asked for your participant ID and then press pound. When you hear confirmation, you've entered the meeting. You'll hear how many people are in the meeting and then you're going to wait and you'll be called in order of when you got in. And the number that you're going to be associated with is the last three digits of your phone number. Like always, your comments are limited to three minutes. And at the end of three minutes, unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut you off no matter how awesome. Your comments are. So that's where we're at. Can we have an emotion? Can we have an emotion to approve the minutes of August 25, 2020? Council Member Peck. No moved. Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Assuming there's no further debate. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Say nay. All right. The motion passes unanimously. Any agenda revision submission of documents or motions direct to city manager to add agenda items. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. I'm saying all In favor say aye. Any comments or motions. Direct to city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. Council member peckt. Thank you, Mayor badly. Actually, it's a question, and if it's there may not be a motion. So. At a previous meeting, Herald re directed staff. To put on a future agenda, the amended air quality contract. And I'm wondering if that has been assigned to an agenda yet. A date. I am not working on that, Eugene. I don't with Dan alone tonight. here. I know we are working on the amendment and we're looking at either the second meeting in September or first meeting in October, I think. Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to check on that. I don't need a motion then. All right. Great. And then, Harold, the only question I have, we're still ready on September 15th with the LHA presentation, correct? Correct. We're going to put that under special reports and presentations. Perfect. All right. Then, seeing nobody else's hand, let's move on to your COVID-19 update. Do you have anything? Yes, Mayor. Council, I do. And you all see my screen with the graph on it? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, this is a Boulder County site and I actually wanted to go over this. As you can see, this is the number of Boulder County residents newly reporting as tested positive as of September 8th. And part of the reason why I wanted to show you this is that we have two fairly significant spikes related to the number of cases in Boulder County, just under 70. And it looks like it was on the 5th and then almost 50 on this date. I did have the chance to talk to Jeff Zajak today about those numbers and, you know, was that something that they were seeing in the communities or was it related to the university system? And based on what he told me that I could say today, and there's going to be more information coming out, but roughly, approximately 70% of the cases that were seen coming in at this level are associated with CU. And the majority of cases they're seeing are also coming in and the lower are also associated with the university system. And so for me, that was important to understand. Is this something that we're just seeing in all the communities? Is it an isolated community? And so I want you all, I wanted you all to know that these spikes, that's what he indicated it's related to. As we move down through the charts and looking at the data, you may remember that when we looked at the five-day average on PCR testing, I believe the last time I went over this, we were at about 1.7. It's now moved back up to 2.5, obviously based on those spikes. And then this is where you can see the rolling five-day average on that PCR testing. You know, still at 2.5, it's a relatively good number, but obviously not as good as where we were trending a week or so ago. This chart again shows you the number of tests that they were performing. So again, you see the ability to hit at 500. And so when you look at transmission source, you can see that of those recent cases, and this is 8.30 to 9.5 community and limited person to person, which is obviously connected to the gatherings that we all have seen on the media. This is an interesting chart. I mean, so again, what you're seeing is that growth in the 20 to 29-year-old category continues to distance itself from the other age categories, but you are seeing 10 to 19 pick up a little bit. But the rest are tending to stay pretty consistent in the overall flow of what we've seen at least within the last month of COVID-19. Again, this is the five-day average trend. You see that spike once again, and then you see it dip down. And here's where you actually see where this is occurring. So if you remember, we had recently been fairly close to Boulder in terms of the number of cases, and then they were just under 100 ahead of us. Now there are almost 200 cases ahead of us, which really is just ratifying that information that Jeff, that I had the opportunity to talk to Jeff about today. So Boulder's at 1,009. We're at 805. So if you look at where we were, I mean, again, once again, and you look at where the other communities were, it's really showing that the growth is really occurring. It's associated with the university system. And then you're also starting to see it here. Remember, we had one point a couple weeks ago, we were at 36.7. It's starting to draw to, again, you're seeing that connected to Boulder. The good news that we're starting to see is if you look at this, all of them tend to be in green. The ICU beds is still in yellow. And remember the available med surge beds. And again, this is related to elected procedures that have been going on and things beyond COVID. And we had been a little further in the red. We're right on the line. Earlier today, before the change in numbers, it was actually in the yellow. And so the hospital system is still doing relatively well or still doing well based on the information that we have. So in the conversation, you all can probably expect an update from Jeff coming either late tonight or tomorrow morning. It's probably going to echo many of the things that I've talked to you about, but they are watching the university system pretty close. One of the things that they're doing is I saw Robert on here for another item. They're doing some of the biobot testing and determining what residence halls they can test. And so that's also adding to the number of cases that we're seeing. We are seeing enforcement in Boulder in terms of the activities. You all may have seen that recently on the news. So they are watching the numbers. The question that I have to get with him about or get with the county health staff is really, what does that mean in terms of where we stand, in terms of moving to protect our neighbor and how do we move in that direction? Since they are pretty sure that it is related to that campus setting. And so I have more questions. We just didn't have a lot of time to talk. And as we get that information, we'll be providing that to the council. But I did want you to see these numbers because it is something new based on what we've been seeing. I will tell you from my conversations, I think that Jeff and the county health department do understand it and they're working with our colleagues in Boulder and then also the university system. Be happy to answer any questions at this point. I'll see two questions. Sorry, Dr. Waters? Thanks, Mayor Bagley. Harold, as we look at the data and the spikes that are associated with the university, a couple of meetings ago, we looked at the criteria or standards for whatever the next is. The next phase, care for your neighbor. What's the terminal? Protect your neighbor. There are I think, are there seven criteria that have to be met? I think eight or nine. Is it fair to assume those spikes that we see, that we attribute to the university because it's in Boulder County would be a factor in keeping or prohibiting the county from qualifying among or meeting the seven standards or ever applying for the protect your neighbor options or protocols? That's actually, I don't know the end. That's one of the conversations that I want to have with them. The county health department is to understand that because what's different about this is because of the so the wastewater testing is a bit of a nexus in terms of then their testing, I guess, dormitories and other areas. So the difference in this is it's not like they're just seeing widespread in the community and so they are understanding where it's coming from. So what I don't know is, is that difference, does it make, does it change how we look at protector neighbor? But that's actually, after this afternoon, moved to the top of my list as a follow-up conversation with them so I can understand it. As soon as we know, we'll let you know. Yeah, thanks. Obviously, to the degree that people, you know, would like to see us get to that phase, I mean, the burden obviously falls to the university to do what's necessary to tell, so that the whole county, right, could qualify and, you know, apply for that status. And to add on to that, the state and the county are, they're all working on dashboards so we can understand where we are. And that's part of the question is to understand the impact, because if you remember some of the criteria of what's, it's continuing to change is X number of days with a decreasing caseload. And so we had really been on that trajectory and what I don't know is, does this start us over again? Or is this where we, you know, we have X days and then after this we're building on to that. So that's some of the specific questions that I need to get answered. They'll be helpful to get to get that information. Thanks. Joan? That's okay. So as we watch this nationwide and look at this fight, a lot of them nationally are coming from universities in the opening of colleges. I've also heard the discussion that sending these grad, these students home is also going to add to a problem that they are carrying this back. So my question is, has the university or the county thought about doing a quarantine dorm so that we don't put the infected people back into a community? It would seem like this might come under the protect our neighbor mandate as well. But I'm just curious if you've heard whether we're going to have, they're having a quarantine dorm or are they sending these kids back home? So I don't know what they're doing per se. Tomorrow I have, every Wednesday I have a conversation with the other managers within Boulder County and Jane's on that conversation. So that was going to be one of my questions. Because I know they're more in contact with the city of Boulder. I do know that when they identify someone that they then have to quarantine themselves. But I don't know what they're doing. You know, multiple schools are doing different things. Some are canceling, some are quarantining. So it's different at all in various university settings. But again, I'll know more. It was just one of us with the holiday yesterday, our conversations occurred today. Normally we'd want to. And one of my amazing teammates just said CU does have dorms set up for quarantine and isolation. So Marika, just so you all know, Marika is the one that just sent me this. Marika is on the GIS team. And so she's interacting with them on a much regular basis. And she doesn't know the number of rooms, but they do have that set up. So I'm assuming somebody tests positive, they're getting moved. The question is, what capacity do they have? And I think we're all hearing that in terms of enforcement, they're getting pretty aggressive in Boulder. You all may have seen the article where I believe it was $11,000 in fines to fraternities and sororities or that was in the newspaper. So I know they're taking it serious and I'll have more information from Jane tomorrow. Thank you. Councilmember Christensen. I would like to point out that CU also has its own hospital where I spent my winter break one year. So they are well equipped to take care of it. I hope they do a good job. All right, Harold, anything else? No, just wanted to let Council know we are watching this. We are staying on top of it and we'll provide you with more information as that becomes available. All right, when we have no special reports or presentations, correct? No, sir. All right, then let's go ahead and move on to first call public invited to be heard. Let's go ahead and take a two minute break while people get in the queue. And then we'll be back. Hi, for those of you who are calling in tonight, we've just let you in the meeting. We are still on hold. We will get to you one at a time. Please focus on your audio in your not follow the live stream. Please mute. We will call on you by the last three digits of your phone number one at a time. Please be ready to unmute yourself at the time we call you out. Thank you. Again, welcome to all of those that have just joined us using your telephone. Please mute the live stream. When we begin calling you, we will call you out by the last three digits of your phone number one at a time. If we do not see that you're unmuting yourself in a timely manner, we will come back to you and take the next caller. Please be patient with us. Again, please mute your live stream so that you are hearing us through your phone. Thank you. Mayor, I'm going to give it about 30 seconds so that the slide will leave the live stream and then we can begin with our public invited to be heard. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Cool. Let's go ahead and throw up the first public invited to be heard speaker. Caller whose phone number ends in 687. I'm going to ask you. You have to wait 30 seconds, right? No, Mayor. The slide is already left the screen. We should be ready to go. What I mean is isn't there a 30 second delay if they're watching? Right. They should be listening to their audio in their phone, so I think we're good to go. Let's give it a shot. And then how many are in the queue? Steph, did you count? We have 10 in the queue. Perfect. Let's go for it. All right. Caller ending in 687. It looks like you've unmuted yourself. Please state your name, your address for the record. You have three minutes. All right. Thank you. So my name is John Catone and I live at 948 11th Avenue in Longmont. And thanks for your time tonight. I'm calling to ask Council to reconsider their recent motion vote on short-term rentals, specifically the one that eliminates the ability for Longmont residents to rent out one investment property. So a little bit about myself. I'm one of those owners who rents out an investment property as an Airbnb. I opened my small business around this in October using our first investment home. And I use that business to spend more time at home with my kids now and to still have enough income to continue living in our neighborhood. We live in the same neighborhood that the Airbnb exists in. So asking you to reconsider the vote, I have a few points I'd like you to consider in support of keeping the code the way it is today. So my first point, that motion vote I think would harm or eliminate about a dozen locally owned small businesses just like mine that are licensed businesses based on the list we were able to receive from code enforcement. Each of us has invested some tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars into starting these businesses. And we've done this based on the fact that in 2017, Council explicitly allowed these types of businesses. So that's my first point. I think it really pulls the rug out from under us since we've invested time and money thinking that these businesses would be legal. And now we're facing the prospect of maybe not recuing our investments. The second point I'd like to consider, this motion makes Longmont less affordable for us as middle class small business owners. And not only that, but it has a negative halo effect on local economic activity. So our business would no longer be hiring services like local cleaners and yard maintenance. And the travelers who come and patronize our business, those travelers that prefer this type of lodging would no longer be spending their money in our neighborhood restaurants and shops. A third point I'd like Council to consider. There's kind of a legal question about this type of code change that's come up within a group of us. So this type of code change kind of takes away our property rights as well, which were established when the original code was released in 2017. So now that we've invested in our businesses, invested in our second properties and established and settled new property rights, is Council able to take those away with the courts support that? I know of a court case in Boston, Texas where their city council made the exact same change and their state courts struck down that change, considering those established property rights. Sir, I love what you're saying, but it's over three minutes. I'm going to have to cut you off. Sorry. Okay. Well, thank you for your time, guys. All right. Thank you. Next. Pauler, whose phone number ends in 191. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and your address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yeah. Hello. Well, good evening, Mayor and Council members. In 2018, I came before the Council twice to plead my case regarding owning a second home and being able to rent on a short-term basis. My name is Ted Ritzma and I reside at 155 Sunset. And then back then the Council decided it was okay for us to continue our business as long as we reside in Longmont and only own one income property, get a permit and pay lodging and sales tax. As soon as your ruling became law, we immediately went to the city. We paid and were issued the third STR permit and then applied and were granted a sales tax license. Since then, we have paid the city over $3,500 in sales and lodging taxes, not including the exorbitant property taxes we have paid since acquiring this home. And it has come to my attention that you would like to revisit this ruling and a clause will make amends to it, potentially eliminating the opportunity to second home by a resident for short-term rental income. As I previously stated to the Council back then, we happened to inherit this home with a substantial mortgage for my wife's mother. With the pandemic upon us, we have had numerous cancellations this year in the amount of over $22,000. Unfortunately, we have had to take out a loan to cover the mortgage and utilities and it's still not enough to cover our losses. Now it seems you'd like to take away any chance of recovery we are still holding on to because for a few members of the community and a few members of the Council renting a second home short-term should now be illegal. Upon reviewing all of the issued SDR permits, there are only a handful of permitted owners that actually reside in Longmont and who use their second home for income. Now I understand the thinking of some people that short-term rentals are just party houses do nothing good for the neighborhood or community and they should be banned altogether. But that is not the case for the majority of the public and us short-term rental owners. We have never had a single problem with our neighbors or the city and our neighbors look out for our home when it is vacant. They welcome all of our guests with open arms and our guests return the favor. The reviews by our guests is nothing but praise for our community. There's been plenty of times after our guest check out that we have seen empty shoeboxes from Browns or pizza boxes from Rosalie's and other businesses. I do believe it is the right thing to make sure everyone is up to code and compliant with all the local rules and regulations. But if you do decide to reverse your ruling from 2018, please consider us homeowners that actually abide by the rules and have done nothing wrong to continue doing business with the city and guests and maybe even bring up the possibility of grandfathering us original applicants into the new ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, sir. Next. Caller whose phone number ends in 452. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Caller ending in 452. Can you please try to unmute yourself? Okay. Good evening. Mayor Bagley and city council members. Sherry Malloy, 2113 Rangeview Lane. I'm calling in to speak to item 9C updating the development code to include protections of riparian areas habitat and species. Two years ago, council approved the first set of major updates to Longmont's LBC in 17 years. At that time, council directed staff to include several riparian protection amendments and to develop a sustainability evaluation tool. As a result, this section of the updates was delayed. The wildlife management plan was completed last fall and hasn't formed the LBC. This ordinance is ready to go and will help protect riparian areas, wetlands, streams, creeks, open space, and the wildlife that depends on all these. The 2021 budget is also on your agenda. When COVID hit, the posting for a full-time environmental planner got pulled. Yet for the last six months and beyond, development continues at a rapid pace. Hiring an environmental planner must be a top priority or this ordinance is not going to be effective. Similarly, with COVID limiting activities, people are accessing all aspects of nature, often accessing it to death. You know the tremendous increase in abuse, overuse, and often abuse to all our natural places by a variety of people and for a variety of reasons. The harmful impacts are not only very expensive to repair, but in many cases will take years and even decades to recover. Desperately needed our resources for education, advocacy, and enforcement to protect these places now. Although council and heralds have recognized the need, there is no FTE in the budget for a volunteer coordinator. Danielle's position is split between project manager and volunteer coordinator. That's impossible as both positions have become more than full-time in the last six months with no end in sight. The return on the financial investment of a full-time volunteer coordinator is exponential with the cost to repair and restore damaged areas, dwarfing a salary cost. Volunteers are essential for healthy communities. People from all walks of life donate their time and effort to make commitments, share expertise, learn, take responsibility, and feel pride for their contribution to the greater good. Needed now is monitoring, gathering data, doing restoration in especially park rangers. Everyone wants a healthy community, a peaceful place where people in wildlife live in harmony. We all have ideas about how to make that happen. The big question is who will make that happen? Volunteers can. All of you have expressed your intention to respect and protect our natural public amenities, which is fabulous. Tonight you can do so by codifying safeguards in the LDC and to enforce this ordinance effectively, an environmental planner needs to be in the budget and to protect our natural areas, a .5 volunteer coordinator position also. Thank you. Thanks again, Sherry. Just an inside, you are always on three minutes exactly. Next caller. All right. Caller whose number ends in 499. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and your address for the record and you have three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. This is Doe Kelly from Barbary Drive in Longmont. Okay. Hello, Mr. Mayor in Longmont City Council. Several of us spoke to you in person at the council meeting in February on the dangers of microwave radiation, the same radiation that smart meters emanate 24-7. At that time, to my recall, we brought each of you a copy of a white paper from 2012, authored by Dr. Timothy Shackley in collaboration with the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy called Getting Smarter About the Smart Grid. And for reference sake, for anyone listening who would like to read Tim's paper, you can find it online with a quick search of the title Getting Smarter About the Smart Grid. As you are aware, Tim Shackley is an international expert in wired and wireless communications who has engineered the development of electric utility gateways and energy management systems for over 30 years. He is well known and regarded in his field. He is an expert, expert who lives in our own backyard. Tim has repeatedly told me that the AMI will be obsolete in three to five years. Does Longmont really want to invest its $7.5 million allocated for AMI and soon to be obsolete technology according to Tim, or do we want to look further into the future to solutions that will give us more than we already imagined? To quote Buck Minster Fuller, you never change things by fighting existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. Interestingly, that is exactly what Tim has done with his Emma, an acronym for energy management and metering architecture, which is soon to be featured in an article in solar today. And if you don't already have a copy of Tim's latest revision of the Emma paper, you soon will. Now, why would we want to listen to Tim Shackley? Duncan Campbell Esquire of Boulder wrote this about Tim in the forward to the above mentioned white paper. Dr. Timothy Shackley has been a friend and colleague for nearly 25 years. I served as corporate legal counsel when he founded a company whose primary focus was on designing home automation systems, and specifically on developing communication gateways and energy management systems employing demand response. He was also involved in the early development of standards for and testing of smart meters, including advanced metering infrastructure or AMI. He became a pioneer of such energy management systems and gateways, with his early cutting edge smart home product. His extensive knowledge and wisdom and systems thinking in this area has been garnered in large part from his deep involvement in smart grid technology, and then taking a leading role in the development and writing a formal national and international standards for close to 30 years. As such, he is uniquely qualified to have formulated this exceptional and game changing critical analysis, getting smarter about the smart grid. Ma'am, we're going to have to cut you off. That's over three minutes, but we appreciate your comments. One question, how many of you have read the paper? And if you haven't, I would urge you to. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Housemar Martin? I've read the paper. Thank you. All right, next caller. All right, caller whose number ends in 777. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor Bagley and the council members. My name is Aiden Melendez. I'm at 1543 South Kauffman. I'm calling into voice or concerns on the amount of traffic and the unsafe speed of traffic coming to our neighborhood on South Kauffman Street. We moved into South Kauffman 1981 after looking at other neighborhoods. Our family chose Southmore Park because of how the neighborhood felt. It was very welcoming, quiet, and calm. The street was very clean, well kept, and as I mentioned, it was very welcoming. We noticed the street was wide and it was common to see the neighbors out close to the street having conversations with each other. There was a lot of traffic and it felt very safe. Talking to each other across the street, drivers usually waved at each other because we all knew the neighbors and their vehicles. We have gotten accustomed to the slight increase in traffic when traffic was developed, but now it has become like a speedway through our neighborhood because it is wide and it is downhill. With the light and the collector street designation, it has become unsafe and I have actually experienced where we have motioned with our hands to slow drivers down because of the kids in the neighborhood and drivers have actually sped up. We as residents at Southmore Park are asking that there is some consideration in how our neighborhood and our lives are now being impacted. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next caller. The caller whose number ends in 949. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes. Hello. We can hear you. Hello. Oh, hi. This is Ruby Bowman, 1512 Left Hand Drive Longmont. Mayor Bagley and council members, I hope you got a chance to read my comments I sent you about the updated riparian code and the 2021 budget. Please implement my recommendations and address specific issues I brought up in my comments. I would also like to reiterate the importance of filling the environmental sustainability planner position. Please hire the environmental planner as soon as possible and approve the position for 2021. And finally, Longmont needs more park rangers. Let's not go through another year where we have to, where we don't have enough rangers to protect the city's natural resources and to handle the large influx of people into our parks, greenways and open space. Thank you so much. Bye. Thanks, Ruby. Next caller. Caller whose number ends in 323. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Thank you. Jamie Cimo, 525 East 16th Avenue. Thank you, Mayor Bagley and council members for allowing me to speak tonight. I'm here to ask you to enact the changes to chapter 15.05.020, 15.05.030 and 15.10.020 of the municipal code that city staff have worked on for the last year. These changes will better protect our creeks, streams, wetlands, riparian areas and those species utilizing this habitat. I also strongly urge you to push the city to fill the environmental planner position that was advertised, but that was pulled due to the pandemic. Development and construction has progressed despite COVID-19 and the city needs someone whose main job is to review development applications with an eye toward how those developments will impact our natural area. I also strongly urge you to encourage the hiring of additional park rangers to enforce city policies protecting our natural areas. As we've seen since the pandemic hit, residents have flocked to long months open spaces in the absence of other recreational opportunities and they haven't always treated our natural areas with the respect and care they deserve. Stronger protections can only go so far if there aren't enough people to enforce those protections. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next caller. Caller whose number ends in 618. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself and please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Dear Longmont City Council, my name is Noah Mattinger and I reside at 2200 Spencer Street. As I'm starting the application process for my short-term rental, I was appalled to learn that this council is considering taking away the rights of property owners by limiting and preventing short-term rentals. This so-called policy consideration seems like such a knee jerk, poorly thought-out whimsical reaction that I can't believe it's even being given the time of day. But here we are. So since we're going to discuss this, I insist that you consider these points to better understand the shortcomings of this policy change. Number one, first, just who are these short-term rentals? These are our friends and family. For many of these visitors is their first time to Longmont and to the front range. They spend money at local restaurants. They have fun in local bars and breweries and they go to the Rocky Mountain National Park and make memories, which they will cherish for life. In short, these are the people and tourists our city needs, especially during this time of economic hardship. Number two, if Longmont can't address this needed service, they will go elsewhere. Are we so naive to think that these visitors will still spend their money at our businesses that we cannot provide them with short-term stays? No, if Loveland or Lyons or Estes Park has short-term rentals, they will spend their money there. I would, you would. Let's not kid ourselves. Short-term rentals provide a home-like atmosphere. Short-term rentals will not check into local hotels. We will simply lose the economic opportunity. Closing the door to short-term rentals is closing the doors to Longmont businesses and to Longmont's prosperity. Three, the majority of short-term renters are families. People love them and people love it when their families can stay close. To me, it seems that the council believes short-term renters are composed of undesirables and problematic people. Yet need I remind the council that many of our city's workers are short-term renters themselves and I sincerely hope that this bias does not extend to these fine people. Number four, it is only a small percentage of homes that even provide short-term rentals. There are just nine, I believe, but now you're considering eliminating this. It's not even a problem. In fact, you ought to be supporting this as it brings money to our community. Last of all, and most of all, this policy is an insult to our hopes and dreams. We invested in private properties to make our lives better and in pursuit of happiness and we chose Longmont as our home. I implore you, oppose this restriction on short-term rentals and do not allow it to move forward any further. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. All right, next caller. We have what, two left? We have one caller left, mayor. All right, let's hear what he or she has to say. Caller whose number ends in 556. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay. Thank you. My name is Claudia Smith. I currently live in Prescott, Arizona. The reason that I'm calling is I just want to provide my experience, talk about my experience as an Airbnb customer. Last year, from July 7 to the 12th, we were having a hard time to find an Airbnb to spend the time in Colorado. So we found a beautiful place in Longmont, beautiful house. And that gave us the opportunity for my family and I to get to know the area. We fall in love with Longmont. We were able to feel like we were local people. We were walking in the streets, enjoying the parks. We went to the restaurants. We enjoyed the shopping around the area. And in general, we enjoyed the culture around Longmont. So what I'm trying to say with these is we love it so much that we even try to live in that area. Unfortunately, the things might have a job situation in this school for my kids. We were not able to move to Longmont. But we, I mean, if I ever come back to Colorado, Longmont definitely is the place that I will go first. After living five years in Erie, I live in Erie. I live in Thornton and nothing compares with the feeling that you get by living in Longmont. So all this, my opinion is based because I live for a few days, like almost a week in one of their BNB homes in Longmont. And last year, like I said, we, because the school of my kids, we had to move to Thornton. But that didn't stop us to still be sitting in Longmont, enjoying the local restaurants, enjoying bars, enjoying all what Longmont is providing. So I got to say that you guys have a great community. And this is the main reason of my call. So just to let you know the importance, how important it is for us as a family that you guys provide this kind of service. There is no way that living in a hotel will enjoy as much as we did in an Airbnb home. So that's all what I have to say and thank you for, for listening. Thank you ma'am. All right. That, that is it, right for the queue? Yeah, that's correct. That's it. All right. Then let's move on to the consent agenda. Would you go ahead and read that for us, Ms. Quintana? Of course, Mayor. Item 9A is ordinance 2020-35. In ordinance authorizing the issuance of the City of Longmont, Colorado, open space sales and use tax revenue refunding and improvement bonds, series 2020, public hearing and second reading scheduled for September 22, 2020. 9B is ordinance 2020-36, a bill for in ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the City of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2020, public hearing and second reading scheduled for September 22, 2020. 9C is ordinance 2020-37, a bill for in ordinance repealing and re-enacting Chapter 15.05.020 of the Longmont Municipal Code on the protection of streams and creeks, wetlands, riparian areas, and 15.05.03.0 on habitat and species protection and amending Chapter 15.08.07.0 on non-conforming structures and 15.10.020 on all other terms defined. Public hearing and second reading scheduled for September 22, 2020. 9D is resolution 2020-88, a resolution of the Longmont City Council adopting a revised investment policy for the City. 9E is resolution 2020-89, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Longmont and the United States Bureau of Reclamation for a Water Smart Grant. 9F is resolution 2020-90, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Longmont and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for water quality monitoring regarding compounds of emerging concern. Resolution 9G is resolution 2020-91, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Longmont and the Federal Aviation Administration for a grant to improve the runway safety area at the Vance brand Municipal Airport. And 9H is resolution 2020-92, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the State of Colorado for grant funding for the Rewind program. All right, thank you very much. Council Member Christensen? I would like to pull 9C for a discussion and 9H just for a comment. All right, can we have a motion? All right, I'm going to actually move the consent agenda last C and H. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, Paul, was that an aye for you? Was that an aye for you? Yes. All right, the motion passes unanimously. All right, let's move on to ordinances on second reading. We're going to go ahead and take a two minute break and we'll ask folks to call in. If you are calling for section 10 ordinances on second reading and public hearings, you'll need to call in now and get into queue. And then once we have the queue lined up, we're going to go ahead and zip through these, I hope. So let's go ahead and see in two minutes. Okay, are we here? Can you give us just 30 seconds now to let the slide leave the livestream and then we'll begin. We have two callers. One of them we admitted they were still hanging out in the waiting area from the last public confederate to be heard section. So I don't know if they have anything they want to say regarding this public hearing, but we will ask them. Steph, are you prepared? Mayor, we can begin when you're ready. All right, let's go ahead with item 10A, ordinance 2020-34, a bill for an ordinance emitting section 4.16.010 of the Loma Municipal Code on allowable investments. Are there any questions from council? All right, I'm not seeing any. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 2020-34. Sorry, Councilmember Christensen. Yeah, I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that we are taking, we are adding as good investments, municipal bonds and mortgage backed securities, which were two of the things that, you know, which under good circumstances would be fine. However, you know, they have proven to be very, both of them have proven to be very problematic in times of financial meltdowns. And so I'm just wondering if we could get a little bit of reassurance from Jim Golden that he actually thinks these are good ideas. Mayor Bagley, members of the council, this is Jim Golden, the chief financial officer. So the only thing we're adding here actually is municipal bonds. We have been investing in more mortgage backed securities for some time. Sorry, I have to put my video on. I missed that. And so I guess we're pretty confident we are invested in triple A type investments when it comes to these securities that are mortgage backed through federal instrumentalities. As far as the municipal bonds go, again, we would only be looking at the highly rated municipal bonds. So we have those built into that investment policy that you actually just acted on. We have those limits on how high those need to be graded. So we don't get into any junk type bonds or junk documents that would be more of a high risk to the city. Okay, thanks, Jim. Muny bonds are usually pretty safe. But we've already, we've also seen this happen in other times, but I'm glad for that explanation. So if you're comfortable with it, I'm comfortable with it. Thanks. Thank you. All right, let's go ahead and continue with the public hearing. Is there anybody who would like to speak at this public hearing? We have two callers, Mayor. Do any one of them want to speak on ordinance 2020-34? Caller whose phone number ends in 499. If you could please state your name and your address for the record. And if you'd like to speak on this ordinance. Caller 499. You were in our waiting room and we let you back in. If you do not want to talk at this point of the meeting, we'll just ask you to hang up. Steph, go ahead and try and unmute her again or him. I'm listening to the video. Let's move on to the next caller and then we'll put both of them back in the waiting room when the next caller is done. Caller whose number ends in 418. I'm going to ask you to unmute yourself please and please state your name and address for the record. Yeah, this is Stan Tull. I probably didn't want to talk on this one. I'm interested in the RV ordinance and that's what I'd like to talk on. But this is kind of, I got kicked out of the public right to be heard because you know you grab the phone and it you hang up and then you can't get back on again. Hey Stan, go ahead and take your three minutes. It's free speech. It's a public hearing. Go ahead. Okay, yeah. Brian, you know I checked the local ordinances and they said I can't ask you guys questions. But this is on this RV thing and we're right in the middle of a pandemic and some people have more than enough time to get themselves busy and make special contact with the public officials like yourself. Other people are not, particularly people that are living in vehicles and they require special efforts to make sure that they come in and they have input into this. And you know the city has been very harsh on people of lower income, things like excluding them from housing by not accepting section eight and all sorts, all the way back to if you had skin was too brown you had to leave the town before sundown. So my thing is is that you need to get people that are being affected by this ordinance involved. You have to make special contact with these people and work out something that people that no longer have housing and are using vehicles as residents you know are not being treated like some sort of criminals where their property is being taken and they're being thrown in jail just for trying to live. That's my two cents worth on that. All right, great. Thanks, Dan. All right, unless there's anybody else in the queue, which it doesn't sound like there is, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Can we have a motion regarding ordinance 2020-34? All right, Dr. Waters? I'll move. I just not, we just, when you put bring that screen up, I can't thank you. I'll move approval of ordinance 2020-34. It's been moved by Dr. Waters and seconded by Council member Edogell actually Edogell Faring, was that you? Okay, seconded by Council member Edogell Faring. So you can go for the comment or discussion. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say may. All right, ordinance 2020-34 passes unanimously. Let's go ahead and move on to 10B, approve amended council rules of procedure rule 27 regarding boards. Are there any questions? Council member Christensen. And just full of questions tonight. I would like something clarified on page, well this is page 10 of our rules of procedure. We're suggesting that when there are fewer applications and seats available, council may make reappointments based solely on the application without requiring an interview of applicants. Does that mean that if this is a, that we could appoint somebody even though we've never, they aren't serving currently on the board? We would appoint them just based on the fact that there are more open seats. If so, I think that's a bad idea to just appoint somebody because without an interview, without ever talking to them at all based purely on the application. If it means that they already are on the board and have served for a while on that board, I'm fine with that. Mayor Bagley, council member Christensen, Don Quintana, City Clerk, that as we understand that paragraph, that's paragraph I that you're referring to of rule 27, we understand that to be about reappointments. So you would only be looking at those who you have already interviewed who are currently serving that have applied to continue their service. So you would have had a chance to interview them already. Okay. Thanks. I just want to make sure you're welcome. Joan, is your hand up or are you just? I'm just holding my hand up. Just posing, just posing for the camera. Okay. All right. Then seeing no further discussion, let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the queue, Don? Mayor, there is not. The meeting's been unlocked since the last public hearing. All right. Let's go ahead and close the public hearing then. Can we have a motion? Council Member Christensen? I move 0, 2020, 34B. I think, I think, okay. I'll second that. I'll read, I'll take the motion as a motion to approve the amended council rules and procedures specifically rule 27 regarding boards or item 10B. Second. All right. Okay. It's been moved by Council Member Christensen. It's been seconded by Dr. Waters. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. The motion carries unanimously. All right. Let's move back. Council Member Christensen, let's go ahead and hear your statement on H. Let's get that one out of the way quick. Okay. Thank you. I was very happy to see this happen again. Just for the public, this is a really good program, the rewind program. It was the federal government put a hold on it because they were angry at Colorado standing up for immigrants and so they weren't going to fund it and we had to sue them and we won the lawsuit and so now we are back with the rewind program which is a very good program to keep, to help people who, help young people who have wound up in, well have needs for help of all kinds regarding the legal system and this will keep them from continuing to get in trouble with the legal system and help them in many other ways to get a good start and so I was very happy to see this coming back. It's terrific. Thank you. All right. Dr. Waters. Thanks very very badly. I wasn't going to pull this off but if anybody did pull it off, I do have a question that I that occurred to me and that is first of all I want to ditto what Council Member Christensen expressed about appreciation for the stay in the state took and the willingness of Colorado to act on principle and the language that was in this program because we've done a program evaluation we brought in an external evaluator of the rewind program and now with a grant to continue the program I visited with Harold earlier today about when we would have a chance not to see the results of the program evaluation because I don't think that's our business but I do think it's our business to get briefed on what did the staff learn from that evaluation that they'll apply as we as we approve a new grant as the program now moves forward. When we have a chance to share basically what you learn and how you're going to use what you learn to get better. Karen do you want to jump in and then I'll jump in. You bet Mayor and Dr. Waters and Council Members. So what our plan would be is to come back in a meeting in October to kind of depending on what the you know what the agendas are but to to share the results and what we've learned and how we are applying that to the program so so we we understand that Council was interested in that and our intent would be to bring that back in an appropriate meeting in October to do that. This is something that that this is of something because I I'm all for a sort of justice I'm all for keeping our kids out of the system etc but yeah I'd be interested and hear what we discovered too because I know if you'll recall it's all fine and dandy I want to take the money I want to make the program better but I do know that there were some concerns after the fact anyway there were some concerns before the the evaluation was done there's concerns after and so we'll just wait till October to hear that so thank you very much Polly do you want to you pulled it do you want to make a motion. Yeah I moved it in a different place um I would now I've lost my place uh okay I've been moved resolution 2020-92 second. I was first on the second but I was muted so we'll go ahead and give that to Councilmember Martin. All right Councilmember Christensen made a motion I was seconded by Councilmember Martin all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right resolution 2020-92 passes unanimously all right Polly let's go ahead and address ordinance 2020-37. Yes just having trouble unmuting myself um okay so um I believe all of us received a letter from Ruby Bowman today and um I think there are many good things in it um I don't agree with everything but I do think that it would be worth discussing since this is our opportunity to discuss it. Um item one was um features subject to setbacks I would like to clarify that we aren't really going to she brings up a the point of native roots now native roots of is of course in Boulder County land and it is on their private property the sign so there isn't really anything we can do about that but I I do imagine that somewhere in the code it does not actually allow people to put advertising signs up on the Greenway is that correct? If it isn't we should sort of you know put that up. Mayor Bagley Councilmember Christensen members of Council donberts have plenty manager so the land development code would not allow for a sign to be put on any of the city property the Greenway for any kind of business like that so that so that would not be allowed. Okay thank you that's what I thought um so um the second item is reduced setbacks and she suggests adding um concentration of rare native fish because that is something that we don't have in there and key that quote the the words key use areas for migrant songbirds and key nesting areas for grassland birds um I would suggest we consider adding those two items to the reduced setbacks section. Um I would move I would make a motion that we add the phrases concentrations of rare native fish and the phrase key use areas for migrant songbirds and key nesting areas for grassland birds. Do I have a second? uh Councilmember Yagalfering? Seconded. All right there's a motion on the table I didn't catch exactly the language that we were providing. Okay. No no no I mean I'm about I'm saying it's I I understood what the gist was I just can't repeat it saying as the chair hey there's a motion and here it is I'm going to have you repeat the language when it comes time to vote councilmember okay um but I guess my only my only concern is um I would I would wish me personally it would be a lot easier I think for legal staff um I view the first and second readings as the first one is for discussion second one should be just for approval and um and this I think this would be a lot easier on legal if we could bring these things up um on first reading and instead of the second but let's go ahead can you go ahead and just repeat what the motion was Polly please just the language and and I see your point Merbagley I do but we if you remember this discussion with councilman Santos we went round and round and round about I'm not yeah I'm not trying to I'm not trying I'm just saying I just want I'm just I'm just trying to get it right so get the language out there and let's let's hear it one more time please I get it okay so the item uh for item five of this section include the phrase concentrations of rare native fish to the list of species habitat features one more time sorry I'm concentration the phrase is concentration of rare native fish and where would that go could you read it into the how would it read go in item five of the reduced setbacks could you read it for us please how would how would it read I don't have that in front of me I could probably that's all right that's all right and then so you're just saying um just councilman Martin I'm sorry do you have it no I don't I was getting ready for the discussion oh okay all right so you're basically just saying that we add that section to the areas that are protected add that phrase to um reduce the reduced setback section item five all right and then what was the other one the other one is also for the reduced setbacks item five the phrase is key use areas for migrant songbirds and key nesting areas for grassland birds these are two things that are in the Fort Collins land use code and we do have songbirds and grassland birds here that mean what right and then so what would the what would the motion do meaning what what is it phrase key use areas for migrant songbirds and key nesting areas for grassland birds to the reduced setback section number V or right so we would be so we couldn't we would not be encroaching upon these areas right all right Eugene do you have any how bad your stomach twisting right now mayor and council Eugene may city attorney we also have Teresa Tate on deputy city attorney who worked on this ordinance I think I've got it I think I'm on page 204 of the packet and there is a list of habitat features being protected by this ordinance and to that we would add concentrations of rare native fish and migratory and songbirds as I don't have rubies email so okay that makes sense we're basically okay okay all right now at least at least we at least understand now what we're going to be voting on I think so that's good songbirds and grassland birds okay perfect perfect councilman Martin thank you mayor bagley mr. machete do we not have blanket language that requires any application for a variance which is what a reduced setback would be to have an evaluation of sensitive wildlife and habitat already that does not require an enumeration or am I out of date on that mayor bagley council member martin members of council we have the ability to request that all of our reports look at and identify any species or animals on the property the the trick I think and and the concern from the people that have some concerns with the way this is not as specific is that sometimes we do not know of all of the species that are on a property so we are dependent upon natural resources staff and david bell's group to help us identify and make sure that those reports have looked at all aspects of the property as an example the the fish species that may be in a section of the creek or river so it doesn't give me heartburn to add this into the ordinance as a portion or as a criteria for the council to consider when you're looking at whether or not to grant a variance and I think in some respects it does give the council additional information that if there were a sensitive or an endangered fish for example in this section of creek where someone was trying to get a variance that that would potentially do irreparable harm it would be a way for you to make that decision and deny that variance along with the evaluation system through the sES so I don't see a problem with adding that language if the council chooses to do so but I do think the code allows us to ask anybody to expand upon their reports to address these kinds of issues but I don't see a harm in adding this okay well that that was my question was is the does the sES not already allow um us to bring in our parks and wildlife specialists to um to evaluate whether this is necessary or not and as part of and council member martin is you are correct as part of the sES part of the evaluation that takes place we use david bell and his staff in doing those analysis for the sES that the council would review so we have that ability right now okay so that that was my point was that it doesn't seem there's nothing wrong with it it just seems superfluous because we already have the ability to protect those populations right customer christensen um I believe this is brought up because the the only way we know what we don't do the consultation the developer is higher consultant and the consultants are varying degrees of quality like any other profession and some of them are not really aware of some of these things so the only way we would be aware of the actual wildlife on the property is through the consultant and you don't want the consultant to the developer to waste money having to go back and get the consultant to do another review of stuff we want this just to be upfront they know that they should be looking for this sort of thing this is not necessarily something that we that um all consultants environmental consultants are aware of one would think they would be but that's you know that's not always true um and it's also to draw us into alignment with the county comprehensive plan and um um that would be a good thing that would be better for us to approach these things um on a county wide basis because the birds fly all over the county so you know um why not just be specific enough to begin with saves everyone time and money all right okay so there's a motion on the table all in favor so sorry dr waters yeah thanks i i i have no reason to not think this is a good idea i just would like to hear since david's name has been used several times do we have anybody on this in this session from uh our natural resources group that that has a has a thought about this or uh guidance or comment i see david now there would be good to hear from david before we cast a vote yeah mayor councilman waters i think everything's been said is is is accurate that um superfluous is probably better word than belts and suspenders but that's kind of what it is the the rules are there we can enforce it and i would say you do have good wildlife staff that when we do have documents coming from consultants along the creek and we don't see any reference to fishes we go back to them and say you need to look at this so having that language there as it's been stated me put that up front but it's something that staff is already looking at all right well so it sounds to me that if we put it in it's no harm no foul it'll make miss bowman happy and it won't be insulted any council member christianson that's what i'm hearing so let's go ahead and vote all in favor say hi all right hi hi all opposed say may all right there we go we got her done then uh consent item uh c ordinance 2020 wait no uh door we amended it but we didn't pass the ordinance the motion was just to add the language so now do we have a all move that we pass ordinance 2020-37 as amended second council member christianson you're muted paulie sorry i'm sure it was really funny what you said i think yeah i do have some more things but if you want to vote well we just did vote on this right so there's a motion on the floor uh to pass ordinance 2020-37 as amended saying no further question comments or concerns go ahead and vote all in favor i'm sorry council member christianson do you have other amendments yes all right go ahead okay under the review procedure i would like to add the phrase um in consultation with the natural resources division the the copy right now reads the planning director may waive or approve minor modifications of any development standard or review criteria contained in the section if the planning director finds that i would like to insert in consultation with the natural resources division after the planning director that would mean who specifically herald would you understand what that means david it means just just david because the division implies a division so in this case today would be joanie um she makes those decisions she does consult with natural resources as she's making it this would just make that as part of the process that she might have to go is anyone so it's it's out it's it's if somebody opposed i'd rule it out of order but if could we go through council member christianson's uh items and then include them all in one motion if somebody has something they don't like make a point of order and pull it out does that make sense that okay don was that correct i want to make sure i need to go back don was that correct what i stated all right uh heralds yes it is joanie does consult all right so what else you got your poly okay um on um 7 24 oh no on 7 14 2020 uh councilman rodriguez made an amendment to the land development code which we approved um specifying that any application that comes to the planning and zoning commission as and is adjacent to city owner operated space and parks must have city council approval we okayed that um that does not seem to be part of this right is there is there anything else pertaining the ordinance 2020-37 protection of the streams and creeks and wetlands i think that is part of this no okay um there go ahead don so in my council communication that was presented to the council back on july 14 2020 there that was item number seven in there and i asked council to allow us to bring that back as a separate ordinance because it was the change was required by making changes to different sections of the land development code the council approved all of staff's recommendations at that meeting so we're bringing that back um after we get this one done we're hoping to get that along with a couple of other housekeeping items brought to you here in october thank you don i forgot about that so i apologize okay is there is there something else is that it okay so there's a motion on the table the first so we'll take it as a motion and i'll second it that uh your motion was uh to uh to add the phrase in consultation with the natural resources division after the planning director that's it all in favor say i what section is that can you give me a site don't don't be don't who cares about the specifics Eugene don't be a lawyer okay i'm just kidding what may our council members may i may i interject sure that language is currently contained in the revisions if you'll look at page 204 of your packet okay well you know we got to know where to put the language and so this isn't quite what you're looking for let us know but what i'm looking at is um item five modification of the setback standard which i believe is what council member christiansen was referring to so if we look at five b increased setbacks it states the planning and development services director in consultation with the public works and natural resources department may increase the setbacks okay and then it goes on from there but i i believe that language is already contained in the revision would you agree paulie and then i'll call in councillor martin i think so okay then i won't second it but councillor martin well i i i i think that mr bell had it right that because uh high redness bowman's uh list and it seems to me that the uh what we're doing is is taking the flexibility out of this ordinance by um subverting the idea of having the sES tool so that it could be a living document that we would include in the evaluations what we needed to include in the evaluations if we um put it in the code uh as specifics like population of fishes and songbirds then we are going to be faced with a precedent that says we have to amend this code every time we come up with a new sensitivity in the riparian area uh whereas with the more generalized approach that we took last year um we can just be adaptive and and i uh trust mr bell and his uh staff to be on top of what needs to be done dr waters yeah i um i'm really making fewer not really comment about the revised ordinance i like what's there and i appreciate what council member martin just said but i if if david and his team are comfortable with a language recommended by ruby that that's okay with me um i do think uh attorney tate was spot on with her pointing us to the language in this ordinance that says exactly and we talked about that i mean that was a big deal when we saw the last draft of this and they they picked it up what i really want to say is this uh both eugene and uh miss tate referred to a page number in their materials i want to say to the staff you've constructed their materials in a different format than ours so they refer to page 204 we don't have a page 204 ours is organized differently so if we're going to do it this way it would be really good to get everybody on the same in the same format because i can tell you it's going to get real frustrating when when a staff member points me to a page and i don't have those pages in my materials because i don't because mine are formatted very differently they're still using the drop box apparently with a continuous pdf so not about substance more about form if we're going to have if we're going to have a conversation we ought to format so we can have a conversation without trying to figure out page numbers thank you all right so there's no motion on the table other than there is a motion to pass ordinance 2020-37 as previously amended and was seconded by councilman martin all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right ordinance 2020-37 passes unanimously look at that it's 837 all right let's move on to i just jinxed this didn't i i just jinxed this i'm sure i did um let's go ahead and move on to general business items um public caring regarding long background marketplace business improvement district um specifically ordinance 2020-38 it's a bill for an ordinance organizing the LFM business improvement district providing for an election of the board of directors of the district and approving the 2020-2021 operating plan and budget for the district public caring and second reading scheduled for september 22nd 2020 so uh do we have a presentation on this i don't i mean i don't think we do we did it last week right turni um mayor bagley members of council just real quick your packet does outline rather well the interest or the petition that was submitted we did go over it i can tell you that this is a 16-acre parcel that's on hover road just south of rogers road and immediately north of the home depot property uh the property in question or upon which they would establish the district is 100 percent commercial and with that we do have uh the uh legal council uh representing the applicant russell dykstra is here to uh address any concerns or answer any questions the city council would have and we also have with us tonight carillon white representing the city's interest all right so i guess that uh if nobody has any questions we can go and vote it's i just want okay well obdiconia i just want to reiterate i've said this before tony this is a piece of land the city and the council we have spent a lot of time on it and so uh i just i just want to make sure that this just isn't the next reiteration of an attempt to to develop a piece of property that we're going to spend considerable city the considerable amounts of time in city resources on when the the the folks behind it don't really have a plan of the resources so you don't need to you don't need to respond now it's just that um i i don't know who else i speak for but i don't want to spend a lot of time on this as soon as we if this isn't making progress i want to know about it so that we don't spend time on it that makes sense i guess uh mayor bagley uh and again mr dykstra is here if you'd like to ask him any specific i don't need questions i mean so far so good for mr dykstra it's just that every time the project comes back it's a new face and so it's um i'm i'm not i just letting everybody know that just if it's going to be on the agenda and we're going to be developing or contributing resources to this i just want to make sure that the right experts and the consultants are in place and and it moves a lot so uh dr waters thanks mayor bagley i have several questions can i run through all yeah sure it's a short list but um to begin with um early in the in the counts communication we know this is true for uh any application for a special district is um the term extraordinary that there's an extraordinary expense to do what has to be done uh and i and i read in the included enclosure about the infrastructure work that has to be done the connector road etc but but in this in this application has i raised the same question when we approved the metro district the only one we've approved what's the standard or criteria for extraordinary expense uh we had a number in in that application we have a number in this application the numbers are very different uh the size of the projects i get i i understand are very different one was residential once commercial but that still is a question for me of is there a criteria i tony is there a legal criteria it's just kind of a you spit ball it how do we determine what satisfies the standard of extraordinary in this in any case yes um uh mayor bagley counselor waters um in this instance this particular district the business improvement district is not covered under our current special district ordinance it's a totally separate requirement under state statute or allowance under state statute i should say um i could ask carol and white to weigh in as to what her understanding of what would constitute uh some of the requirements of the operating plan because again they operate under a totally different rules than what our current ordinance allows for special districts i get that the rationale for the proposal is i think fundamentally based on the expense associated with the infrastructure development in this commercial district and the and the word is extraordinary the numbers 12 million dollars for infrastructure cost uh is there a threshold or a standard to determine what is or is not extraordinary or is that just a total judgment call well right now because we have no ordinance given us guidance to that uh matter it's pretty much open as to what constitutes that but hopefully maybe carolin could just weigh in her thoughts on that matter carolin yeah sure um mayor counsel and dr waters carolin white special counsel to long walk for redevelopment and um the term extraordinary may have been used by the applicant in their application and we can ask them what they may meant by that they they probably were referencing like relative to other developments but as a practical matter extraordinary is not a criterion in either the statute or your code that is applicable to this analysis so the question isn't whether you think it's extraordinary or not it's whether you think it's met the criteria in the state statute and i can go through some of what those are if you would like um or you could ask the applicant to explain what they meant by extraordinary that's not a legal criterion okay i'll ask the applicant i i didn't use the term i didn't go back it maybe was a counts communication in there in their actual application but that's the term uh thank you dr waters it's a good question that i've struggled with for 20 years plus of doing this um each jurisdiction determines that individually in our case we feel that this is extraordinary because of the use of over 30 percent of the property for public purposes um also for the cost of those public improvements especially the regional type that don't directly benefit this property but also benefit a larger area um in our situation we feel those costs and the loss of the land to make up for those costs uh makes this an extraordinary circumstance but generally i agree with uh carillon and there is no statutory criteria we can point you to uh it's just a judgment call on behalf of the jurisdiction all right building on that and you may be there you're probably the right person to ask the the the the 12 million dollars that was referenced and to be uh to be raised through the sale bonds does that represent 100 percent what percent of the total cost of of the extraordinary cost does the 12 million dollars represent well to to be clear and mr chicom brought this up as well the 12 million is a max capacity for the district we anticipate that the actual bonds that would be issued would be somewhere in that six to seven million dollar range we usually include a little extra buffer in our maximum so that if circumstances change costs increase whatever the circumstances we don't have to go back and get a subsequent approval for additional capacity so we're including about six to seven million um to get to your question even at that level what portion of those extraordinary costs that would cover most of those costs and the reason why we're asking to cover most of those is because with that 30 loss of the the developable land and such a small project we don't have a lot of makeup room and capacity in the project to fund those extraordinary costs um so in this case we're losing about three three and a half acres of developable land due to the regional infrastructure and the road and the drainage basins so normally a developer could absorb some portion of that by selling that three and a half acres to help offset those costs in this case there's only 16 acres total so if you lose three three plus acres of developable land that's a sizable chunk to lose to help offset those costs so uh for all intents and purposes whatever whatever numbers six million plus for the cost of infrastructure 100 percent of that would because would be covered through bond the sale bonds correct um building on that where does the risk uh who holds the risk or who assumes the risk uh to be to guarantee the service of this debt right um under under the bond documents and under state statute the district alone would be responsible to service those bonds now and the secondary layer is the risk profile for those bonds is 100 with the bond holder the district when we issue the bonds would make a pledge and say we will impose x mills of property tax on this property and so long as we do that faithfully every year that is that is the only obligation of the district if that property tax revenue isn't sufficient to meet the bond payments the risk of any shortfall is on the bond holder uh good those are my questions on finance i have two other questions one just on terms of governance i was a little confused um because it makes reference to the city council or the municipality um uh appointing council members or directors and then i see the names of the directors recommended for this so maybe this is a carillon question is this a two-step that based that that we make an appointment we make an appointment based on their recommendations if we want to uh we could we could choose to approve or not approve any of their recommendations or appoint someone else and then they serve until they're elected and the only electors in that case would be them is that the is that the way it goes um i agree with the characterization of the two-step process right they can't hold an election yet because they're not formed yet as a district so you have to appoint them in the interim until the district becomes formed and then they can hold an election at the appropriate time and then those persons can stand for election um you could in theory appoint other persons than those who have been recommended but they have to be qualified under the statutory requirements and given the requirement that they be owners of businesses or property within the district there probably aren't any other persons who are qualified that you could appoint right so that is the super understanding of two-step process is the way it's going to play out yes in our action if we approve this ordinance would basically be to appoint those people recommended in the application that's right last question um i didn't see anywhere in the application and maybe because it's it's just not even an option that directors are compensated are the are the those who serve on the on the board of directors of a business improvement district are they compensated i need to look up to confirm that maybe ross knows off the top of his head i believe the only compensation they can receive has to do with certain per diem and expense costs they cannot receive you know salary type compensation that that's correct they they can receive a per diem per state statute the the bid statute isn't express on that we represent 43 bid's every one of them follows the title 32 requirement that it's a hundred dollars per diem per meeting up to a maximum of 24 meetings a year and that's it thank you all right do we have a motion pertaining to ordinance 2020-38 all right i would move ordinance 2020-38 i'll second all right all in favor say aye all right hi hi opposed say nay okay all right the ordinance carries six to one with councilmember christensen opposed all right thank you very much mr dykstra thank you all right let's go ahead and move on to 2021 budget presentation mr golden here this is this may be a a more lengthy presentation do you all want to take a quick break oh what is lengthy at least 90 minutes at least yeah that i want to have at least oh wow all right let's take a five minute break we'll come back thanks two three four five there she is all right jim go ahead and start this movie all right may or met bagley members of council jim golden chief financial officer so this is the first of our 2021 budget presentations this evening uh we we're going to start off with a budget tutorial uh tressa melai was going to make that presentation unfortunately she wasn't able to be with us this evening so we're going to defer that to next week but we'll start then with um the compensation plan and joanne zia's chief human resources officer is going to make that presentation if steffi can get us that first power point on the compensation plan that would be great uh jim that's going to be me on the first president that's okay so good evening mayor members of council joanne zia's chief human resources officer i would like to take a few minutes tonight just to speak to you about employee compensation and our budget recommendations in light of the current labor market outlook as you're aware this is a very volatile time for economic projections our compensation recommendations are made with affordability in mind and also a look towards flexibility as we're able to obtain additional information as we move into 2021 next slide susan so the first thing that i'd like to take a look at is just in terms of the market itself where we're at with turnover i apologize where we're at with um unemployment data and so the data that we have right now is from august 21st it is the bureau of labor statistics it does not match because the bureau of labor statistics will report colorado as a state before it will report the counties so the data that you're looking at there for colorado is july data the data that you're looking at there for june is the counties um because they do lag behind because of them lagging behind and because of the volatility we have right now those numbers look higher in the counties i do suspect that when we get those numbers in for july that those will start to even out for the counties the reason that those counties are specified is because that is what the bureau of labor statistics calculates i cannot unfortunately get one specifically for longmont i also cannot get one that incorporates weld counties so we're dealing with the data that they're able to provide to us next slide as you'll probably be hearing throughout all of these budget presentations compensation is no different in this environment it is an uncertain environment we do typically create compensation plans from projections those projections are done towards the end of each year and they come in towards the beginning of the following year we did get those at the beginning of 2020 however we received them in february and the individuals that completed them completed them at the end of 2019 as we started to get information from the survey respondents what we were seeing especially in other cities is that what they provided at the end of 2019 may no longer be valid so we did not want to use those surveys today to create a compensation plan because we just were not sure if they were valid so rather than do that we continue to use the benchmarks that we have in place currently and then we want to be able to take a look as the market changes and make adjustments as we feel that they're stabilizing we do have a little bit of information that is most recent survey the society for human resource management has a projection on august 17th where they were saying that they're expecting about a 1.9 percent range increase across employers and a 3 percent wage growth for existing employees it's a good starting point benchmark it is a national benchmark and it is not specific to government so it i guess the beginning of a start but not something that we feel that we're able to rely on at this point what we do believe is that in the fall of 2020 we will start to get survey updates those are going to be a little bit more aggregate so we will see things like colorado municipal provide information as a whole similar to that society for human resource management and then going forward we will start to get surveys in early 2021 that will just like last year start to incorporate the end of 2020 next slide please turn over i wanted to give a little bit of information even though the market has a pretty high unemployment rate we do have a relatively low turnover rate within the city it is still something we want to monitor and we want to make sure that we're caring for we are remaining steady with the turnover we're seeing a pretty consistent number from what i've seen in prior years as well so we're running at 8.74 percent and when we're looking at the beginning half of 2020 that's running at 5.8 percent so you're to date we do also want to monitor retirements we did have we have about a 20 per year again those are remaining on track we have a large percentage of employees that are currently are soon eligible for retirement so even though they're not a large percentage of our turnover still we do expect that we're going to have additional employees that we need to make sure that we're monitoring and that we're tracking for plans and the next slide we'll go into a little bit of detail on that if we pull that up so this is our projection for retirement eligibility it's a little bit small but what is showing is that we have over the next two years we will have about 264 of our employees or about a quarter of our employees who are eligible to retire so there is a little bit of a high unemployment rate at this point that may or may not stabilize a little bit more we still have a pretty significant need to make sure that we're being competitive that we're retaining individuals as long as they're willing to work for us and also that we're able to be competitive when we need to fill those positions next slide please many of you have probably seen this slide before this is our compensation philosophy and so this is what we're working towards and what we always say is that we want to provide prevailing market rates we do know that we need to be a value proposition for our taxpayers we also know that we have pretty strong efficiencies and what we see is that our staffing is matching other cities but our value is that we are providing many more services than most of those cities are so we see that we have pretty strong efficiencies we want to make sure that we're asking our employees to do more with less that we are compensating them for that we're retaining them currently what we're doing is benchmarking our salaries to 101 percent we have had a goal for a few years now to move to 102 percent as funding levels allow in this budget we are not looking to move but we are looking to retain that 101 percent that we've already established next slide please so essentially for 2021 to start we are not making any market adjustment for employees we're just looking to keep those salary ranges where they are we have made some space in the budget to move employees who were under their market salary towards that market salary so if they're below that rate they can move towards it but the rate itself is not changing we also have looked to budget for our exceptional pay process and so that process employees are nominated for that if the 21 budget would allow in the future going forward then we would be prepared at that point with some market data that we feel like we can rely on so that we can evaluate it and make some additional recommendations for adjustments next slide please this is just a little bit of additional detail on that exceptional pay program essentially what that program is set up for is to reward employees who are going above and beyond their regular performance so it's not just doing your job it's doing something that's making a significant contribution to the organization we have that budgeted at 2 percent of salary and what happens with that program is that nominations are evaluated by the department director they're nominated they go through a review process with herald and myself next slide please joanne i popped out of that hang on just a second sure and you saw the thank you so when you know this part's almost done um just a little bit of notes in terms of uh the future compensation direct direction what we're hoping is that as we have the ability that we will go ahead and start to move towards that pay target i don't know that that's going to happen in the near future but we do want to keep that on there as a goal it's been something that has been a goal we also want to allow for that range movement within our step positions we want to make sure that we're continuing to refine our data sources and if we do need to if the economy stabilizes and 2021 revenue exceeds projections if we're we're hitting that point where we really want to be able to make that change and we're able to make that change then we want to be ready to move um so those are our goals going forward next slide please and that is just some basic information on where we're headed with compensation happy to answer any questions all right let's move on i don't see any questions all right we're going to move on to pensions and health benefits susan if you could put up that powerpoint appreciate that we did include info in the budget message on these topics so these brief brief presentations are really meant to complement uh or supplement the info that were was in the budget message so the next slide please next slide susan uh Steph's going to try and run this one okay um Steph can you put it into presentation mode it should be the icon at the bottom near your zoom do you see that hey susan can you just go with it i'm on it all right so pencil out of that thank you i'm gonna begin uh talking about the old hire pension plans um so the mayor and the mayor pro tem are both on the old hire pension boards um the those are defined benefit plans and they have an annual actuarial review performed performed on them each year included a copy of the powerpoint that we received from the actuary just last month we get those reports in august of each year and that was included for each of the defined benefit plans included in your packet uh for your information purposes the actuary reports themselves are also available off the finance web page just want to make sure that all the council is able to access the same level of information as the board members so um each of these two old hire plans they're only down to eight members each the old hire police plan has an unfunded liability of the share of hundred and forty five thousand one hundred ninety seven dollars it's eighty nine point three percent funded so we have included the required actuarial contribution of twenty three thousand one hundred seventy four dollars in the uh two two thousand twenty one proposed budget that'll amortize the liability of the police plan uh over the remaining um expected life for the participants the old fire old hire fire plan actually has a surplus it has a negative unfunded liability of over four hundred thousand dollars so it's a hundred and sixteen percent funded so there is no contribution requirement for that plan next slide please and talk about the general employees retirement plan and uh it's also a defined benefit plan uh the uh GERP plan has been has had a history traditionally of being fully funded until 2008 the benefit increases uh are not able to be built into this plan under Tabor unless the plan were to reach fully funded status which again it had been all the way through 2008 and then when we had the economic downturn this plan did take a quite a drop in its funding level and we've been working on trying to get it back to a fully funded status so we've been trying to be more aggressive about that in recent years next slide please uh in first of all in 2011 in response to um that downturn uh and be trying to get back to a fully funded status we did make changes uh to the plan and to the benefits in the plan we created a new tier of employee participants so anyone that was hired prior to 2011 is considered a tier one employee uh 2012 afterwards are tier two employees and their early retirement benefits are different from what they are for the employees that were hired prior to 2012 uh that was again an attempt to try to to reduce costs uh at the same time what we did is we we have a lower contribution level for tier two employees since they're not getting the not the same level of benefit in 2016 the GERP board made a change to our funding policy to amortize the liability over a closed 30-year period so it was a previously over an open period which continued to revolve so under a closed period we have a target we move towards that target to reach fully funded over that 30 years a long period of time significant period of time but we are making progress towards that next slide please so that period will be 26 years from January 1st 2019 so another 25 years or so to go before it would reach that status under the current uh required contribution scenarios um gains and losses are are smooth on an actuarial basis so what the actuary does is when there's when gains or losses from our investments they figure them out so that the impact is smoothed over five years so that we don't have a volatile contribution requirement so in 2019 our performance was strong we had over a 19 percent actuarial return on our investments so in 2020 our report we gave us reported an unfunded liability for the GERP of 22.6 million and making an 87.9 percent funded so we lost a little bit of ground because we had a unfunded liability the year before of 20.1 million and 88.6 percent funding next slide so in the budget message we we've laid out all the detail on the history of the contributions to this plan and how it's grown over time we are recommending that in this budget that the contribution well actually the actuarial recommendation here is that the contribution requirement is going from 13.9 percent to 14.2 percent of compensation so and this next in the uh the next bullet here is incorrect it's proposed 2021 budget is including an increase in the city's contribution requirement it's going from 8 percent to 8.4 percent um explain the tier one and tier two employees uh currently a tier one employee has a six percent contribution requirement tier two employees are always one percent below the tier one employee contribution requirements so they have a five percent contribution requirement really wouldn't put in a focus on this actual blended percentage in the past in this year we are looking at that closer so that it's a 5.4 percent blend on this contribution requirement for employees currently it's about what it generates when you mix in tier one to tier two employees next slide please so the contributions for 2021 are proposed as 8.4 percent city and add net to the 5.4 percent employee it's below the total required contribution of 14.2 percent and normally we would recommend an increase in employee contributions because of the fact that there's no increase in uh in the pay plan this year we shied away from doing that in in this year's budget uh to defer that till uh hopefully next year uh in the meantime um what we are recommending uh since you have to understand these actuary studies we get them in august it's telling us what we should be contributing in throughout 2020 so it's really coming in arrears and a little bit too late for us to react from a budgetary level so we have had to make adjustments on the fly last year when I talked to the council at this point in time about them the group plan I made a recommendation that we make up for the shortfall and contribution below the requirement by transferring $400,000 from the health benefit fund it's a practice that we did after the downturn in 2008 when we had a very large increase to our contribution requirement so we recommended it again last year along with we had increased employee contributions from 5.8 percent to 6 percent for 2020 so after I made those recommendations to y'all and I think the council accepted those at that time got busy and did everything else and I never brought them back to you for action so what you will see in the coming weeks is that we will still need to make that 400,000 contribution that we intended to make last year and we're recommending right here that we make another 400,000 contribution for 2020 for the deficit that we are currently experiencing in our contributions being below the actual estimate and then for 2021 it would be another $200,000 to close that gap again so all of that would be coming from the health benefit fund which I'll be talking about in starting in a couple of seconds here so that's pretty much would get us back on track to being able to meet those actual contribution requirements in the long run so hopefully with pay increases next year and plus also hopefully better returns on our investments we'll be able to narrow those gaps as we move forward next slide please so now the health benefit funds so that the council communication does have some information on it that is explaining how we budget for employee benefits each year for the health benefit fund the health benefit fund is is a pooled fund it's an internal service fund where we take contributions from or from throughout the organization from the operating funds we take employee contributions towards premiums and this is where we pay for our premiums for health insurance as well as dental life and EAP so in addition to that we these are smaller amounts compared to those but we also include these additional benefits that are shown here on this slide wellness costs police and fire physicals and then as I just was referring to this is the 2021 budget recommendations so this has two thousand two hundred thousand dollars for the GERP actuarial liability and then the health benefit fund fund balance is projected to end 2020 at a balance of over nine point three eight million dollars our projections for the 2021 are that it's going to pretty much remain stable and and maintain that level of balance as part of the council communication there's an attachment see in there that is the pro former that's shown you three years of the health benefit fund uh the 2019 actual our projections for 2020 and what we're budgeting for 21 next slide please so uh in the 2020 2021 proposed budget our health benefits are based on a negotiated cost with Kaiser seven point one one percent increase for 21 since 2007 our Kaiser costs have at average and aggregated blend premium increase of four point five one percent and that's compared to industry averages here and this this isn't very current but it's probably seven to eleven percent or higher at this point in time so we have no increase in any other premiums from any of the insurances that are coming from the health benefit fund this year because we had negotiated two-year deals last year on each of the other ones so for 2021 the only increase is coming for our health benefits so we're able to to maintain the health benefit fund contributions from the different operating funds at 16 and a half percent of salary which is this will be the third straight year that we're able to keep that at 16.5 percent any questions on pension or health benefits dr waters um thanks jim um just to clarify uh the individual contributions to the uh to the retirement program i think it's the retirement program um did i understand in the presentation uh the individual contribution and maybe this is maybe i need to sort this is maybe this is the health fund from five point eight percent to six percent we'll go back to that slide um yeah susan maybe if you can go back while while you are i'll um that's correct uh the contributions went from five point eight percent to six percent for 2020 for the retirement program for the for the GERP plan that's correct that's retirement so if i if i think about um the earlier presentation about compensation we're going to maintain the proposal is to maintain salary ranges in 2021 where they are in 2020 um people on who are on who are still moving through their salary ranges would get whatever that step increase is uh people at the top of their ranges would be frozen is that fair uh most uh individuals in the open range who are at a market or above probably would be the uh frozen where they're at those that are below market would be uh have an opportunity to move upwards as high as five percent step employees actually police and fire are not in the GERP plan and we only have a few step employees in the GERP plan in the in the electric department so um so my question specifically i'm sorry herald were you gonna plan well yeah i so i want to kind of be clear on that one so in terms of step plans we have police fire and then the lpc uh line line positions they're in steps and then the majority of our other staff are in the um open range positions and so if they're behind the 2020 market correct jim where's it's 2019 market let me make sure it's 2020 market if they're behind the 2020 market they can move up as much as five percent but if you're at market you're frozen yeah so if for those employees who are at market and i don't know what percent is that represents for all intents and purposes is it fair to say that their their uh salary would be reduced by 0.2 percent because of the additional contribution uh to the to the retirement plan no actually so the 5.8 to 6 percent took place at the beginning of 2020 we did institute it for our employees that was in this year right i just need to bring it back to the council to make that amendment in the plan but we did institute it so it is a six percent so it's exactly why we're not increasing it beyond six percent this year is for the reason that you're bringing up all right because i because this is the question that you mentioned last year as we're going through this because it because it does have this differential effect right for folks who are at the top but right but it's but i'm a year late with my question but i but i get the set i appreciate the sensitivity to it and and i appreciate the appreciate the explanation because you knew where i was going so okay back before we leave this could i ask one more thing back sure um and i should have asked it when joanne did her presentation and i was slow on the draw with my hand up um you know the table this is less about what we just heard from jim than then um what we should be anticipating in terms of turnover just through retirements without without getting into individual information that we shouldn't have access to is there some way for us to get an idea beyond that table joanne that you laid out what should we should be anticipating at least at the senior level in terms of projected or anticipated retirement dates i think it's a little bit of a challenge to answer only because sometimes you could you know look at an individual and they could be totally ready from an age perspective and they decide to stay longer it tends to be a pretty individual decision um having said that though i know a number of our um senior leaders are pretty um open with their supervisors so i have seen a decent amount of time for planning in most cases um i haven't seen anybody from the senior leadership you know just just take you know just leave quickly well i have no doubt because we because i've heard from you enough i have no doubt that you and herald and and our senior staff um have pretty pretty good succession plans in place it's a constant conversation i'm sure but i it would be however whatever level of detail you could share so that we have some idea of what cal this or some future council should be anticipating would be helpful just because there's so many decisions we made that potentially influence the decisions they make right yeah um and i just liked would be mindful of what i might be doing on a tuesday night that contributes to an accelerated decision by one of our senior staff members um so anyway yeah if i can jump in and answer that question so um specifically as it relates to the senior staff in the group that i meet with um succession planning has been a significant topic of conversation amongst all of us um there are a significant number that are eligible within the next year or two um and so that has has been a significant focus on my of mine um and you've seen some of this so you know you all have seen tom romeos who is eligible mike butler who is eligible that is something that it that we have to work on and and we have to be cognizant of because they're and it's not just at that senior staff level it is it is also the level before below them where we have a lot of folks that have been here you know for a significant period of time and um as you've heard me talk about this this is an issue coming at us and we're working to really work with staff on that succession planning that's part of the structure that you're seeing us build um as as we're bringing things together so we can have multiple people digging into it part of where you're seeing me move to place some attention so that i can understand succession plans so it is going to be an issue for us um in the in the in the next few years kind of tell you what's also happening with my within our industry in general i think the things that we're concerned about is um that ongoing backfill because we are hearing that there's fewer and fewer people who want to get into this line of work so there's really two things coming at us right now and um and i know that you know just my alumni association you know recruiting people to get an mpa or these types of things they're reaching out to us based on what we're seeing so multiple issues in play for us right now um succession planning recruit or retention also then looking at recruitment and how how you build that pipeline as well so you're telling me that people aren't just lining up in in droves to go work for cities and work for councils and all the public scrutiny and pressure are you all live with every day gee what a surprise huh thanks all right jim keep going please all right we're going to move into the cip presentation now susan if you could put up that power point i'll start to make some comments to introduce it so the cip um it's a planning document that shows all the infrastructure needs of the city over the next five years it's a collection of capital projects basically um they're either new or replacements of or improvements to infrastructure that has a minimum life expectancy of five years and a minimum cost of at least ten thousand dollars uh next slide so our 21 to 25 proposed cip is a total of 200 and almost 244 million dollars over five years uh only the first year 2021 will actually be appropriated although the council does act to adopt the whole cip the other four years represent plans but the projects are considered to be funded this slide shows the breakdown of the 244 million dollars by category so next slide please this here is shown the amount of the funded cip projects by year and then the next slide please so this is the breakdown of 2021 the first year of the cip and this is also by project category so the individual projects they're included in the cip document on pages 11 and 12 and then there's individual pages for each of every one of those projects but 11 and 12 does break down each of the projects that are in each of these nine or so categories on the left side of the slide so that's where you can get more detailed information on that we're going to be making some presentations tonight on on projects for uh for both 2021 as well some that are already in in process um and then and also I should point out that within the cip on pages 14 to 16 you get all five years of projects are all listed in there as well so with that next slide is a cover slide that is showing you the staff that will be involved in making the presentation to you this evening uh I'm going to turn this next over to Jeff Friesner to pick it up from the next slide forward one more slide slide please uh Susan thank you mayor members of council Jeff Friesner recreation and golf manager I'm here to highlight four of the projects for the community services department first project is improvements at the callahan house if you look at the picture on that slide we are at the bottom the windows are made of lexon and we're looking at replacing that because they're all fogged over and difficult to see and then we're also going to replace our install storm windows uh the second item that we are proposing is repair of the decorative led window that you see at the top of that uh of that picture um our issue is that the over time that uh shifting of the building is starting to push that uh window uh out and we want to make sure that that could be protected as a part of the historic house the third item would be repair to the driveway that has cracking and is breaking up and is becoming a safety issue next slide next project is the uh firehouse arts center facility improvements as you're aware this is a city-owned facility on fourth that the firehouse arts center uses it's been a while since any work has really been done on that facility we are proposing two years of repairs with the first year being painting replacement painting of windows or replacement of windows and also some work on the gutters that is causing some interior damage and then replacement of the basement stairs and handrail a total of $60,600 next slide the next project is the museum entry uh concrete replacement uh anyone that has gone to the museum has noticed how the uh concrete is coming apart and is causing a safety issue staff has tried to do a number of improvements to make that better but those uh improvements are failing also you can see in that picture on the right some of the uh temporary concrete that's been put in there uh total of $101,000 for that project next slide uh the next uh project is replacement of the concrete at the roosevelt pavilion in 2017 the post-tension cables started to fail and caused a large damage to some of the concrete at that time the engineering staff uh worked to figure out how we could cut the cables in that concrete to prevent it from damaging more concrete and worse hurt possibly hurting someone this project proposes that we spend $40,000 for design in 2021 and another 229,000 to do the actual concrete replacement one of the challenges in this is that there are cables still in there that are required to help hold up the the pavilion itself so it will take some engineering to get that done right in without damaging the pavilion but next slide please and with that I will turn it over to Jim Ankstat good evening Mayor Bagley City Council members Jim Ankstat with Public Works and Natural Resources hey Jim hold on one second Dr Waters did you have a question for Jim no I had a question for Jeff okay I'm trying to track as Jeff goes through his his presentation the project he referenced and I if I'm looking on the if I were to use pages 14 15 and 16 um in the CIP budget um I see one of those referenced I think the roosevelt park improvement note uh the roosevelt pavilion concrete replacement but I don't see reference to the firehouse project or to the Callahan where should I be looking Jeff you know I don't have that document Jim golden can you help with that so um I would look on page 11 and 12 and at the bottom of page 11 is the um is the Callahan house improvements that you're asking about well Jim just so just shouldn't wouldn't I find these if I kind of I wanted to look at them in the context of the five-year plan wouldn't I see the same projects listed in 21 and yeah 21 uh as funded as as I would see on pages 11 and 12 here okay yeah so it's on page 15 in that display it's on page 15 under public buildings and facilities oh it's public building too I see okay I was looking for parks under parks and rec now I see it I got it okay thanks got it back thank you so mayor bagley city council members Jim angstatt with public works and natural resources last two projects we wanted to cover under the municipal buildings um pbf uh 119 is municipal buildings flooring replacement bringing in a project budget of about 270 000 replacing flooring and carpeting at four buildings the industry standard for carpeting and flooring replacement is about 12 anywhere between 12 and 15 years two of these buildings fall within those those numbers two of them are well beyond it so it is time to to replace those could you go to the next slide please so early in 2020 city staff completed a building envelope energy audit report that recommended several improvements to building envelopes at the four buildings listed here to improve energy use reduce greenhouse gases and support environmental stewardship the project budget is about 200 000 will be undertaking that next year next slide so i'm going to turn it over Jim before you go into that just so council knows when we were reviewing the issues in the public in the public when we were reviewing the public improvement fund and public buildings just so council knows one of the things that I was looking at and we really saw this when we got into the massive project at the civic center and what we're doing now in front of the library is and you see this in all of these is really a focus on maintenance and and as we've talked about with council before before we look at some of the new things we really need to make sure that what we already have in our existing inventory is well maintained so that we can work to add life expectancy to it and we can minimize the situation that we've gotten into with some of our other facilities so I just wanted you to know what I was thinking about in terms of how we were moving through these projects and then obviously the public buildings efficiency improvements ties to the work that they did when they were evaluating it but also ties to the sustainability plan that council passed and then the work that we've done in conjunction with the climate action task force so we we thought we could bring those three things together let's see another question but water yeah sorry I don't mean to bog it down this is maybe for Jim maybe for Harold as I as I'm looking at again I'm on page 15 as I'm looking at that list of 2021 and then to 25 and I see that in 2020 the civic center rehab library facilities condition assessments and that combination of probably 13 maybe 12 million dollars that that's highlighted that way because that came from the bond question that was approved correct um uh the other projects the firehouse upgrades in the golf course this maintenance facility um I don't I know did I see that in like in parks you're right uh or you know in where would in public safety or is the where would I see the firehouse station improvements um we are creating a new one we're rehabbing one where the where are those showing up in terms of the bond funding for those projects look and and for and for like the golf the sprinkling the watering systems in the in the uh in the in the maintenance facility that was all part of that project I'll put a bond check on it later in the presentation no but the question is where are they on on slide on page 15 let me check that out counseling waters and I'll answer the question yeah or whatever page yeah let's move on in the meantime and I'll find that so with that we'll um the next part of our presentation involves a long month power and communication so I'm going to turn it over to David Hornbacher who's going to tell us how he's going to keep the lights on thank you Jim and tonight's a little bit more challenging than than some nights with that wet heavy snow and the trees still leafed out uh good evening Mayor Bagley and members of city council on Dave Hornbacher the executive director for long month power and communications I'm going to highlight just a few of our cip programs here uh 2021 and beyond so next slide please so you can see with the 2021 overview it's approximately 11.2 million there are multiple projects in there there are two of more size one is the eight construction for 4.1 million and as council may recall they've seen that annually and what that is is the money that is attributed to the extension and modification electric system to serve the development within the community and likewise we recover that money for those services also the advanced metering infrastructure at 6 million for 2021 and I'll cover that in greater detail in a future slide uh next slide please so one of the one of the activities is the electric system up the electric substation upgrades and 200 000 for this year 415 over the next coming years it's basically has some additional technology on the system some landscaping and I'm very happy to say if you look at that bottom right photo that is an aerial shot of our county line substation and you'll notice two buildings and to the right of one building there's a dark object there that's transformer number one and immediately south of that right now we're finishing up transformer number two that will be online within uh this fall so within the next 30 to 60 days we'll actually have additional capacity at that substation so we do need to finish up the landscaping landscaping and gate uh next photo please next thank you um I grouped these together because realistically these are a trio of projects that work together and they're very interval to part of our uh goal our this decade's goal of 100% renewable energy so it's the reliability the modernization of the grid it's uh rehab and improvements and it's distributed energy resources and distributed energy resources is a new capital line item and that's covering a variety of specific subject topics but that includes distributed generation distributed energy storage energy efficiency demand response and beneficial electrification those are sort of key components of uh distributed energy resources you'll see it in slang as durr's and I'll go into that in a little bit more but it's one of the keys to getting to uh our our goal at the end of this decade next slide please and so advanced metering so this is a multi-year project uh council actually last year uh approved the rate changes to support this project and so this project is one that we're looking to fund directly uh from the utility we're not going out and seeking bonding or other resources for it you can see that there's a 7.5 million in 2021 uh five years total is 13.5 and I think some of the some of the updates on the AMI project is we are in the process of hiring an AMI project manager to lead this transition in our metering as well as then the ramp out to that for use with our customers we've also been reviewing other utility contracts specific to AMI projects that have been done in the last year or two to make sure that we're well informed and we know our pricing we've also worked on extensive functionality and what I would anticipate is that the selection of the system will be done in 2020 and then uh installations will occur in 2021 and 2022 based on the final vendor and uh the ability to integrate that into our community and probably more specifically when we talked about AMI we we noted that our current technology is is basically one one read of a meter a month by a person walking by it and that that does not really support the needs of the future and back when I mentioned the TRIO projects it's between those TRIO projects and AMI they're sort of the basis of building essentially the utility of the future today and it's one of the AMI is one of those enabling technologies help us get there and more specifically it um it creates this connection between energy use and energy generation and that cannot occur with the current system and then when customers can actually understand and start to manage their energy use that gets us much closer to being able to start to match their energy use with the flexibility and the dynamics that you see with renewable energy it also allows to integrate or support smart home functions so as customers become even more enabled and more interested in understanding and managing their energy on a very you know appliance by appliance basis it's something that can help support that I also had mentioned earlier the DRS the distributed energy resources and again you have to have the data coming in so you know to what degree and where energy is being generated how it comes on to your system and how you can utilize it likewise as we move into storage you know distributed energy storage again how can you leverage that to fill the the valleys where other resources are not available again it supports energy efficiency demand response and beneficial electrification and we have heard at the last several council meetings of public invited to heard that they're an express concern with the radio frequency from AMI meters I think the key is is be assured that we take their concerns seriously we listen and while we're not the medical experts on this we do refer and rely on the expertise of other agencies that we trust such as the CDC the FCC and as well as the Colorado Department of Public Health to help guide and inform us as we move forward with this project next slide please another one that we have in there is electric vehicle charging stations we have several charging stations available out there to the public we recently completed one at the library we have another one out at the museum and serving sort of the museum and and the facilities out there and then also another one at the service center we want to push further into electrical vehicle charging both for city vehicles as well as community vehicles and that's what this funding is for is to provide more of those stations in the public eye and to really get good at this as we start to see more and more electrical vehicles become a substantial mode of transportation on next slide please and so with that I would turn it over to Valerie Dodd any questions on the electric piece from council Dr. Waters yeah Harold this is no surprise to you I and I've expressed myself to the council on this David I appreciate your reference to the to what we've heard from the public I think there are two issues for me that we've heard one are the health issues and I and the other is whether which which approach wired or wireless is more future oriented and has greater potential down the road I know and I don't know enough about either of those topics to have formed a meaningful conclusion for or set of observations or decisions but if we're gonna if we're and I think we should continue with our smart metering system no question about that it's critical to achieving our 100% renewable energy by 2030 goal but I've but I for one before I vote on a 13 million dollar commitment would like more information comparing the wireless and the wired systems in terms of efficiency and functionality and costs before we even talk about health issues um uh as we go forward with this with this approach not to question moving forward with AMI or smart metering but but being clearer at least for me and maybe I just need a one-on-one tutorial um that helps me understand the differences cost benefits pluses and minuses on a wired versus a wireless approach so uh certainly uh council member Waters I could work and schedule some time with you to go over that information and hopefully address your questions uh before you vote on this all right is there is there a reason why we wouldn't want to invite in we've heard several references to somebody who is the author of this Emma paper Dr. uh Shackley is there a reason why we wouldn't want to bring his voice and expertise into this conversation so I think I think it's important to get down to the basics of these systems and what they do or they don't do back to your your question and um so with that I think there are certainly a variety of experts out there that are in tune and can't answer those questions but where I would first start is ensure that we've got the right information and current literature towards you versus trying to start bringing in others who have their well-honed perspectives on these so you know I've I've read the I've read the report I'm actually trying to skim through it so um there is a section and and so at least the one report that folks are referencing uh was um published on the 26th of November in 2012 and so some things that we have to let me kind of back up and some things that we have to really hit uh on this is a we have a goal of 2030 um to go 100 renewable so so that becomes an anchor point in terms of being able to achieve it um when we when you when you go in and and look at the report they they talk about a number of things and I lost my page so I can't find it now but um so it's been some it's been some time on on the health evidence and and in there I think they they recognize that there's been different studies and different components um are different studies and all coming to different conclusions um and one of the points was um why would you invest in this if there is a chance for health issues um I think some some other pieces um and he says first of all smart meters have failed to deliver smart grid benefits for fundamentally technical reasons uh networks do not generally provide full two-way communications customer usage display was in most case stale data um on the third party website on site real-time display is not feasible using most meter backhaul networks and smart meters and their networks cannot or ill-equipped to implement demand response load control strategies I think what I can say is when we're talking about this what we have to choose based on becoming 100 percent renewable is something that that really can implement and David if I'm speaking you jump in but can implement demand response and load control strategies because that really is a fundamental component of how you look at moving to that hundred percent renewable um we are looking at a network that is two-way communication correct David absolutely and and so when when you start pulling all this together and then in the early part of that article they talk about the fact that the infrastructure on the system isn't built for this and so you see the other investments that we're putting in place in terms of that infrastructure in our truck I call it the truck system but in our system coming into it that has to integrate with the AMI so I think what we'll need to do is is really dig into this and and bring some of those points and then if you go to the to the last section um when he talks about um that the health components he does reference and then there's questions about who owns the data how it's communicated and I think part of it is is when you go to move into this world you really want that two-way communication with the residents so they can help you manage your loads especially as we've talked about when you enter that world you may have a glut of energy that you need to to pull down on um and then when you look at this so for example California in this article they passed and they said wireless smart meters when installed properly maintained result in smaller levels of radio frequency exposure references the FCC standard scientific studies have not identified confirm negative health effects and not enough is currently known about potential non-thermal impacts and so when you when you move through this he recognizes that there is a difference um and the point is in in in the face of this the unavoidable question arises why invest in something with no one potential for harm that would impact people that's the crux of the argument taking in the different scientific studies so what we can do is work and really bring those studies in a way similar to what we did in terms of the 5g provide that to council well i appreciate that i mean i'm i want not to be a distraction or an annoyance which i probably am already in this process um but on this particular topic with the with the commitment we're making and again the in the visibility of it and the expense of it i'd like to make certain uh that you've helped me get as clear on this as you have done on other the on the 5g issues with uh with the telecommunications industry and where we stand with the FCC etc okay so if that's the intent i'll appreciate that right absolutely all right let's continue okay i think it is my turn so good evening Mayor Bagley and members of council Valerie Dodd the executive director of next slide i have one slide and one slide only um so if someone will please jump to it i'll skip through that and then i'm hoping to come back in the next few weeks so that i could provide a more thorough and broad overview of the operations um so i think there have been some questions about what's going on with next slide so in terms of the 2021 capital budget we have about 3.7 million dollars planned to be spent that does represent about a 29 percent year-over-year increase the good news is that's mostly made up of about 800 000 dollars worth of one-time expenses and subsequent years you won't see the capital budget nearly as high as it will be next year if you look to the far right hand side and you see that table or excuse me that pie chart you'll see that really our capital expenses fall into three categories one is fiber construction to make sure that we keep up with the new builds in the community the second is around reliability and capacity to make sure that we continue to have a superior product in the marketplace and then lastly installations for customers mostly residential and some commercial so if you look back to the left side the fiber construction which i spoke about being the largest piece of the pie we have about 1.4 million dollars planned there and that is uh really to enable about 2900 new premises which are mostly green-filled mdu builds or mdu's multi-dwelling family units we also have about 48 small properties that we have still not gotten to that we want to finish out and that should complete our build of the brown-filled or existing properties average cost for the build on those type of premises is about 484 dollars next we get into those one-time reliability and capacity enhancement expenses that i referenced we have about 600 000 in routers to enable 100 gig capacity for transport the reason we need that is because this year we're growing our customer base by about nine percent next year we will grow it by another six percent and since the first quarter of this year we're seeing about a 15 percent increase in data consumption so we've got to make sure we accommodate a growing customer base as well as a growing data consumption the next is we're spending about 225 thousand dollars for a new fiber hut we're beginning a phase seven which is over on county line that is to accommodate some growth that we have and some growth that we're expecting so more to come about that but we're certainly making sure that we're future proofing that part of town and then lastly we have the installations and that is one of those success space expenses meaning if the customer is depth sign up for service we don't incur that expense so we still are planning to turn up about 3200 new customers next year that is gross you have a thing called churn where your customer base does churn out at a clip of about two percent a month which is really low for the industry but we'll probably only net about 1400 customers next year but we have to accommodate and and spend the money to install about 3200 the weighted average cost for those installations around 368 dollars and that will decline over time as we eventually hope to get a drop an aerial very drop to every single household in premise and so it'll be really easy to activate those customers going forward and many customers can do self installations themselves and then lastly we have the boston avenue bridge project not a bunch of money but just wanted to make sure you all knew that we were aligned with the other departments in terms of growth and builds so i will pause and see if there are any questions nope let's keep going okay jeff cedar is up next i believe thank you actually i'll take this one good evening mayor bagley and members of council my name is charise montgomery and it's my pleasure to be joining you tonight as staff i'm actually one of the new senior project managers in the facilities maintenance service division next slide please we've got four bond projects underway phase one of the civic center rehabilitation project was the stabilization of the finance parking garage and that work is complete the garage was opened at the beginning of the year phase two work includes improvements at the admin east structure the admin east parking garage which was recently opened and the library plaza i would have anticipated the library work would have been complete prior to the first snowfall but given today's weather that definitely proved me wrong we're still underway there we do plan to continue renovations to include work at the library initial investigations have begun at the safety and justice center as well as the facility conditions assessment at the longmont rec center next slide please recreation actually has five bond projects first the ucrete golf course maintenance facility project has started studio architecture has been selected as the projects architect the planning development review process for the conditional use site plan application is underway and we had our first virtual neighborhood meeting held july 8th the twin peaks and sunset golf course irrigation system consultant selection is anticipated to begin later this year and unfortunately the centennial pool renovation and the golf course irrigation rehabilitation and replacement projects are currently on hold at this time i'd like to introduce another project manager in our facilities group harry sheehan harry if we can go to the next slide slide please susan so mary bagley members of council and first although one's i'm sorry i'm sorry that's okay dr waters did your hand go up before your image disappeared off my computer i only did only all right uh first of all say shrieks nice to see you i didn't know you were in this this job uh where we're in the materials to these projects where am i where should i be looking because i don't i'm not finding them on my pages 14 15 and 16 i'm guessing they're there i'm just not seeing them i think jim was looking for that jim did you find it so yeah actually so council member waters when you're looking at 14 14 15 16 if you notice the title of those pages are 21 through 25 capital improvement program funded projects yeah the projects shown here are only those that are between 21 and 25 if they have budget from a prior year in 20 or prior that's what that 20 budget column is showing these projects that that we're going over now with the bond do not have new money budgeted between 21 and 25 a few of the bond projects do and so they are shown there they have dollars scheduled in years four and five of the cip so i think that is why you're not seeing these golf projects there and the fire stations so um so they're they're they're they're will be funded by bond but they're no they're not currently yet part of the five-year cip budget they're already in the they were previously budgeted in a prior year and they do not have any new money being budgeted from 21 through 25 so they're not included here all right i had new money than they would be here thank you i just didn't see them in 2020 either that's part of my problem but we're only showing 2020 because those projects have money from coming in during 21 through 25 anything that's shown in 2020 has new money coming in after it sometime in 21 through 25 all right i can follow up individually with you if i have more questions thanks okay you bet okay so i'm back on again carish and senior project manager facilities and maintenance services i am working with scott assistant chief scott snider on the two fire station replacements so of the approximate $9.3 million in bond funds we've got $7.6 million allocated to the design build services and approximately $1.2 million went to station two's land and pre-development costs the design build contract is expected to be signed in the next couple of weeks and we plan on building both of the stations concurrently with construction schedule to start at the end of q1 2021 and we're anticipating completion of both stations in may of 2022 so that is all i have unless you all have any questions i will turn it over to jim angsten who's going to wrap up with the pwnr thank you thank you carry so in wrapping up uh rest of the presentation we want to go over some public works and natural resources uh projects next slide uh we've broken them out uh into basically five main categories starting with drainage um parks and open space and trails our sewer wastewater transportation and water projects uh we bring in bring into the table about 63 million dollars worth of capital improvement projects for next year next slide please uh first item real quick is just to to go over a kind of the drainage project summary um this this fund in our storm drainage fund is a little bit challenged uh we're really only programming in a small capital contribution uh for one project which is the um resilient saint for rain project we did provide a rather detailed update about a month ago for council so i really didn't want to go into this project too much we will be bringing back uh an update later this month or or into the fall i should say excuse me regarding the storm drainage fund um and providing a detailed update on the financial condition of the fund as well as the operational challenges we're currently facing next slide please so shifting over to our parks open space and trail projects uh we have about four million dollars programmed with not over nine projects i'm going to go over two key projects we're we're looking at um first i want to just provide a quick plug to uh to the uh parks and uh natural resources group uh we were advised today uh by the american public works association the colorata chapter that we were awarded a chapter award for the dickens park in the category of parks and trails so quick shout out to our natural resources group next slide some other projects that we'll be working on actually currently working on with some design this year into construction next year uh is a the next section of the same brain greenway this is the east side of the city uh head and out it includes an underpass at uh state highway 119 um the uh the real kicker on this project is we did get some grant funding to the tune of about 1.5 million dollars so uh good effort by again our natural resources group next slide please falling under our asset management uh component in parks and natural resources is the park infrastructure rehabilitation replacement we're focusing on luminal or park next year uh having a number of improvements uh and uh it is a renewal versus a complete rebuild uh it is more found it's more cost effective to undertake renewal projects and rehabilitation projects versus complete rebuilds um i think uh we all can agree that one of the greatest assets we had during the uh covid emergency was our parks uh a lot of use out of out of people we've saw some challenges but people were really using them next slide please shift it over to sewer about four and a half million under six projects the key project i want to focus on tonight is our wastewater treatment plant reg 85 improvements next slide please so over at the sewer plant uh one of the challenges um and across the board for a lot of our uh areas that are regulated by the state is when they impose new state regulations in this case a few years ago uh they're issued requirements to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus uh in our effluent discharges uh so we initiated a compliance schedule um we're currently on track with that schedule to undertake design next year with construction to follow um we are undertaking an alternative analysis to find what is the best way whether it's a chemical treatment or biological um we've actually come up with a combination of both of those um that we'll be instituting uh but uh part of one of our biggest investments the city has is our wastewater treatment plant so we want to stay on the good side of the state um and keep our permits um next slide please so on our transportation uh we have some key projects that overlap into other areas um the uh we're bringing about 16 million dollars in next year over six projects um can you run the next slide please first one is our major asset management um program uh the street rehab program uh covers the entire city um we uh have a pretty strong program for knowing when when in which roads we need to upgrade um the rehab includes could include asphalt overlays crack seal chip seal some forms of preservation uh some roads we do have to do a complete roadway reconstruction um you see that over on night avenue west of hover currently where we were widening the road out slightly for bike lanes but we did have to reconstruct it there's too many failures on it in conjunction with our street rehab we also undertake concrete repair replacements um part of our ada transition plan uh to keep us in uh current with with uh numerous standards next slide please and i'm getting my pictures in so you can see the bad paving that we replace um crp 11 our transportation system management um cip uh covers a multitude of areas our safety multimodal and some minor capacity we usually see an intersection improvements uh include school safety improvements um we also bring our new signals out of this uh this project um neighborhood traffic mitigation uh i wanted to highlight this traffic signal improvements at various intersections um we were able to obtain a grant from c dot colorado department transportation and hs ip grant um that is highway safety and improvement program grant um that brought about eight hundred thousand dollars into the fund um with only a ten percent match so the city only had to come up with about eighty nine thousand um for a nine hundred uh nine hundred thousand dollar project next slide please uh boston avenue connection um this is uh tied in with our quiet zone project as we're trying to get a crossing over uh bnsf railroad tracks uh this will also be one of the main routes for our brt 119 brt connection um we are currently working on conceptual design and property acquisition uh running into final design in 2021 um next slide please that brings us to railroad quiet zones we have been working on design as per direction uh from city council uh we were anticipating going to construction by the end of this year uh that has gotten pushed into next year uh in major part because we did receive an f r a grant um which covers half the cost of the eight million dollar project uh that grant agreement is currently being finalized uh part of that agreement included undertaking some environmental uh work along the crossings to verify that there were no issues we will be bringing that grant agreement forward to council uh in october but we are currently still working on finalizing design um coordinating with bnsf and the puc on the project next slide so one of the projects that's tied pretty closely with uh our resilient st forain project is the boston avenue bridge over st forain trp 118 uh we have been working on design with construction in 2021 uh this widens out the the extends the bridge out to carry the 100 year flows um so it will improve flood protection in the area um provide bike and petta improvements on the bridge um this is the financial match for the army corps of engineers project which is just upstream of this so it is critical that we uh undertake this project so that we can get the next phase um of the rsvp underway next slide please so in closing out um we want to go over some of the water projects uh which is probably the biggest um investment we have 37 million dollars next year uh kind of over 10 projects um i want to cover three key projects um so within our water uh supply system or water system there are three main components uh supply treatment and distribution uh in each of these projects covers one of those uh elements next slide please so underwater supply uh we are going to be working on the um our supply pipelines uh up around lions um we are proposing uh to construct a pump station uh that connects our north st forain pipeline and our south st forain pipeline uh to provide additional redundancy and efficiencies uh critical item in this is that this is the the last of the FEMA money we received uh for some of our water projects um so we want to use those dollars up before they expire at the end of next year uh the other project that uh we'll be working on continuing to work on is the south st forain pipeline rehab uh it was damaged during the flood uh we've repaired parts of it and now we're moving forward with the final areas to install some vaults clean out the pipe um and line some of the pipe uh due to some of the damage that received next slide so um price park tank replacement um original open water storage reservoirs uh in the black and white photo on the right you can see uh kind in the lower left corner of that photo uh shows the reservoirs we are calling for replacement of the existing seven million dollar or seven million gallon tank and pump station uh we are currently working on design uh construction is slated for next year and it's important to note that uh this is one of the uh the funding for this project is supported via the bond election and is coming up this November next slide please and in closing out um wanted to real quick give you an overview of the nelson-flanders water treatment plan expansion that is also um funding proposed through the bond election uh design we're doing a design build on it and it's currently designed as underway um this will replace uh this expansion will replace the capacity uh from the wade gattus plant that we've had some challenges with meeting requirements and regulations on providing additional redundancy and resilience for the system uh rather large project construction is slated for uh late next year through 2023 and with that i'll slide into the last slide and open it up for any questions all right uh dr let's go with actually kessler if you'd raise your hand earlier i apologize uh the screen's popping up the people who are spot speaking so um dr waters was talking a lot so i apologize go ahead sorry tim it's okay i don't remember what it was about anyway at this point um so um jim when you first showed the picture of the boston bridge there was a little illustration of a little girl crossing the boston avenue bridge with a rubber red um bridge that rolled out and then rolled back and then just and you could slap it back out i thought that was kind of an interesting idea that's obviously not what you're doing um i did want to ask you if this um i'm part of the boulder counting consortium in the city the county is going to fund a um bicycle lane all the way from i-25 into longmont i'm wondering if that's part of this any of these projects or if you know about that it's a really wonderful idea because once it'll help our connectivity people can take their buses their bikes uh various places and then bike from i-25 back into town i think that's that's it is not actually included in in any of these projects uh i think that's early in the planning stages okay all right but we will certainly be be willing and partner with them for anything that's coming into town yeah it'll be a nice connection with everything that you guys have planned thank you i'm sorry about muted go ahead tim gratt thanks and i'm using way more money share more of my share more of my airtime share than i deserve but jim just real quickly the the price a park tank and the nelson flanders that's 30 million of the 80 million if we get approval in november november um i believe those are the numbers yeah that's a rough approximation of those two projects i just yeah they're there to clarify we've got there there are other projects there is some that that is part of the there is some funding available already that we're utilizing out of existing funds but i would probably want to defer to to becky doile uh on that i think she was still on the call so um yes hi sorry can you repeat the question just just to just to clarify that the the 30 million dollars for the park price tank and the nelson flanders that's 30 million of what what we would hope to be able to uh to you to spend an 80 million dollar and from an 80 million dollar water bond there there are oh got a little key back there mayor and council uh there are some components of both of those projects that are funded out of the fund balance in the water fund so um the components that would be funded as part of the bond um are currently shown as unfunded and so don't come into the totals that are in those projects there so so there's there's both existing fund balance and you know future debt that's part of both of those projects all right thank you how does it how does the debt break out for those projects uh we'd have to look at the unfunded components but we're looking at probably something near uh for 35 million toward the plant and about 15 toward uh the price park tank so these are just the first installments of that 80 million dollars with what we're seeing in the next year's cip budget not exactly what you're seeing in next year's cip budget are components that are not that are that are funded outside of that 80 million dollars so that's this is in addition to yes part of the project right to get started next year and we'd finish it with the 80 million got it okay that's helpful number one number two uh jim the the um the the two million dollars for acquired zones that are budgeted for 2021 with what we budgeted this year does that get us to the four million dollar match we need to be able to to spend the federal grant i think i have that also uh so we're we're splitting out the both the grant funding and the match funding over the next two years so um i believe it's sort of a foreign for plan but we've incorporated both the revenue from the grant and then also fund balances our contribution but but you do it two million next year gets us to the four million match we got don't we have to match the four million dollar federal grant i think what we've programmed in is mayor bagley councilman waters we probably we have a million this year we programmed two million um in 2021 i believe we have another million programmed in the future so um we spread it out over several years there is a million this year two million next year i think a million beyond that to get us to the that gets us going we've done enough yes to start all right that to relate to to unrelated to the cip budget as it exists right now one uh uh if we have if we have intersections that meet warrants for traffic signals uh and we have and we don't see anything in this budget that sets money aside for traffic for intersections that meet warrants um is it is it fair to say that regardless of what this budget looks like we would install traffic signals if intersections meet one of the nine warrants for a traffic signal now i'm thinking specifically about county line road one and 17th avenue as we as we as we as i learned today from dale indeed we are in the process of a widening county line road one uh which was on and then often you know is obviously back in under underway right now um if that intersection meets warrants in 2021 will will we be able will we be budgeted to install a traffic signal in 2021 uh mayor bagley and councilmember waters let me try to answer that one um so the first criteria is that they have to meet warrants the second is is that we have to have funding available to do it and so i i don't know that we're in a position right now to say that we're going to be able to fund additional intersections in 2021 that haven't been identified yet um the street fund is pretty heavily hit by by both the the pandemic as well as some of the projects that we're trying to fund out of there so it takes both it has to meet the criteria and then we have to uh i call it scrape up the dollars and we either get that by the way through grants um or we find uh enough dollars out of the street and sales tax fun to do that so i think the answer was no the answer is not necessarily the answer is not it's not a given if it meets a warrant it's not an absolute given that it will be built in any given year it depends on the funding also being available you know you do i have asked this question before and i've gotten a different answer you know that uh i hope not for me but maybe well i thought it was my understanding that once they met a warrant whether we had budgeted for it or not we were going to we would install traffic signals if we had intersections that met warrants and and since i didn't see anything in here i i don't know whether that intersection will meet warrants but i i'm concerned if we have intersections to do and and we say to residents well it meets warrants but simply we can't afford to give you traffic light maybe the thing to do um councilmember waters i can have the engineering group look to see uh are there any intersections that are meeting warrants or anticipated to meet warrants in 21 that we have not identified funding to do the uh signal light is that fair yeah that'd be fair thanks appreciate that i'm done all right great wait are you sure to i'm gonna hold you to it you said i'm done all right just giving you just giving you crap it's only 10 30 we're good all right anything else from you guys herald yeah um just to summarize i just wanted to um point out since we'll be going through this for the next few weeks if council has any questions along the way that they want to send us in between the meetings we'll follow up on them and work them into the council communication work the answer zoom and i will try to work in the answer a better answer tim to your question about the bond projects i know i can get it straight if i get it down and writing um and i'm also going to include a revised schedule for the council for the next few meetings as well because we've already changed it quite a bit from what the original was with the budget message we have time available to us in in future meetings here this month and early next month and we don't want to overload any of the meetings with other uh that have other council business on them with budget items so we're going to be a little flexible move things as as as we can to try to not overload the meetings uh with that i i just want to apologize i thought mr angstant was going to send you all some goodies to your house and the doorbell was going to ring and you were going to get some cookies or something but apparently he didn't come through so i wouldn't stay up late waiting for it so all i got i what wait so i don't understand so there there might be cookies or there might not be could stay up and wait i don't know all right i'm not going to all right let's move on to council council comments anybody that's awesome good herald anything no comments mayor all right eugen how about you he's i can hear snoring no snoring here yet mayor good morning eugen nice nice you could join us nice pretty close all right then let's go ahead and have a motion if we could joan you want to make a motion here i move to adjourn i'll second that all right all in favor say aye aye opposed all right have a good night guys see you later and herald all come in and sign stuff tomorrow have michelle drop it off for herald is it your birthday it is actually told me happy birthday happy birthday herald you're lucky we adjourned right sing to you but that's not getting out on the way yeah all right later guys happy birthday good bye bye