 All right, it's seven o'clock. Let's go ahead and get started. Let's go ahead and have a roll call. Pledge. Here. Here. All right, let's say the Pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Just a quick reminder to the public. Everybody who's on this list gets three minutes. At three minutes, I'll have to cut you off. Your name's not on the list. You can say something, but you'll have to wait until the end of today's meeting. And is anybody on the list that is under the age of 18 who has school tomorrow? Okay, so you three are on here? Yeah, you guys, I'm going to make sure. I'm going to do you solid. I'm going to get you to school on time. So, get ready. You three will go first. Are you Natalie, Hazel, and Greg? What are your names? Natalie. Is Eli talking to you? No? Okay, just you. And then Clyde. Clyde, you're not saying nothing though, right, Clyde? Oh, Natalie, Clyde, and Eli, Central Image. All right, you'll be up here in just a sec. Get ready. Okay, let's go ahead. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes of February 11th, 2020? So moved. Second. Mayor Bagley. Yes, sir. I am unclear of how to, with approval of these minutes, to correct the record of the February 11th meeting. Because if you go to number 13 on these minutes, it's a summary. It's not an inaccurate summary. It's an inaccurate summary. But a summary of Council Member- We're going to hear your- Oh, your mic's off. No, I don't have a- No, your mic's off. Well, talk to those guys. At the end of the meeting, Council Member Peck made a statement. What's in the minutes is, I have no doubt, a correct summary of the statement. The problem is, it's an incomplete summary. And in the statement, there were a couple of comments that were made that, two of which I believe to be inaccurate, one of which I know to be inaccurate, and it involved my name. So I'm not certain how- It's my understanding that the video is the official record of the meeting, not the minutes. But if we approve these minutes without correcting that record, then the statement stands, I guess, as fact or truth. Well, you can either vote for the motion, against the motion, or make a motion to amend it. I'd like to correct the record of the February 11th meeting. You tell me when I can do that, if not now. No, you can do it now. Then I want to correct the record now. It is not a matter of voting on these minutes. Correct. The statement that was made was inaccurate. I transcribed the statement if people would like a copy of it. Here are the statements that I believe to be inaccurate. And this is out of context, but there's a statement that the core request for everything that is on the city server, this was in response to comments that were made about emails. It's my understanding that when a core request is made, it is not limited to what is on a council member's email account or on the city's server. It is for everything, every email that has to do with potential city business, regardless of the server on which it sets, since I asked that question to the city attorney and got the confirmation. So I want to, if that was a statement that was made, I believe needs to be corrected. There's a second time, there's a second time in that statement that that is also set, that emails are on the city server and that that's what a core request was for. I believe the core requests are for everything that is city business. So both of those statements are incorrect. Then there was a reference to how council member Peck handles core requests and equated her response to the same way I've responded to core requests. And the fact is we have responded differently. Our responses cannot be equated and I would like it to be corrected in the record that when there have been core requests for my records, I've handed over my devices, all of them. So the staff decides, not me, the staff decides what is or is not city business on my private email accounts. That is not how council member Peck responded to the core request. And I want that clearly stated in the minutes of this meeting since we can't get it in the minutes of the last meeting. Okay, so council member Peck made a statement which is on the record. Dr. Waters has now made a statement on the record. No motion has been made, but there's a motion on the floor to pass the approval of minutes of February 11th, 2020. Seeing no further debate or dialogue. Sorry, council member Christensen. Well, I'm a little puzzled. Did councilman Waters say this at that February meeting because otherwise this is there's there's currently no motion. Meaning right all we're doing is voting to approve the February 11th, 2020 minutes. If those were not stated then then we can't put them in. There's no motion. Okay. So all right. All right, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye or nay. Nay. All right. That passes six to one with council member Waters dissentant. No. Or did you vote as well? I was not present so I don't have a vote. Okay. Well, it's a little tricky because kids, the mayor is not this dumb. Usually. Actually, some of the audience would say yes, I am, but I was I did. I can't hear. So yeah. All right. So it was five for Dr. Waters against and council member Martin abstaining. Let's move on to agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. The only thing I want known that you guys to know is that I asked Harold and spoke with Eugene, but he's not in charge of the agenda. We were there. There was a group green solutions that's a publicly traded entity that will be purchasing some local dispensaries one or more. And so I talked to Harold about bringing it back. It sounds like it's going to come back in April sometime in order to talk about how that might. We might better reflect and match state law. So I'm sure Abby Driscoll has approached one or all of us. And so I just said bring it back to discuss. So that's already on there. Is it April or May, Don? We had the marijuana conversation. May. April. Okay. So it's more than that because as they change state law, there's a number of issues that have come out. And so we need to have a broader conversation on things that we need to clean up in general to bring in concert with state law. So it's really more than just that issue that we need to bring forward. Okay. All right. Mayor, I have a couple other agenda revisions. Absolutely not. Just for the record. Don, absolutely not. Yes. Go ahead. Just wanted to note there was a revised resolution for item 8K that was published. Additionally, there was a revised attachment one for item 9B. That was also published and provided to council. Also wanted to note on item 8A. The second reading date is incorrect. That will be eight. The second reading date is incorrect. That will be April 14th. And I will read that into the record correctly. Okay. And then finally, Sandy emailed you all. There are no bills for consideration. So your general business item about legislative is. Awesome. Removed. All right. Cool. Anything else? All right. So let's move on to city manager. You don't have a report to you. All right. So let's go ahead and have a proclamation designating March 2020 is census awareness month in Longmont, Colorado. So who here's to, who here's to Aaron? You can come on up. Who else is here to talk about the census? So come on up everybody while I read this and then everybody will take a picture. When you say everybody, you mean everybody who's here? Everybody. Because they all count. All right. All right. So this is a proclamation designating March 2020 is census awareness month in Longmont, Colorado. Whereas April 1st, 2020 is census day for the United States of America pursuant to Article one, section two of the U.S. Constitution. The 2020 census, a once a decade population count will be open to the public to self report on March 12th, 2020, and will continue through July 31st with an ideal deadline of May 12th for everyone in Longmont to complete the census. And whereas the fair allocation of federal dollars for public health, education, transportation, child and elder care, food assistance, emergency disaster response, and many other critical programs and services depends on complete and accurate age population and other demographic information gathered every 10 years. And whereas an accurate census is required for the proper apportionment of representatives with the legislative bodies of the U.S. House of Representatives and Colorado State Legislature and is used in the redistricting of state and county voting districts. And whereas information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau is confidential and protected by law and any data related to the census can only be released in an aggregate form that does not identify individual respondents. And whereas the City of Longmont's complete count committee is directly working to ensure everyone counts in Longmont and is also supporting the efforts of the other complete count committees in Boulder County, including the City of Boulder, University of Colorado Boulder, and Boulder County nonprofit CCCs to increase community participation in the 2020 census. Now therefore, I, Brian J. Bagley, Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me in the City Council, the City of Longmont, do hereby proclaim March 2020 as Census Awareness Month in Longmont. And I urge all residents of Longmont to participate in the 2020 census to ensure everyone counts in Longmont. Sign me. So, Aaron? Mayor Bagley, members of council, Aaron Fostick with the Planning and Development Services Department. I'm joined by co-chair of the Longmont Complete Count Committee, Carmen Ramirez, and several members of the Longmont Complete Count Committee. And we appreciate you proclaiming March 2020 as Census Awareness Month. It's hard to believe, but we're less than 20 days away from the invitations to respond to the census being mailed out to all Longmont residents and all residents of the United States. So that will begin on March 12th. We are really making a strong push for everyone in Longmont to respond either via mail, phone, or for the first time ever online. So the census is going to be easier than ever to respond. As we've mentioned in the past several times when we've talked to you, and as the mayor just read in this proclamation, the census is incredibly important to Longmont. We estimate that for every resident, which currently is about 97,000 people living in Longmont, the census will test our estimates and see how close we are. For every resident, we get about $1,500 per year per resident. So you can see that that's an incredible amount of money that's coming to our community. Colorado also stands to gain another seat in Congress, which is incredibly important to our state. And so an accurate complete count is exceptionally important. The county is putting a lot of resources to this. We're pleased tonight to be joined by newly hired county census campaign manager, as well as an outreach coordinator. And so we're really working closely with our county partners, other local complete count committees, nonprofits, businesses, as well as residents just to get the word out. And so we appreciate the work that all of you are doing, really appreciate the work that the community and our community partners are doing, and are excited to make sure everyone in Longmont counts. Carmen, do you want to add anything? Carmen or Carmen? Now there's two cards. Carmen Ramirez, City of Longmont. Good evening. Just want to let you know that we are making all sorts of efforts. I've been doing presentations on all sorts of groups from Boy Scouts to immigrants that are learning English, to parents at all of our Title I schools. So we're making those efforts in partnership with Pamela and Carmen, who are part of Boulder County. So we're making sure to reach out to all of their communities. We've done the education. We've done the outreach. Now we need to encourage and motivate people to respond. So, Alcalde, do you want to say it in Spanish? What? Alcalde, do you want to say it in Spanish? What do you want me to say in Spanish? Complete your sentence. You have to complete your sentence. Complete your sentence. All of them count in Longmont. All of them count in Longmont. Three easy ways to respond. Three super easy ways to respond. What are they? Internet, mail and phone. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I speak Spanish and I can also say what EME says. Alright, so let's go ahead. No, it's not it. Why don't we ask everybody here, except one person with a camera, to take a picture. So come on up, everybody. Congratulations. You're going to be in city history. Why don't we, actually, why don't we, there we go. Trip hazard city. Oh, yeah. That was my point. Just go about it. Yeah, yeah. Those cords. Do you guys have the Christmas story? Yes. Dangerous Christmas light city. Yeah. Yes. You can certainly say that. Yes. Yeah. As everyone's walking back to there. Your mic's not low. Question on the census. Nine questions. Really easy. Alright. Sandy. And again, there's no census question or a citizenship question on the census, which means that if you are undocumented, you can talk and answer and no one's going to know anything about you other than you're part of the mass, which is Longmont. So. Alright, let's move on to first call public invited to be heard. At this time, the infamous citizens of Longmont known as Natalie Brenna, Clyde Guliza, and Eli Blomker. Alright, come on up guys. Yeah, yeah. There you go. Yeah, go ahead. Say your names and addresses and then go on in. Let us know what you want to say. Okay, so I am Natalie Brenna and with me today are Clyde Guliza and Eli Blomker. So I live on 516 Collier Street. I live on 1345 South Grand Street. And I live on 625 Kenmore Court. We are from Central Elementary and are working on our International Black Glory Exhibition. We would like to talk about plastic and the harmful effects it has on the environment. To start off, plastic is killing innocent ocean animals like the leatherback sea turtle. Globally, it is estimated that over 100 million marine animals are killed each year by plastic waste. Animals eat plastic bags thinking that is their prey and they die. We would like to ban plastic bags like this one from stores. This would save countless lives of animals. It would not be a big change since stores like Natural Grocers and Adorn have already started using paper bags. Reusable bags would also be a good option. If you decide that you want to do something smaller, you could find people one to two dollars for each plastic bag they use, which would still be effective. Remember, we only have one earth. We should always use our precious resources we have. Please consider our idea. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Well done. All right. Hazel Gordon. After that impressive display, I don't know what to say. I'm Hazel Gordon, and for the last year and a half, I've been living at 1600 Atkinson Avenue in Longmont. After my retirement, I moved here to Colorado, which I consider my home. My career was in ecology, and my training directs me to observe human actions and the consequences from perspectives of time as well as scale. By scale, I mean that an action is analyzed at the ground level as well as from an aerial or maybe a broader perspective, as ecologists tend to do. I'm speaking to urge you to reverse the decision last year that allowed the creation of metro residential districts. After some 15 years of disallowing them to occur in Longmont. From the perspective of looking at future and ground level scenarios, I understand that residents of such districts are likely to be assessed future fees for maintenance and other services that they did not anticipate and perhaps cannot afford. This has been reported many times in the Denver Post articles and speakers here at the City Council, so I won't reverberate such things. I also understand that unless such residents of these districts have the time and motivation for taking leadership roles in their districts on boards, perhaps they usually do not have the power to direct planning efforts within their districts. I may be wrong on that interpretation, but that's what I understand. To my mind, this appears to be unjust in a democratic society since the city cannot remedy a developer's inability to live up to the requirements of its contract in a service agreement. In addition to these aspects, I call your attention to look at the broader perspective from the viewpoint of cumulative effects of Longmont's population growth trajectory and the future trends of how our city will grow. The paving over of random and diverse areas of semi-natural and exotic grasslands and the soils by such metros districts impacts the atmosphere, and I hope that it is of concern to the city's climate change initiatives. For example, it enlarges the city's heat island warming effect through the additional impermeable pavements and buildings required for these districts. It also narrows the city's ability to allow natural processes to sequester carbon within our soils that remain and the intact vegetation that remains. Thank you for allowing me to address these issues. Thank you. All right, Greg Morrissey. Good evening, Mayor Bagley. Staff, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. And the thing I'm going to bring up is about the emails and the emails being used by staff members. They're using their personal emails instead of using city emails. From the research I've done, this is against the law. I would like to see that stop, please, keep that data secure on city servers. Do not use your personal email. And if people are doing that by accident or something, they should come forth and say, this won't happen anymore. This creates an opportunity for integrity across the entire city done by the staff. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Kevin Gallagher. Good evening. Thank you for hearing me. My name is Kevin Gallagher. I live at 9376 Rogers Road. I still do. You're in Longmont. And I'm here tonight to talk about the special metro financing districts. When you work on it tonight to undo and revoke the residential district that you extended to Mr. Malshine and the development that's currently plaguing our road. I hope that you will also remove, revoke, and cancel the special metro financing district that you granted to him, a residential development. Because if you don't, basically you've effectively changed the law solely at the crest of one man for one man, which is illegal under our constitution. And to that effect, I would hope that maybe you might reinstate the appeal that you wanted to us, Mr. Mayor, this past year, when we had a reasonable appeal because you pushed through the preliminary plot with 12 to 13 missing items, information that we, as residents, as neighbors that are considered under the code that you're responsible to, never had any information to even understand the impacts of the development. But it's clear that on a road with 30 homes, all zoned rural, 400 new condos in the middle of the street is going to have an impact on traffic. A new traffic study that we got after the preliminary was passed said that 15 percent of the cars from 400 new homes are going to come onto Rogers Road. That's a joke. A reasonable person would see that as a joke. The drainage study that came out last summer actually said that we can withstand two feet of standing water on our properties because we're in a high impact flood zone. How did you get Mountain Brook out of that flood zone? There's something really corrupt going on in this process here from the very start. And as evidenced by a core request that we did receive for a very small period of time, it shows a highly undue influence and familiar relationship between council member Waters, Martin, and you, Mayor Bagley, all throughout this process for the last few years on Mountain Brook, which you should have disclosed and you should have recused yourself from the appeal process because you had ex parte communications with one of the plaintiffs in a quasi-judicial setting, which is also illegal. So I'm asking you to do the right thing, to avoid corruption, to be, as these last two people said, open, honest, and transparent government that you purport to be and do the right thing by us. This is not a NIMBY. We're not against the development. We're against the process in which you've completely alienated and ignored us this entire time. We have property rights guaranteed by the state and the federal government and we're going to continue to act upon them and work to preserve them throughout this entire process. We're not going anywhere. We love living in Longmont and you should appreciate that and treat us with the respect we deserve. Thank you so much. Stick around. I'll respond. All right. Let's see here. Kevin Mulshine. Mayor, after Kevin Mulshine, there's one more. Deb McClintock is on my list. Okay, great. Hello, Mayor, City Council. Kevin Mulshine, 5139, Old Ranch Drive. I'll make it quick. I know where, obviously, where this council is going on the ordinance on special districts. The only issue I have is when you say, if you look at the lead into your ordinance, you state you're stopping them for the following reasons. If you go through the reasons, you say, Longmont has had development for 15 years and this will not adversely affect development. I believe last week you discussed the total lack of middle class housing in the city. So, yeah, we've had developing, but we haven't done anything for the middle class. Frankly, we're providing more middle class housing in the city than anybody is and we're investing a lot of money to do that. That's opinion or false at best. It says that people will be taxed for things that they don't get the benefit of. They don't get a commensurate benefit of. You can't have a district unless you provide those benefits. That's false. The reasons you have in there, frankly, are all false or just opinion. So, if you're going to have an ordinance, at least put it just say, we don't want to have the districts. I think that'd be better. I do feel compelled to speak because the last speaker made reference to a lot of meetings. I can tell you I can remember a lot of meetings with a lot of council people and I can remember meetings out on dirt fields which have nothing to do with our developments. They have to do with habitat for humanity. They have to do with schooling. They have to do with issues to make the city better. I moved here to make the city better. So, I talked to a lot of people about trying to make it better. So, I take offense to any insinuation that anything below board is going here. I've been told very strongly by this council to provide a community that provides middle-class housing and can you help something for the people at the lowest end of the spectrum? We've done that. It's done nowhere else in the country and we're not going to apologize for it. So, thank you. Thank you. All right. Who's the last one? Deb McClintock. Deb McClintock. Good evening, Mayor Begley and council. This is an article that was in the Denver Post. Okay, thank you. In December 2019, Colorado Metro Districts and Developers create billions of debt leaving homeowners with soaring tax bills. My name is Deb McClintock. I live at 1117th Avenue here in Longmont and I'm here to caution you about Metro Districts. We moved here from Texas back in the 80s and we bought a home in an area in Douglas County. It was called Roxboro Village. We were unaware really of what a Metro District was and no one ever really mentioned what it was about or anything. It was a fire district one. And after we'd been there for several years, all of a sudden there was a meeting called that all the homeowners had to get together and we were informed there had not been enough houses that had been sold in that subdivision. So, therefore, the cost for the infrastructures was being passed on to the homeowners there. Of course, that caused a lot of financial difficulties for those people because they were not expecting such huge property taxes to be what they were. So, I am hoping that you guys will take a look at this again. There's an area up in Loveland, Johnstown area called the Thompson River Ranch Subdivision where this is happening again. People are thinking that their mortgage is going to be a certain amount and their taxes will be a certain amount understanding how the Metro District works. And so what happens when they don't sell enough houses then all that debt is put back on the homeowners. And it causes a lot of people to lose their homes. And I could see where people would be foreclosed on these houses here in Longmont and you would be left with empty houses. And that's not good for the area at all. And Highlands Ranch, for instance, is supposed to be the pinnacle of a Metro District. After 40 years, they're still in debt, $30 million. After all those houses, you know how big Highlands Ranch is. There's thousands of homes there and they're still in debt that much money. So, I am requesting that the council would really take time to research these Metro Districts because the boards are run by the developers and they are the ones that vote on the tax increases and no one can stop them. They're their own little government. So I would ask that you would take a look at this and make sure that this type of situation does not happen in Longmont that forces people out of their homes. There's a bunch of people up in Loveland that are being foreclosed on up there as I'm speaking. So please take a look at that before you approve a bunch of Metro Districts here in Longmont. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That will conclude today's public invited to be heard. And just let me make a bl... Yes? You'll have the opportunity at the end to talk if you want to say something, Ms. Bassett, but we got to... The rules are that if you didn't get on the list, you got to wait until the end. So just generally speaking, I mean, I think I speak for all the council. I don't care what side of an issue you're on. Having served here for eight years and knowing everybody at this dais, some people's names... Yeah, I don't care what the topic was tonight. I can vouch that everybody up here for the $1,000 that they get paid every month puts in the time, the emotion, the energy, and the love. And I'm just tired of hearing the word corruption. I get $1,500 a month. And just because council members do not agree with one of 100,000 people in Longmont does not make us corrupt. It makes us a representative democracy and we're up here trying to do the good of the people and we all have better things to do. If we're going to get yelled at and accused of crime and corruption, I guarantee you nobody up here is a criminal. Nobody up here is corrupt. We're doing the best we can with what we've got. And so sometimes... I know I'm supposed to be quiet, but after being two years in this seat, I don't do that anymore. People stand up here and they want to pick out people on staff and I'm just saying to this council, I'm going to start pushing back and just saying, you're wrong. So anyway, you're wrong. All right, let's go ahead and move on to the consent agenda. Can you go ahead and read that for us? Mayor, item 8a is ordinance 2020-09, a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 14.32 of the Longmont Municipal Code on Rates and Regulations, governing electric service, public hearing, and second reading, scheduled for April 14th, 2020. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving, the vacation of four 10 foot wide utility easements in the Prairie Village subdivision, generally located adjacent to Alpine Street, public hearing, and second reading, scheduled for March 17th, 2020. 8c is ordinance 2020-11, a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 4.10 of the Longmont Municipal Code on special districts policies and procedures, public hearing and second reading, scheduled for March 17th, 2020. 8d is resolution 2020-17, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the memorandum of understanding between the city and UHS of Centennial Peaks LLC, DBA Centennial Peaks Hospital to facilitate providing effective and efficient access to behavioral services to individuals in custody. 8e is resolution 2020-18, a resolution of the Longmont City Council establishing the fee for cash in lieu of water rights transfers. 8f is resolution 2019, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County Public Health for farm to early childhood education and farmers market food assistance incentives programs. 8g is resolution 2020-20, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the state of Colorado for a library grant. 8h is resolution 2020-21, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Regional Air Quality Council for grant funding for an electric vehicle charging station. 8i is resolution 2020-22, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Workforce Boulder County for internship sponsor agreements from March 2020 through February 2022. 8j is resolution 2020-23, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission for a consumer sentinel network confidentiality and data security agreement with an addendum. 8k is resolution 2020-24, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving a voluntary alternative agreement for the Longmont Family Apartments development as satisfaction of the city's inclusionary housing requirements. All right, I assume that's it. Good job, take a breath. Round of applause, Don. Round of applause. All right, so do we have a motion or before that, do we have anything that we want to pull? I move that we approve the agenda. It's been moved that we pass the consent agenda? Second. It's been moved and seconded? I think we need to pull C and K. All right. Dr. Waters would like to pull C and K. Would you like to restate your motion? I'm not telling you to, I'm asking. Okay, I move we approve the consent agenda pulling C and K. Second. It's been moved and seconded? Councilmember Martin. I am sorry, I received a query from a constituent about E and so I would like to pull E. All right. Councilmember Christensen is okay if we pull E. Yes. All right. I'll take that as an amended motion. So the motion is that we pass the consent agenda, last C, E and K. It has been seconded by Councilmember Peck. Getting a verbal and a visual nod. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, that passes unanimously. All right, let's go on to ordinances and second reading and public hearings on the following matters, 9A ordinance 2020, 07A, a bill for an ordinance conditionally proving the Pepler neighborhood concept plan agreement generally located between Alpine Street, Tulareosa Lane, Winding Drive, and Canadian Crossing Drive. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak? We'll go ahead and have a public hearing on this matter. All right, seeing no one, let's go ahead and close the public hearing. Any questions or comments from Council? Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. I move approval of ordinance 2020, 07A. Second. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. All right, that passes six to one with Councilmember Waters opposed. Let's move on to 9B. Public hearing and consideration of recommendations for 2020 community development block grant program funding for draft 2020 CDBG program action plan. Let's go ahead and let's go ahead and open up this for public hearing. I don't think there's a staff presentation, right? There is. All right, let's go ahead and, oh yeah, that's right. You mean the one that says 2020 CDBG action plan? Good evening, Mayor and Council. Kathy Fedler, Housing and Community Investment Division Manager for the city. So tonight is the public hearing for the proposed 2020 community development block grant action plan. And this one was updated in your packet because right after it went out, we got word from HUD what our actual allocation was going to be so we could put actuals in here instead of our estimated costs. So what we're looking at for CDBG funding in 2020 is $610,926, which is a reduction of $12,000 from 2019 or about 2%, and a total of 6.2% reduction from 2018. So the chart on the far right gives you an idea of where we have been over the years. 651,000 was our highest allocation. We also have 360,417, and there's another typo in there, dollars to be reallocated, and this is primarily from program income that we've received at the very end of 2019 from repayment of the thistle loans when we refinanced their properties here. They had some loans that they paid back, and then we're estimating about $20,000 in program income to come in in 2020. So this is a total of about 991,000. We took applications in October. We opened those up in October. They were due November 4th. We received five total housing applications. Two of those were referred for the CDBG funding, and I'll get into those in a little bit. We also have a city fund request for homeless solutions for Boulder County program, our ongoing rehab program funding that we operate with city staff, and then the housing counseling program. The 2020 action plan will be due to HUD by we're hoping mid-April. We have a new five-year consolidated plan that will cover 2020 to 2024 that we're working on right now. That has to go in first. So that has to move along before we can submit our action plan. The public hearing is required that we're holding tonight, and a 30-day public notice is also required. We started that notice period January 29th, and it will end on March 2nd. So looking a little closer on what we're recommending funding for our housing rehab programs, a total of just over $300,000 for the single-family homeowner-occupied rehab program, the architectural barrier removal program, the emergency grant program that helps with health and safety issues, mobile home repair, and then our program delivery costs to operate that program. About 29 or so households should be assisted with this funds. The next recommendation is the Boulder County housing counseling and personal finance program. This would be a $50,000 grant. This is a program, the counseling is required by our down payment assistance and rehab programs. In addition, they also provide credit counseling. They help with folks that need a spending plan, are trying to reduce debt, improve their credit, includes foreclosure prevention, if that's needed, and reverse mortgage counseling as well. This project leverages over $300,000 in other funding and we expect about 240 lower-income residents will be assisted. The homeless solutions for Boulder County support is $56,600 as grants for security or utility deposits so as people get referred that are experiencing homelessness get referred for housing, the vouchers, the locally funded vouchers that were approved as part of the 2020 budget and some of the vouchers that Longmont Housing Authority has set aside will be used to get folks into housing. As they move into that, they're going to need security and utility deposit assistance so these funds would be provided for that. We're anticipating about 23 households would be assisted with these funds. And then the two project funding recommendations one is for the in-between to acquire property it would be $154,170 grant. They're also receiving a loan from the affordable housing fund in the amount of $100,000. 6-12 housing units are expected to be created once they find a property and there are a lot of caveats on that funding which we went through in the affordable housing fund for the approvals but basically that they have to have a purchase within 12 months of contract they have to have a minimum of at least 6 units in the project one unit able to be fully accessible and they have to provide documentation of their other financing before we would enter into a contract purchase contract. And then the other project is the Longmont Housing Authority Aspen Meadows Senior Apartments Refinance and Rehab Grant from 2020 funds that will go along with the $175,000 grant already approved from 2019 funds and it will preserve 50 housing units for low-income seniors. And then finally we're setting aside 20% the maximum amount for program administration it's about $126,000 Again this is the maximum we go ahead and hold out for other projects. So all together we're looking at about 350 households that would be served with this funding 29 under the rehabilitation program 23 homeless new affordable rental units created taking an average between 6 and 12 and then 50 rental homes for seniors preserved and then 240 households helped to remain stable through the housing counseling program So this is about 2800 per household assisted and about $11.6 million would be leveraged and other funds brought into our community with these funds. This just gives it's a little bit hard to see but it just goes through and shows exactly what we just went through in the format that we usually provide to HUD and the amounts highlighted are the ones that that were lowered in order when we got less grant than we had anticipated So I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you might have otherwise you can go ahead and hold the public hearing and take action. Alright, thank you very much. Let's go ahead and open it for public hearing at this time Is there anyone here that would like to say anything on this issue? Alright, seeing no one, let's go ahead and close the public hearing. Do we have a vote? Or do we have a motion? Would someone like to make a motion? Okay, I move I move that what do we need to do here? Do we need to do anything? So you'd be approving submission to HUD contingent that we don't receive any comments between now and March 2nd. So moved. Second. Alright, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright, that passes unanimously. I made the motion and Councilman Waters second a bit. Alright, let's go on to items removed for the consent agenda. We've been cruising along 45 minutes into the meeting. We're through the consent agenda. Anybody need a break? I'm assuming not. Let's go ahead and start with easy stuff. Councilman Martin, do you want to start with 8E? Yes, thank you Mayor Bagley. I received an email from constituent at the very last minute this evening. Normally I would have answered him. These questions were have been addressed by the water board adequately in my opinion. And I am the council. It lays on to the water board, but that doesn't mean I have all these numbers on the top of my head. Normally Mr. Thompson would come down here and ask the questions himself in public invited to be heard. But he was not able to be here tonight. So I am going to ask a reasonable number of them and let Mr. Hooson answer them. So first of all he would like to know based on the drought contingency plans, what is Longmont's current reliable water supply? Good evening council members. Ken Houston, water resources manager. So Longmont's current water supply today, our current water supply is about 28,000 acre feet of water based upon what's in our portfolio right now. Our current projection of water supply is about 31,000 acre feet when you add in water that we've identified in the planning area that will come to Longmont at time of development. And so I usually that question is getting towards how much water do we have and how much do we need in the future? Okay. And then he gives some numbers that I'm not going to take us through because it's a lot too much stuff. Thank you. And he comes down to essentially he's worried about the cost of an acre foot of windy gap firm supply of windy gap and he says what is Longmont's storage to reliable yield ratio for the windy gap project he estimates that our firmly yield from our 8,000 acre feet in storage capacity would be about 3,300 acre feet yield. I think that's approximately correct. Can you confirm that? Yes, that's probably correct. Actually, it's a 2.42 firming ratio so you need 2.42 acre feet of windy gap storage to get one acre foot of firmed water. Perfect. His calculation was 2.41 so close enough. Okay. Based on those numbers he is asking that the he's speculating that the cost per acre foot of chimney hollow water is just above $40,000 and he would like an explanation of why the cash in Luffy is not set at $40,000. Yes, council member not sure where the $40,000 comes from. As it turns out, Water Board looks at a lot of metrics but currently they're placing a little higher emphasis on windy gap firming as the metric to use for cash in lieu because essentially the cash in lieu we're going to be getting in the immediate future we'll go directly to the windy gap firming project and so what Water Board did was take the current project cost estimate for windy gap firming and that's the construction cost, that's the environmental cost that's the permitting cost design cost, all the cost for the project it's low over $6,000 per acre foot you multiply that by the 2.42 ratio that gets you to what it cost in storage capacity to get one firmed acre I suspect somebody may have taken the 17 times 2.42 17 is not the cost of the project 17 is the cost of 2.42 acre feet in the project so Water Board basically took the cost of the project and multiplied it by 2.42 that's where we came up with so cash sorry actually I think that's what Mr. Thompson did too he said that the current estimate of the windy gap project cost is $134 plus million dollars and then used the 2.4 his 2.41 storage to reliable yield ratio and he says if you divide the $134 million by the $300 firm yield then the resulting cost per acre foot is $40,000 is that a valid computation or is that where his error comes in you would divide the total project cost by 90,000 acre feet there are 90,000 acre feet in the project I see there we go thank you very much all right do you want to make a motion yes I move an option of item E all right it's been moved by Councillor Martin and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez that we pass resolution 2020-18 any other comment dialogue debate see none all in favor say aye opposed all right that passes unanimously let's go on to 8K so do you want to deal with 8K first please well yeah in the counts communication in the counts communication the staff asks for direction second paragraph staff proposes providing the details of this communication for council's input direction and approval and then staff will prepare an affordable housing agreement so I'm not certain how they got on the consent agenda the staff is asking for for direction so I guess I'll just defer to Kathy and take us through whatever kind of conversation or presentation that we need in order to provide the direction that you're looking for good evening Mayor and Council Kathy Fedler housing community investment division manager again and I'm not sure a presentation is fully needed but it's only a couple of slides so I'll go ahead and run through it work on changing some of the wording in the communication from now on because some of these are getting to be fairly routine I think and probably don't need to they can stay on consent quick question what direction does staff need is I just want to know as I'm listening to it approving the voluntary alternative agreement just that's it okay all right keep going sorry okay so this is for Longmont family apartments development at 15th and Pratt or Alta depending on where you're looking at so it's the voluntary alternative agreement to build affordable rental homes on site and if you remember because of state law and rent control it has to be a voluntary they have to voluntarily agree to provide the rental affordable rental homes on site they're proposing 88 total rental homes and E6 is the part of the ordinance that we're looking for this is a little bit hard to see but it's the just gives you some background on the location of the project it's west of Maine and north of 15th the layout is over on the far left the new design and then just some schematics the top one is the old one which was large building and the two smaller ones they have redesigned and broken up the building so there's less impact on the neighborhood so this is looking at the rental property has a density cap so if they wanted to they would have 7 units that would be exempt from the requirement at 12% they would have to provide with the exemption they would have to provide 10 total affordable homes and they're providing 88 on site 22 of those homes are 25% are going to be affordable at or below 50% of the area median income and the remaining homes at or below 60% of the area median income they are providing 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes which is unusual in apartments so about 31% of the units has 3 bedrooms and 18% has 4 bedroom apartments some of the things to take into consideration there's annual reporting that's required as part of the inclusionary housing program the property will be deed restricted to provide 45 affordable homes as permanently affordable so 51% of the homes will be deed restricted under our program the developer has redesigned the look height and character of the buildings to better address neighborhood concerns the parking will be 63% more than the 88 spaces that they would be allowed under affordable housing again high number of 3 and 4 bedroom family rental homes these units are in high demand in the centennial park apartments which is another affordable development and it's convenient to main street with access to transportation options so this does address council work plan goal B 1.1 having a diverse housing stock with higher densities access to high quality public transportation food and jobs more than meets the 12% requirement with 51% of the units deed restricted as affordable it adds a 45 homes that would be counted towards our goal with 88 actually in the market and then it does help to meet the 2035 goals so the developer is also here if you have any questions around that as well alright anything else dr. Waters? Nope do you want to make a motion? I will I was just waiting to see if there were other questions I moved in approval of resolution 2020-24 second okay that's been moved by dr. Waters and second by council member martin all in favor say aye aye opposed alright that passes unanimously alright let's move on to dr. Waters you also pulled 8C I did the main event for the evening yep so we've all seen the collection of amendments to the ordinance we've all seen council member christiansen's amendment you've seen the others since I have the floor what I would like to do is there's a subset of this total of this collection that council member martin and I worked on that I'd like to for the council I'd like council consideration and action either to approve or not because if we approve if some of these makes sense then it frames a different discussion when we get to the recommended amendment that we eliminate residential development from all metro districts so what I'd like to do is start with amendment number five can you hold on while we get there dr. Waters and so my question to you mayor bagley will be do I have the floor to work through you have a series of amendments or one at a time I mean we need to go one at a time well I to go to amendment number six after five where do I defer we'll just kind of see how it goes let's start one at a time what page in that case I'm not going to start with number five I think that I mean personally I mean the main hold on one second what page do you want I'm on 91, 92 where are your amendments 98 for five yep there we are 98 well that he's going to make a motion I think and I just before he makes a motion I want to see where he's at but what I was going to say is before we do that there tends to be the real issue here I think there's three basic and you guys don't have to agree with me but there's an amendment by dr. Waters suggesting that we remove the percentage cap that we limit metro districts or residential metro districts to any project that is being built that is 120% of AMI and below we have councilmember Christensen who presented her or turned in her amendment that she wanted to get rid of all residential metro districts and then you've got the original amendment or the original ordinance which basically said mixed use development and commercial would permit metro districts but not residential and so those are the three options and everything else seems to be a subset of those things and so as I'm making that observation how does council want to proceed councilmember martin wait a minute whoa whoa sorry I have the floor you're right go ahead I'll just make it a suggestion thank you so we'll start with this we are we are wrapped up in the amendments on this ordinance, the ordinance itself and there's a ton I think there's a lot of good in the ordinance I think there are a number of things that need to be corrected in the 50% arbitrary limit is one of them but before we even get there I just want to make the statement personally I am not invested in I've argued to keep metro districts as a tool in metro districts I'm invested in a segment of our population that without some tool for financing land and infrastructure the cost of land and infrastructure as part of the cost of housing without a tool to finance that other than the way it's always happened leaves out a huge continuum of our population last week when Kathy did the annual first day report on our inclusionary zoning ordinance the segment of our population that is least well served are working families and the reason we have 54,000 Boulder County residents today, according to Boulder County Housing who pay more than 50% of their income for mortgage or rental is the way this city has financed or said to developers finance residential development in a way that drives up housing costs which either eliminates people don't qualify for or pay way more than they need to for housing that's how we get to 54,000 so if we want to see that number grow continue to have working class families be housing burdened people don't qualify for subsidized housing and they they don't have inventory for that's market rates at 120% or below AMI they end up with only one option that has to pay more than they should be paying for a home if they aspire to home ownership and if at the end of the day we take that tool away we take that option away somebody on this council needs to answer the question what are we going to do other than revert back to what gave us the current situation where we have too many people housing burden and we saw in the presentation last week that's the segment that is least well served so with that thought in mind I want to offer amendment if you go to amendment number 12 we have heard from the public one another that there's a perception that metro districts are used to build homes for rich people in gated communities and I suppose that's true in some places amendment number 12 assuming we would keep this tool in our toolbox would limit the use of a metro district would limit financing in a metro district for the cost of land and infrastructure for homes that will be market priced 120% or below AMI which are the mid-tier homes we identified as priorities for the housing stock in this community in our inclusionary zoning ordinance so I move amendment number 12 and I know this doesn't specifically state a market rate but we can back into the market rate based on what we know about 120% below an AMI which is how we determine whether or not we apply the mid-tier exception at the time of certificate of occupancy under the current ordinance second we've got a motion and a second on the floor I guess what I would as we start to talk about this Eugene some of the amendments I'm sure that we will have just give us a heads up if we're about ready to do something that is not permitted so yeah heads up do you want to say something just briefly minor point of clarification Carolyn White I'm your outside special counsel for redevelopment on this I think maybe just with a minor wording change you might get it where it needs to be but the way it was written and the way I think I heard you say it are a little different a district cannot finance homes it could finance infrastructure the cost of land and infrastructure to support the homes the written one I have made it sound like we're going to have to build the affordable homes which it cannot do the intent is for the cost of land and infrastructure which we know are significant percentage of the cost of a home now you've got construction but the district is used to finance the cost of infrastructure in land land underlying the infrastructure correct and I guess what I'd ask is can I say one more thing can I make a proposal on this so there are a number of these that would need to be if conceptually they're they're acceptable they're going to have to be you know wordsmith by council but the intent here is what's I think clear and is important yeah I was going to say let's make the assumption that the words themselves are not what we're putting into statute what we're doing is just the intent and then the legal team the magic happen so there is a motion and a second Council Member Christensen when we brought this back it was specifically to restore this as it is now 22 23 amendments have been made I made one and the other two have been made by two members of council in each case these other 22 amendments insult the previous city manager the previous city staff the previous city council implying that they are stupid that they are liars they're called a false concept oxymorons which is not true that this is not a true statement I mean again and again and again these are all pure conjecture it says this is not a true statement I mean to me this is extremely insulting to the previous city council members to our legal staff to the rest of our staff and I we could spend another four hours discussing 22 amendments but the point is to straighten up this to just restore this law which worked quite well for many many years it has been called metro districts have been called a critical tool an essential tool well as I said last time subprime mortgages was called a critical tool credit default swaps were called critical tools that melded down our economy there are good tools there are bad tools this is not a tool that is useful except to the developers I think we have had ample evidence both in journalism in Colorado I mean in United States public interest research group in numerous people nationwide that this is a problem and that they may work occasionally but more often than not they leave homeowners it says they have a choice because where this occurs it mushrooms and then that's all your choice is is to move in if you want any kind of home you have to move into this what I would propose is that we simply restore this law I would give up my first amendment if you like I think we should just restore the law as it is as it served us well and as it will continue to serve us well that's a good political play by the way that's a good trade I'm just saying that that made me go oh that's not a bad thing yes you are excuse me counseling I am trying to provide decent housing for the people of this city this is not the mechanism for doing that and we all know that my comment wasn't to be negative it was I am willing to compromise Council Member Martin having been impugned by Council Member Christensen I do have to say that after significant research I'm fascinated by the idea that because one can put a bunch of false statements in the preamble to an ordinance where they don't belong that then questioning them becomes an insult to the previous city manager the previous council and anybody else who added five words to this ordinance in fact those preambles are false statements a few unregulated unnarrowed Metro District Service Plans which were made under the unmodified state statute have gone desperately wrong and even the original ordinance which Council Member Christensen is now proposing to simply restore as it is was an attempt to eliminate by statute some of the more egregious abuses of Metro Districts in many ways that was a good attempt and with the exception of this arbitrary 50% limit on the amount of homes that one can have inside a mixed-use district it was a pretty good ordinance I wish we had left it in place and just remove that arbitrary limit immediately I think it would have been it would have saved us all a lot of time and effort however I do have to insist that those front matter elements are false statements and ought to be removed from the ordinance Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez Thank you Mayor Bagley I think we've had plenty of dialogue on this particular subject and I think inherently most of Council knows where our fellow colleagues stand on the issue at large I will not disagree that there are problematic statements in the ordinance as presented in 2012 I believe it was which speaks to the number of amendments offered by Council members Waters and Martin that were simply to a certain extent wordsmithing or also just stating that language is not factually based and is somewhat opined if not completely opined I don't think that's really at the heart of the matter of what we're discussing tonight in the sense that I think the writing is somewhat on the wall for different reasons my stated reasons for support or opposition to special districts concerning residential development is based on what I find to be regulatory problems with statutory problems with regulation from the municipal point of view I don't think that's going to change because we are not the body that has authority over changing state statute concerning regulation of special districts and as such I don't find that I've seen any sort of evidence that is concrete to support one side saying that there is adequate ability to regulate I haven't seen the kind of evidence I've seen a lot of posturing on both sides of the issue which is fine it is what it is it's what we do somewhat to the extent that we are city council and we are to support our positions one way or another on behalf of the constituents and we both see that in different we all see that in our own particular ways so I would think that is probably most efficient if we instead of going amendment by amendment call the bigger question into account here as far as will we allow any special districts concerning residential development I appreciate that there is a motion on the floor and that's what we are debating currently and as such I will not support the amendment or the motion on the amendment because I don't think it's an efficient use of our time based on the fact that we've already spoken about this ad nauseam so those are my comments council member you're quiet down there you want to chime in any thoughts you're just like no I'm good down here thanks thanks for electing me I guess my something I was going to say later on I can go ahead and say it now you know there were things even as I read the initial for the first time I read the ordinance there were some very opinion-based statements that can be altered without removing what the intent of the original ordinance was you know I would be fine with removing some of those statements but other than that I would move that we refer back to the original or the 2017 ordinance straight up you mean council member peck I'm sorry you were in the queue it's fine so I agree with both remarks that the two past councilors said but going back to our outside council who restated what the statute says that metro districts are for land and infrastructure in 2012 it says that and then it goes on to say and possible extraordinary benefits such as transit microgrids carbon free neighborhoods distributed energy resources childcare early childhood and post secondary education facilities this is the problem with these metro districts is that once they're established and the government is there then they start adding stuff like the service plan like the one that we just had I was against that because of the recreation center that they threw in it's supposed to be for infrastructure in land and the residents end up funding all sorts of things and if we stuck to the statute and there was a regulatory component to it then I would have no problem with metro districts but as it is I would agree with this amendment 12 and I would not I don't want to go through 22 amendments and wordsmith them so I'm just going to ask one thing just one thing my question is where in my mind as I look through the amendments I can see everybody's point of view but what do you guys think of amendment 13 just as we vote on this and in my mind if we went back to the original ordinance and said and crossed out a mixed use district should not consist of more than 50% by square footage of residential gross floor area would that be allowed, that one single amendment if we where I'm at is my only ask of everything would be that a mixed use were included but it's not the arbitrary 50% means it could be 30, could be 60 but as long as it's true mixed use yeah, councilmember Christensen I'm just asking okay I think everybody understands that there isn't a magic number of 50 but 51 is a majority that's all they're just saying a majority otherwise you could build a huge housing district and put one coffee shop in and call it a mixed use district it just gives you a set amount of 50% I just want to know I think that is understood by most people and I think that was a good thing for them to put in otherwise it can lead to all kinds of abuse okay councilmember Waters Dr. Waters I'll defer Dr. Martin I wish I were Dr. Martin I just have a statement that I think if we're going to be jumping around and considering amendment either amendment it looks like what we're talking about now is either adopting amendment 13 only or adopting or restoring the ordinance as it stands and both of those are by far better than the than some possible outcomes so I'm feeling a little better but I do feel like we've entirely lost the context here and that we are talking about weaning and losing rather than getting the best stuff for Longmont which is why I hold things that I hold in recent years we've moved Longmont's land use code to include more and more mixed use developments we've encouraged higher density planning we've acknowledged that mixed use leads to walkable neighborhoods a more varied housing stock and higher quality life for more residents it reduces traffic congestion and eliminates food service deserts yeah and I think all of us are for taking our city in that direction in terms of land use and urban design we have asserted I think as Dr. Waters mentioned earlier that all the mixed use and residential developments were built without metro districts just fine but in fact that is the opposite of true what we got built were luxury apartments and executive homes and that is the cause of the congestion at our major intersections it's the cause of the affordable housing crisis and the mid-tier housing crisis that we have if we had been able to use incentives by the city which is the big carrot of okay we'll accept this service plan then I think that we would have a different housing inventory now and it would be much more like we want Longmont to become okay since the option of metro districts with dense residential subdivisions included in them have been on the table we've seen proposals that align with the city's goals and vision much more than what we saw before one builder told me it would have been much easier to just build 200 executive homes than what I'm looking to build now and that's how we got too many executive homes and too many luxury apartments now let's build the right thing I'm okay with restricting metro districts to mixed use and industrial and all the other zoning things and not pure residential because I don't see a big future in residential only developments and I think that's a good thing because we need to have a dense urban design in Longmont and that'll this will promote that concept so I am I'm happy with that and I would support adopting amendment 13 only and leaving the rest of the statute as it stands Dr. Waters since amendment 13 is not on the floor yet I want to make a I get a second turn and then last word the purpose of at least for my part the purpose of what I tried to do with amendments here is make assuming we keep an ordinance on the books and frankly I said last time there was a lot that I agreed with in the ordinance that we repealed last year ago among and I said there's some things that I didn't think made sense some of the things that I don't think make sense are the things that I've pointed out as has councilmember Martin that are simply opinion or conjecture councilmember Christiansen labels that as insulting I would say somebody has to be accountable for putting that kind of stuff in an ordinance that makes this ungrounded indefensible in many cases but the purpose for what we're trying to do for what I'm trying to do and I know this is true for councilmember Martin is to add to the ordinance in ways that protect what the ordinance was intending to protect and make it more focused on the very audience we're trying to serve or that part of our residents the continuum of incomes for our residents that we to which we need to be more responsive so councilmember mayor pro tem rodriguez has talked about this is posturing I'm going to say that is absolutely not true this is solution seeking you can see it any way you want to see it but we put in a fair amount of time trying to bring to this council what might be acceptable not to me or to councilmember Barton but to the majority of the council in service to a segment of the population that we're walking away from if we take residential units and if we're going to do that leaving the arbitrary restriction on 50% what I added to the last part of this and it shows up several places here in other amendments is clarity for my purpose I've asked the question several times in fact every time we're in this conversation what are we trying to accomplish could we just agree on an objective or two and then talk about what's the ordinance that helps us achieve that objective or those objectives I've tried to do the same thing among the amendments here and the language at the last part of this are all in terms of extraordinary benefits are all goals we've set as a council carbon free neighborhoods distributed energy systems in early childhood education it seems to me that we ought to be explicit that those are the kinds of extraordinary benefits that a developer would have to bring to the city to help advance not only our housing objectives but the other objectives we've we've said are goals that are important long term for the future of the community so I if there's an alternative if we choose to walk away from this or I think if we leave it at an arbitrary 50% we're sending a real message to that portion of our population who don't qualify for subsidized housing and can't afford what's going to come without ways to finance housing to get more units in the marketplace that can take advantage of our mid-tier exception so I'm just curious what the message what do we think the message should be to that section of the population that we are simply saying you know what we've worked real hard to come up with a plan for subsidized housing 50 now it's going to be 50 cent in below and we simply are not willing to work hard enough or creatively enough we're not willing to take on the opportunity to regulate in ways that we can to serve a segment of our population that has been ignored when it comes to housing policy for at least a decade there's a I wanted to vote but you can go ahead and say something Councilmember Christensen we're not following Robert's rules she hasn't had her second turn yet she spoke twice did you speak twice? let's go so I just want to be clear we're not following Robert's rules I've only had it down that she spoke once but let's go ahead and can we vote on the ordinance can we have a reminder of the ordinance that's the motion that's on the floor is amendment 12 and it was seconded and it was to basically the long and short of it is to limit residential metro districts to 120% if it's basically 120% of AMIM below so Councilmember Peck I'm not going to vote for this amendment but I do want to make a different statement because I think that we have historically forgotten why we do not have affordable housing we had an affordable housing ordinance years ago and it worked we have not had anything for 10 years so when you say we don't have any middle tier housing it's because we're trying to get back to what our ordinance was I personally think that we should let that inclusionary zoning ordinance work it hasn't had any time to work it's been a year so it is working we just got 88 units we're talking about other Aspen meadows so when we talk about there will be nothing if we don't do this I'm not sure I can say that's accurate yet we haven't given it time so I think that our inclusionary zoning ordinance actually does address this without the metro districts so I'm fine with just going back to the original motion of taking it back to the 2012 ordinance alright there's a vote that's alright let's go ahead and vote anybody object the motion is voting on amendment 12 and let me go ahead and amendment 12 specifically says and my computer is super slow alright it says that we are going to strike the word outweigh the potential adverse effects and put in the following language so it reads in totality the likely public benefits resulting from the district will advance the objectives listed in subsection A special or metro districts financing for residential units should be limited to the cost of land and infrastructure home prices 120% of AMI and below and possible extraordinary benefits such as transit solutions microgrids, carbon free neighborhoods distributed energy resources in child care which means that if just pointing out that if subsequently if we don't have any oh I I'm sorry early childhood and post secondary education facilities my concern is by voting on this now what could happen is if we don't do residential does this apply to residential and mixed units mixed use that's how I read it so councilor councilor Christensen there's nothing this is an ordinance as a whole that talks about how the city deals with special districts special district law state special district law there is nothing in this ordinance as a whole that forbids the new development of special districts for childhood education or cultural social districts or any special districts except residential districts so when in this particular thing you're including electric grids really do we want a developer setting up an electric grid I mean or special districts for childhood education that only applies to one tiny little area this is confusing things because it is not actually what the state law I'm going to let council member Martin say something you can have the last word doctor Waters but we're going to get back to we're going to go back to two turns or else we'll be here all night that was the third turn I know you can go ahead and say it briefly and then count doctor Waters will say what he has to say unless council member read all go far and wants to say something we will vote go ahead I would just like to point out that no this doesn't say we're going to set up electric grids with districts in fact electric infrastructure is one of the things that is prohibited to be paid for by metro districts however the financing of energy management systems which are different from electric grids are not prohibited and they are infrastructure so I just want to point out that the city of Fort Collins has taken some very forward looking steps in terms of urban design is using the incentive of metropolitan district financing to pay for subdivisions which are all electric and energy managed in addition to several other kinds of special infrastructure including green buildings and also including affordable housing so based on their example this is a proper use and a proper restriction thank you Dr. Waters just for whatever it's worth this isn't suggesting special districts single purpose special districts this is consistent with the language metrodistricts this would be a metrodistrict for residential development using the district of finance homes that would fit our mid tier exception and below and as part of the metrodistrict if a developer wanted to present an application that was specific in terms of the extraordinary benefits that matched or advanced our goals as a council so this is not this is if a developer suggested that they wanted to build sufficient facilities to house an early childhood education program I guess I wonder why we would not want to see that since the first step or the first kind of foundation in providing more and better for our youngest residents would be facilities in which programs could be developed that's not suggesting that they're going to develop the program but we have examples in town right now of co-ops young moms part of co-ops who made a deal with the church to be able to use their facilities what if in their neighborhood where we're building we're requiring at least 12% of one of the housing stock to be for permanently affordable houses that we wouldn't also say to a developer if you'd like an approval of an application add an early childhood facility there and then let's see what the city could do working with others to leverage the opportunity to get a program there to serve folks in that neighborhood why we wouldn't want to see that or a carbon free neighborhood or any of the other things that we've identified as goals for the for at least for this council and for this city why we would not signal to developers that your application will be more will receive a more favorable review if in addition to workforce housing or attainable housing we get to see these other benefits that the other kind of assets or development that would advance the city's goals that's the whole reason for the language all right let's go ahead and vote the motion has been made that we include amendment 12 all in favor say aye all opposed say nay nay the motion fails with councilman martin and dr. waters for and then the other five of us against I'd like to move amendment 13 second all right do you guys mind if we just take a straight up vote on this because we all know where we stand all in favor of amendment 13 say aye aye opposed nay I think just to be clear you'll correct me I'm just guessing here but the motion fails with council members martin myself and dr. waters for and council member your dog a fairing mayor pro tem rodriguez council member christensen and council member peck against did I get that vote right mayor pro tem rodriguez thank you mayor bagley so I just want to say first of all a couple things I really appreciate the the council member waters talked about co-ops because I think co-ops could be a very useful thing going forward and I really wish that more developers would explore co-ops that has nothing to do with regulating co-ops but I think they could be a very useful tool if you will also when asked about creative possibilities for getting the kind of missing housing that we're talking about I've been unequivocally and unapologetically talking about new urbanism since I was elected in 2017 and that really equates to which I know there's only a certain metabolism right now in long month for this but it's talking about more density in higher heights and those kinds of concepts that are hard for folks that have lived in long month historically somebody who grew up here in long month it was definitely not the kind of city I grew up in but understanding that some of the biggest challenges that we have with real estate not just in long month but regionally in the front range is cost of land cost of land is a regional issue it's not specific to long month it's not specific to Denver or Boulder or Loveland or Fort Collins it's a regional thing and so what do you do to make the most of your land and I don't think that I mean I think we're going in the right direction as we adopted the the new land development code as far as increasing density increasing the allowance for height in my opinion didn't go far enough and I've been unapologetic about that stance I think also that this would be a compromise it's a compromise for the councilmember Christensen and I know it is for me and councilmember beckon I know it's a ridiculous arbitrary number of 50% versus 51% but it still technically allows metro districts to just go back to the 2012 ordinance it still technically allows these special districts with residential components that in and of itself is a compromise otherwise we're going to continue doing these up and down votes on a four to three basis and I know there's a lot of reports if you will that have been pointed out by councilmembers martin and waters as far as the terminology that are encompassed in this but I think at the end of the day this is as close as this council can possibly get to agreeing on this subject because we again talked about this ad nauseam and so I move just to go straight to the 2012 ordinance and approve that language or reinstate that language I'll second that um council member martin I just have a question for mayor pro tem rodriguez who has acknowledged I believe that there are warts in the existing ordinance certainly a bunch of of really egregious uh either false or unsubstantiated statements in the front matter that do not belong in a city ordinance at all so my question for mayor pro tem is why don't you want to fix that sir do I believe it affects the function of the ordinance no I'd like to submit that what it does do is provide the public who are being fooled with arguments that are unsubstantiated and they innocently believe they're telling the truth and I think we ought to make our ordinance as factual as it can be so I would like to see at least the front matter cleaned up and otherwise all right well we have a motion on the floor dr waters yeah I guess I understand the motion what I don't understand is the last how we got here was a motion that you made mayor bagley on which I think you had a unanimous vote to do exactly what we have done we responded in exactly the way we were asked to respond and now the message is well you shouldn't have done that because it's going to take too much of our time so how do we want to do this last time we talked about it this made sense now it doesn't make sense I'm just wondering I'll respond so I guess in my mind the two things I'd like to answer councilman martin's question alongside the mayor pro tem is that to me the meat of this is are we or are we not going to allow metro districts for residential neighborhoods I mean essentially that's what it comes down to and in law we're always it's called dicta it's like people read a supreme court case or a statute about the legislative intent and at the end of the day it does not matter you could say well we're creating metro districts because at the end of the day we feel that they're really really cool but they kind of suck and our kids like eating green peas and broccoli it doesn't matter if it's in there at the end of the day does it or does it allow residential metro districts and so even if we cleaned up and we spent like all night cleaning up the preamble to the ordinance we're really not going to have a legal impact on the ordinance on the other thing is that I've always said that I mean Gordon Pedro is here in the audience and he always used to say count to four Bagley learn to count to four I'm counting to four and sometimes it just sometimes you just can't get your fourth and so right now this council is pretty split four to three and I'm actually grateful to remember Christensen saying she'd pull our amendment you know because at the end of the day returning to what it was is a hell of a lot better than what it could be and so I'm like I said it was a good politics and that's what I meant so I'm willing to play good politics and say I'm willing to go back on the compromise if it means going back to what we were before rather than taking away mixed use metro districts so that's I mean as my mom always said you want pancakes you want to go hungry I guess there's politics and there's principle and I mistakenly concluded that we were serious about the task or the charge and the opportunity we were given to think through what was in the ordinance that needed some attention and in my view needs correction so I don't care if we're here on Friday frankly to follow through on what we were asked to do and if every one of these goes down on a 4-3 or 5-2 or 6-1 vote that really is not of concern to me because we're here to do the people's work and you can the beautiful thing is you can make motions I mean literally you can make those motions but right now there's a motion on the floor to just basically reset the button to the previous ordinance and let's go ahead and vote on that all in favor say aye opposed okay so the motion passes 5-2 with councilmember martin and councilmember waters against that said the question becomes is there any other motions on the floor yes okay councilmember martin what would you like to yes in the interest of shortening things up because I also took the mayor at his word hold on just as long as you're not I'm one of seven here man so it's like we can vote on these oh no no let let me finish my statement before you deny it please I took the mayor at his word that we would consider each amendment and so I for one made no particular effort to keep the number of amendments small however I do think that we should at least consider taking some of the damaging falsehoods out of the front matter because we don't like misleading our people I don't think we should be embarrassed as a city by badly crafted ordinances and we as was 74 they don't affect the substance of the law I therefore move that we adopt amendments one two three four and I will leave out number five because it has some substance to it six thank you and eight essentially by striking them although that we would expect that the legal council would clean it up to make the ordinance of proper form I believe that this would not change the subject of of the amendment in any way but I for one would be rather less embarrassed by it all right it's been moved and seconded that we accept amendment one two three four six and eight so let's go ahead and vote on that I'll invite I mean sorry council member Christensen yeah no we can I was just hoping not but yes we can once again we've been called unprincipled and lazy for not taking the time to discuss all 22 amendments that's putting words in my mouth Jack well guys guys it's okay passing any more amendments we've already passed the law and I don't see any need to continue to wordsmith something that has stood the test of time two people on council seem to object to these things and they offer no reason but I mean except that they object to them and they don't think they're true so I won't vote for this at all anybody else let's go ahead and vote all in favor of these amendments say aye opposed nay you and I okay so the motion did you say nay or I nay okay so the motion passes five to two with council members Christensen and council members Peck dissenting and the five of us being ayes so all right I move amendment 10 all right all right it's been moved and seconded by Dr. Waters and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez is there any debate or questions on this issue council member Peck I do have a problem with it because it's a little bit vague just saying that there was no unfounded there's nothing to support this statement there should be something in here about the service plan then that this has to be included in the service plan rather than just a vague for example it says the higher mill levy in district projects may make these residents less inclined to support other city property tax increases this depends upon the service plan and whether the mill levy is increased within the project and that's so that's my opinion okay council member what would you like to say based on so I spoke with the financial director or one of the finance guys at Thompson school district they did a district survey of the 2016 mill levy override just trying to get input as to why why it didn't pass and they found overwhelmingly that people who lived in metro districts in loveland or in the Thompson valley the school district voted down the mill levy and so it's it could play a role it really could play a role and so I don't think that's pretty strong to say that there's no evidence presented because as people are delving deeper into collecting data it's it could that could potentially be a risk that we take mayor pro tem rodriguez thank you mayor bagley the motion simply strikes this language proposed in amendment 10 I don't think that at this time there really is empirical data to prove one way or another and I don't think it affects the form and function of what has been approved at this point to strike said language because it does in my opinion appear to be conjecture regardless of whether you agree with said conjecture or not is not pertinent it provides no function in the ordinance so it makes really little difference if we strike the language from it and that's my opinion and I will be voting for the motion so we keep talking about it but again I'm just counting votes here so do you mind if we vote let's go ahead so the motion is to approve amendment 10 which strikes the wording that says the higher mill levy district projects may make these residents less inclined to support other C property tax increases so all in favor say aye opposed say nay was that councilmember christensen so the motion passes 6-1 with councilmember christensen against and 6 of us 4 alright anybody else alright it looks like we have gotten through metro districts so you may clap regardless of how you feel this vote ended it's over so yes as the press is like thank goodness let people start reading our paper again alright so let's go ahead and councilmember christensen can you tell me which one of these amendments were accepted so the motion so amendment 1 2 3 4 6 8 and 10 and specifically 12 and 13 were voted on and failed mayor I think don't we need to approve introduction of the ordinance with these amendments well we actually took a vote to put it back to the old ordinance the old ordinances we did that councilmember christensen yes no go ahead I would like to point out by passing amendment 1 we eliminated mixed use metro districts no I'm sorry we did not no it wasn't your amendment it was it was councilmember martins number 1 yeah pay for the finance pay for the finance something before she leaves you're getting paid by the hour lady stick around you're about ready to get point 1 here hold on a second I just wanted to thank you so much for taking the time to be here and listening to us and providing with your objective expertise and actually she can't charge if she's not advancing the case so thank on just thank on I'm just kidding I'm sure get out of here go home no thank you alright so let's go on to that concludes items removed from the consent agenda we have no general business let's go ahead and move on to final call public invited to be heard anybody want to come on up miss bassett where's Joe tonight bassman where's Joe is he really can you get up there to the mic so we can hear you I broke a tooth and now I'm growing bone to get it back but so thank you for bearing with me I had two things one was the this councilman waters I do share the desire deep desire strong desire to provide housing options for young families who are making a what are we saying 120% of the you know the median income that's hard to raise a family on and if these special districts metro districts if they can add on more and more debt as they go down you know a child care center of electric whatever that risks that a lot of these families would have to declare bankruptcy that's what I've read in the Denver Post and that's what I've heard from people and any any program that would risk that is unacceptable to me because then you then what this is a table work around and I believe it was just connecting dots I believe it was set up by developers and the old days didn't the city borrow the money municipal debt municipal bonds to build streets and put up electric poles and now it's thanks to Tabor Mr. Douglas Bruce that's been taken away that power has been taken away from the cities and it is wrong for cities then to put it on residents with an open-ended debt ceiling in fact no debt ceiling so I don't know what the answer is but I share your desire deep desire to build housing but let's find a mechanism that does not put families same families at the risk of being booted out of their homes okay thank you and the next I forgot to start the timers go ahead thank you there's a development up off 66 on the south side I've spoken of it it pierces my heart to drive by that every single house is the roof goes like this this is south and they're not very large homes I'm going to go by and see who it is there's not a solar panel on a single one of those which is and I'm going to quote Greta how dare we how dare we approve such residences without a single solar panel on Platte Valley is going to have what they want they're looking at solar farms those roofs are already built to accept solar panels I think that pardon my passion that Platte River Valley they're going to not going to go 100% for another 30 years that's unacceptable and I suppose that if they do solar they would have to purchase the solar to put on their farms except I understand that what I read was they're looking for somebody to farm it out to and that's not a very efficient method so I think I would like see and the number of solar panels on Longmont roofs is a fraction of 1% a tiny fraction of one out of every 100 roofs has solar that's outrageous in this climate and I want to see the I would like to have a moratorium on building until this city gets its building code lined up with a climate emergency in particular renewable energy from solar it is so obvious hmm and how to let's get start getting creative I don't know a foundation or what do you call a fund that people can all contribute to and this could be available to help people purchase or when developers come in and put up these roofs that they are required to put solar on them that's just the way it is during the solar crisis I mean the climate crisis and I thank you for I really would like to have housing stock for young families but I would not want to have the city I'm going to have to cut you off I'll give you 6 minutes but thank you you're very passionate we love you when you're coming yeah I am I told you I was a tree hugger but before that I'm you just hug on thank you let's go ahead to mayor and council comments well once again I like saying your name council member Edal go faring so I did receive actually I've received a couple of emails in regard to the coronavirus and does Longmont have any plans or how do we deal with something to this magnitude if it ever gets to Longmont so as part of our emergency operations we do have a pandemic plan that we use before during the during the SARS situation and so I know the emergency management group is moving through that and looking at it council member Edal go faring we are working on the communication side with them to try to pull some information together and really partnering with Boulder County Public Health that are taking the lead on this we did actually have some conversation at the last emergency preparedness meeting around what would happen if something like that did happen in Longmont I'd be happy to send you all the information that we're gathering from OEM for your own information and of course we'll be getting that out to the public as well okay thank you council member Martin thank you mayor Bagley I just want to say first of all in response to constituent Shelley that I also agree that Longmont should have a deeper penetration of rooftop solar panels in the current time than we have I have it on very good authority from the head of engineering for the Platte River power authority that the Longmont distribution grid could stand a penetration of up to 30% of residences having rooftop solar before it would require structural mitigation of our distribution grid that would involve infrastructure investment so I hope within the next couple of months that we will find a way to remove our disincentive infrastructure to people putting solar panels on their roof at the same time as a servant of truth I would like to say that first Platte River power authority has still committed to being 100% renewable by the year 20 to 30 which is only 10 years from now and that solar purchased and deployed at a utility scale is still very much less expensive than solar generation on individual rooftops or public buildings so I understand that we are all very passionate about this I want it to be possible for residents to not popper themselves by putting in order to put panels on their roofs I will always say that never has there been a prohibition against doing that in Longmont and people still haven't done it so and we have a few mechanisms for causing developers or builders rather to put solar panels on roofs and one of them is a metro district service plan so I'm really sorry that we are so touchy about that but it could be a solar neighborhood could in fact be part of a metro district service plan as a servant of truth I have to say that I'm really unhappy with a cultural development that I think has trickled down from the national level and it's becoming ubiquitous here in Longmont which is that we say things that aren't true a lot without references without substantiation and that somehow having been said for a long time makes them truer than they really are I don't like that and I think you train ourselves to get away from that habit and use a better more rigorous mode of thought I am going to therefore start a private practice of debunking false statements that are made by members of the city council I will do the research put in the substantiating evidence and send myself an e-mail to my public e-mail account with the keyword Geppetto's Workshop in it subsequently anyone who would like to access evidence that a particular statement made publicly is false can simply file a Cora request asking for every Marsha Martin e-mail on the Longmont server making it easy that contains the keyword hashtag Geppetto's Workshop so keep them coming folks and thanks alright anything else alright we'll see nothing else city manager do you have any comments no comments mayor council city attorney no comments mayor I'll second that anybody not in agreement we have consensus we're adjourned