 time we will take motions to direct the city managed to add agenda items to future agendas. Councilmember Martin. Thank you Mayor Pro Tem. I would like to move to add the resolution that the council members received in their email this afternoon to the agenda the consent agenda for the next regular meeting. Whether it would be appropriate since next week isn't a regular session to suspend the rules so that the council could debate it. Mayor and council you could vote at this meeting to make next week's meeting a regular meeting otherwise you could suspend at the time next week. Before we decide on any procedural votes let's let's first have any sort of debate on this motion. Councilmember Peck or I mean Christensen sorry. I don't really think it's appropriate for us to spend our time debating ballot issues in City Council. These are statewide ballot issues and I really don't see why we would be debating them. We all vote on these and I I don't see the necessity of spending our time and the public's time debating state ballot issues. Councilmember Martin. I find that a surprising attitude because last year councilmember Christensen was in favor of a number of resolutions in support of legislation going on at the state level. Certainly we should debate it. I mean you guys can vote it down if you want to but I think we should debate it. Just quickly before we weigh in I don't think there's anything inappropriate about weighing in as a council on state measures measures say for instance that RTD is taking. We obviously can take positions on these things as a council whether we do or not it's a different story but I feel that it's wholly appropriate to do so. So as such seeing no other debate I will take the vote. All in favor of councilmember Martin's motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. So the measure passes five to one with councilmember Christensen dissenting. I'd like to ask city attorney may if we can have a procedural motion in the next meeting not to make the whole thing a regular session but to hold a vote on one specific item. Mayor and council Eugene may city attorney. Generally it's either regular session or study session is the way that our council rules of procedure are set up. I think you could vote to have just that one item. It may be confusing for the public not knowing if it's labeled a study session then they think maybe that there isn't any formal final action that is going to take place. So I would think that the structures laid out in the council rules of procedure are those that would be followed. All right seeing none we I guess we'll move on to the public invited to be heard according to my my script. I'm here tonight in anticipation of the city of Longmont turning 150 years old in 2021 but paired with that excitement it's concerned for the fear of its 175th birthday in 2046. Presently the greatest detriment to Longmont's preservation is holes in the city's demolition requirements for historic neighborhoods and the lack of a full-time planter for historic preservation and the missing or lost architectural guidelines within the new streamlined zoning of the city. The demolition process does not require presentation or feedback from the historic preservation commission. In streamlining the city zoning Hannah lost their RLE zoning which addressed architectural guidelines for new additions. First any new construction compatibility should be determined by the roof's pitch and overhang, window size and orientation or exterior materials. Second new construction incorporating elements from a single architectural period. A craftsman's front porch doesn't belong in a Victorian home. Quick update for you I wanted to start off with this afternoon Boulder County did release a press release and and you'll see in some of the data they have seen a slight downward trend in the number of new cases among 18 to 22 year old residents over the last week. They are seeing some increases in the other age groups. So when you see this screen this is the dial screen that we've been talking about when you look at and this is the one that CDPHE has put out. What you can see is we are in the red in terms of the number of cases we've been seeing. Again when you see the other charts you can see that it's related to the growth that we've seen in 18 to 22 year olds. You can see the obviously the spike that we hit in cases and we were talking about what we were seeing with 18 to 22 year olds. It's been going down. The last few days have been pretty good in terms of the number of new cases. This is really the chart that shows the impact of that 18 to 22 year old population. Just a reminder that as we're watching these numbers we need to continue doing what I call the big three wear your face mask socially distanced and practice good hygiene. Obviously you can see that slight uptick that they're referring to in all of the other population groups but in 18 to 19 you can see where it peaked and now they're moving down. They hope that the mitigation efforts continue performing and show a further decrease. Same with 18 to 22 year olds and then this graph they're now they now have the scale set and you can obviously see where the bulk of the cases are within Boulder County. If you remember I think last time the available med search beds was somewhere in this area it's now back in the yellow and then the ICU beds they've moved into the red but again what we're seeing locally in terms of patients admitted for COVID Dan indicated that there were two today in Longmont. Let's hand it off to Jim Golden and let's do a 2021 budget presentation. Here in City Council, Theresa Malloy, Budget Manager. So I am joined by Melody Pallaro so Melody if you wouldn't mind joining me please and together Melody and I are going to cover for you the priority-based budgeting. Then we have Annie and her staff and she's going to talk to you about sustainability followed by Valerie and she's going to cover the next light programs and then David Hornbacher will talk about advanced metering and then Sandy is going to cover the public the Longmont public media and finally Jim is going to wrap it up with those final three topics for you this evening. My comments this evening on regarding the priority-based budgeting are going to be pretty brief for you since we did just provide a more in-depth review of our process for several of you back in June. The City's priority-based budgeting data has been updated to reflect the 2021 proposed budget. The quartile graph on the top here shows the 2021 proposed budget so I'm now going to turn it over to Melody who's going to take you to our PBB model that is available to the public on the City's website. Good evening Mayor and Council Members, I am Melody Polaro the Senior Budget Analyst with the City. So as Theresa mentioned this is our budget prioritization information that we have out on our website and then at the very bottom of this screen we have a tutorial video that will walk you through the website. I will be walking you through tonight and then we also have an email address if there's any questions there's an email that the public can access that we can respond to. So this is our PBB online data website and this is a nice capture of all of the information we put together during our priority-based budgeting process. I am going to focus on the housing services amenities and opportunities for all. So if you click on that if we scroll down this will open up a tree plot which is all of the departments that have programs allocated to this specific result. So the larger the box the higher the dollar amount that has been allocated to this program and then the darker the shade of the box the higher that specific program scored to those results. So on a scale of zero to four for being a higher score. So certainly feel free to poke around and play with our model that's on the website and if you have any questions as Melody mentioned we do have that email address you can send your questions that way and she will be able to answer those for you. Turning it over then to Annie Noble. Thank you. So Mayor Pro Tem members of council I'm Annie Noble Environmental Services Manager and Public Works and Natural Resources and I'll be presenting the sustainability budget tonight. So I have 10 slides that I'll be brief. I'm going to start out by looking at what is sustainability what is the role of the program and what are the funding sources and then I'll talk about the work that's currently underway and go into the 2021 budget and I'll conclude with a list of other citywide efforts that are related to sustainability. So sustainability is often described as meeting our needs without compromising the needs of future generations. The sustainability plan identifies 10 topic areas which contain specific actions that are categorized into immediate near-term and mid-term time frames. This year was the first year that a sustainability fund was established with funding contributions from various city funds. So on this slide I've listed the major components of this year's budget. The proposed 2021 budget is $359,000 and that's excluding salaries and a $50,000 one-time request for an update to the sustainability plan. So the 2021 proposed budget assumes $150,000 for work funded through the sustainability tax and that includes a 25% match of the $150,000. $80,000 has already been committed and that's for a two-year fixed-term grant and program coordinator position. So in addition to the funding in the 2021 sustainability program budget there are many proposed citywide budget requests that help support the strategies of the sustainability plan and I have several of those listed here on this slide. Good evening Mayor Bagley, members of council Valerie dot executive director of next slide. I'm happy to be back in front of you. I'm going to talk a little bit about 2020 results which I think Mayor you've been interested in lately and I'll talk also about 2021 or 2021 budgets and strategies. So really our goals and objectives are going to be the same probably year to year. We might tweak some of the numbers but really what we're trying to do is drive customer growth. We're trying to make sure as many people as many residents in Longmont as possible have access and actually have our service and can get it and afford it. So that's very important. We've done a few things in 2020 and late 2019 that have improved our customer experience. One is really reset. We have implemented a new IVR system so that customers calling into either LPC or next like don't have to go to the same call queue don't have to wait in line. They don't get confused about reporting the next light outage versus an electric outage. Now I'm going to talk about customer acquisitions. So think of that as the sales and marketing arm of next lights operation. So let's talk about customer results and outlook. So 2020 we're experiencing about a 9% year over year growth pretty phenomenal. We're hoping to end the year with 22,500 customers. That is 800 above the original forecasting budget. So pretty excited about that. Okay quick update from the network. Boy we're growing our customer base by 9, 6 to 9% and guess what because of COVID data utilization consumption has gone up about 15% so we need more bandwidth. So we're spending a fair bit of capital on 100G transport circuits to make sure that we have the capacity up to the internet and the employees a huge piece of our success with next light. Super excited about our team. We were able to finalize our next light organization this year. We've got 40 employees and that's about how it's going to stay for next year. We were able to organize in such a fashion that many existing employees were able to take a new role with maybe a slight increase in pay and responsibility. So a lot of good opportunity for most of the employees in the organization. And winding down the good news. So this is kind of the summary slide. Customer count up 6%. Employee count is virtually flat. Revenue is up 9% and that's just because we have higher paying customers. Originally we had a lot of people in that charter membership that $45. Some of those have churned out and been replaced with $65 customers which is our rate card today and very competitive. That also offsets some of that 14.95 price point that we have in the market. Our operating expenses up just a little bit. Some one-time expenses. CIP I talked about last time. It's up due to about $800,000 worth of one-time expenses. We continue to get a lot of recognition. I get a lot of phone calls and requests for media interviews because of our success. We make it look easy and I warn to everyone that it's not as easy as the team's made it look. We've gotten recognition for the low income offer that we did to great news. And then once again PC Magazine has recognized our exceptional product and ranked as the fastest ISP in the western region and the fourth fastest in the country. Any questions from council for Ms. Dott, Council Member Pritchinson? Not a question. Just a comment. About once a year I call up your tech support folks and they're always fast and they're always have a good sense of humor and they always get me taken care of in no time. It's usually okay. Thank you very much. You have very good customer service. And that's really, really important. Council Member Riedal-Ferring and then Council Member Lyman. I have a question on the numbers you gave us, the 72 for the two free month, the 432 for the income qualifying offers. Are those, do those numbers, are they overlapping? So what are these individual like separate? They're on separate. Yes, Council Member or Mayor Bagley and Council Member. So sorry, I'm still out of practice. Those numbers are separate. They're on separate rate plans. And then which ones, because I've heard from parents that maybe they didn't qualify for one. Are there other offers? So let's say they don't qualify for the two, three months. Could they do the, during the next slide? Or what is, how is that structured? Generally, if they would qualify, if they're part of the school lunch program, they'd qualify for sharing the next slide. If they have some kind of federal assistance or any kind of subsidies whatsoever, then they can qualify for the discounted service, the income qualifying service. So if they don't qualify for something, it's not, if for one of the sharing the next slide or the two, three months, there's still other options if they call and ask. Yeah, absolutely. Right. Council Member Martin. Yes, I recently learned that an acquaintance in a mobile home park doesn't have access to next slide. Is that true of all of the mobile home parks in the city or only certain ones? Or are, what, what outreach effort are we trying to make to, to convert those? Because a lot of people there need this. And Mayor Bagley, Council Member Martin, the issue probably is that the management company for that trailer park probably is getting door fees from a competitor. And therefore they're making more revenue by having just one carrier in there. And so they have not signed a service agreement letting us in. So that has been a continual problem. We have about 2,000 premises for which we cannot get a service agreement. Dr. Waters. Well, thanks, Mayor Bagley. Valerie, it's a great report on great work. I mean, it's very impressive what what you've been able to do with an outstanding. I agree with Council Member Christensen. Customer service is extraordinary. I mean, you got the right people doing the right stuff. What will it take for us to get to that place where we can say there are no families with young children in Longmont who are not connected? And the editorial ad is, I don't know how we could talk about equity in the city of Longmont and not ensure that every family with young children is connected, that they are connected. Valerie, I'm curious, you know, what's it take for us to get there? Mayor Bagley and Council Member Waters totally appreciate the question. And that's certainly the goal. And I didn't include our vision statement because I was trying to cut back on my words, but it is truly a fully connected Longmont. And so I can say, and I think Jim and Tracy can back me that nothing that was turned down, Harold and team and others have been very supportive of what we're trying to do partly because we're an enterprise fund. They see that here in the coming years we'll have some be spending off some extra cash. So I don't think that's the issue. I think it's partnering with the right people to get the right grants and the right foundations to contribute. And we started having those meetings thanks to you again. And so we're trying to work through that. And so I'm confident that we're going to get some additional funding. But I also am going to set it up and say that my boss, Dale and I are thinking about this in a different way as well, trying to see, is there a way that we don't have to be dependent maybe on a foundation and that this can be part of our, really our business strategy. But I need to talk to Dale and Harold about that a little further. When we talk about social equity and the work that we're doing internally right now, it's also how do we work with our cultural brokers to really get the word out because I think that's the piece too. We've talked about this a little bit. You can put information out, but in some cases you don't all information. And so how do we connect within various groups throughout our community via our cultural broker so we can really get that connection in and be able to provide those services. All right, now that we're back, Jim, you want to keep going with that budget presentation? Yeah, next actually Dave Hornbacher is going to, I believe, introduce the next item on automatic metering. I'm David Hornbacher, the Executive Director of Longmont Power and Communications. So during the CIP presentation, Council asked for additional information on the Capital Project EL-E099, which is the advanced metering. So this project is the largest LPC project in our budget and it transforms the current handheld, you know, electric metering system to a robust two-way communication system. And this provides the framework and technology to engage our customers regarding their energy use, the integration of distributed energy resources, create a connection between the renewable energy production and to consumption, and other activities and policies that are essential to reach our goal of 100% renewable energy by year 2030. I'm Mary Bagley, members of Council, Sandy Cedar Assistant City Manager. I'm here to chat with you about the Longmont Public Media Contract and Public Access Media for the Future in 2021. So as you may remember a couple of years ago during these budget presentations, particularly during the financial policies, the City Council asked for staff to go out for a competitive process for public access television services. The Longmont Observer was the successful bidder during that process, now known as Longmont Public Media, and part of the reason that they won the bid was because they had a business model that really incorporated a maker space idea at the Carnegie Building, being able to gather and have classes and create content and all these great things that were proposed as part of the RFP. As you already can guess, the COVID-19 pandemic has certainly put, certainly more than a damper on those plans for Longmont Public Media, and there are some concerns that in 2021 that contract cannot be renewed as it is today. So you may notice in your package you have a few different options that we would like for you to consider, mostly because the City Council is the sole decision maker on the contract for public access services. So I've presented a few different options for Council to consider, I'll go through those briefly. We're hoping for some direction from Council tonight and then we'll continue on with negotiations and bring back a contract as we get closer to the end of the year. We can ask a question. I'm going to actually move that we actually endorse option 3, the staff recommendation. All right, no second. Council Member Christensen. No, I don't want to second that. I want to. Oh, I know that's what I meant, but go ahead. I would move that we, so you didn't get a second? Okay. All right, I would move that we endorse option 2, and I'd be happy to explain why, but let's see if I get a second. I'll second that. We had a lot of work was put into already sending this out for competitive bid, and then they got started and they've done quite good work considering all they had running against them. I don't want us to start all over again. I just think we should have a little faith in them, and I really find the third thing of having no station manager, no employees, only contractors. They've already been working as contractors for a year. That's not a good situation. It's not fair, and I want them to be paid employees. That's the right thing to do. Yeah, I would be for Council Member Christensen's augmentation proposal, first of all. Second, there was a plan under discussion for a while where the Cable Trust funding would be front-loaded so that the Longmont Public Media could continue at its existing service level, and we could look at supplemental funding in the second half of the year, based on whether conditions have changed or not, and whether they are able to start reopening the makerspace and producing their own revenue that they had had plans for expanding their service level based on increased capability to add value to the community. So first of all, what happened to that funding approach? And yeah, let's start with that. What happened to that funding approach? Mayor Bagley, Council Member Martin, I think that what's important to note is that funding doesn't usually become more available later in the year. I mean, you could certainly designate this as part of the budget, and we could write the contract any way that you would like to see. We don't receive all the franchise fees at once. We receive them in chunks as well, which is why the current contract is written the way it is. Peg fees particularly, we don't give them until we get it. We give it to them as soon as we receive it. Okay. The other question that I had is, you said put it out to bid again. I can't imagine what kind of bids you would get for the current funding level, which I'm assuming would be pretty much a cap on what anyone could expect to be awarded. Can you explain what that option is in there for? Mayor Bagley, Council Member Martin, only because it was in the previous direction of the Council, it's always an option if you wanted to put it out and see what else was out there, but I would say we just did complete the last one, so it's not recommended. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. My personal preference would be to fund them with option one and hold their feet to the fire to deliver, and I'm confident they will. I think that's what we ought to do. The difference of $40,000 in a $371 million budget, I don't think is that big a deal. I'd like to hear more from Jim. I think we've got some one-time money where we don't have to commit the contingency, and I think we have enough one-time money to fund this at option number one. If we're not going to consider option number one, I'm certainly going to support number two. I think of the five options we heard from Sandy. My preference would be to fund them at option one. Joan? Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Actually, this is a question for Sandy. I'm curious as to why staff recommended option three. What was it in option three that staff thought was worth supporting? Mayor Bagley, Council Member Peck, I think we were concerned about bringing any enhancements of services or anything that's going to cost additional funding, particularly in this budget process. Was that a hiring or only going with contractors part of that? I believe that would be the plan from Longmont Public Media, is that they would only be able to hire contract work to be able to liaise on. It would basically be a very bare bones type of operation at that point. Okay, thank you. Council Member Martin? Yeah, so Sandy, this question is for you two, and it has two parts. One is you have a really high level of devotion and passion and commitment among the existing LPM employees, and so there is a big opportunity cost for letting those people go. How do you value that as opposed to what you would spend this budget money on if you weren't spending it on paying those wages? Mayor Bagley, Council Member Martin, that's a pretty tough one to discuss because then you're talking about everything that everybody asked for in the entire budget and how we value that in comparison to this. I will tell you that running a cable television station is not easy, and there's a huge learning curve to it, and so certainly Longmont Public Media and City staff have been learning together over the last several months on all kinds of things from not only equipment and how to do it and all these different pieces, but also programming and communication and conversations, and so to some extent I would say that's priceless, and what I would mention is just that we wanted to make sure that we were presenting you options that also left the revenues as they were intact with no changes, and so we wanted to give you the entire gamut of conversation. So I would say that we value it very much that they're able to do the work that they are able to do, and we certainly wouldn't recommend, like I said, going out for bid again, that's not our recommendation. And LPM, I mean I understand they're not city employees, but in fact there has been so much work for them to do in terms of crisis management that they really are essential, learning curve or not. What do you think, Paulie, do you think you could spring for option one? Well I personally can't spring for anything, but I just think that you know it's just very difficult right now, you know we're all going to have to cut on a lot of things, and I just think it's, it would be really hard to spring for $117,000 more. I think it's going to be hard to go for $76,000 more. Mayor Proctor. Thank you Mayor Bagley. I believe a couple of the ideas that I heard spoken about so far that I think are important. One is flexibility. I believe I heard Assistant City Manager Cedars say that there's some flexibility still and we don't have to necessarily lock in tonight. I think that's important. One of the other important things I think we should talk about is open coverage of governmental affairs, and we know that their city has no ability to help increase coverage through the newspapers and through the long-month leader, for instance. But we do have the ability to be as open and transparent as we can by having a robust public media. I also think that kneecapping basically the long-month public media organization in a completely unprecedented year budget-wise after just receiving the contract, because I think that their level of service is above and beyond what we had before in the city, as far as all the various boards and commissions that they're going as well as the other things that they're providing service for. And so a big ask, I actually agree with Councilmember Waters in that $117 to me is not a big ask compared to $76. I don't think that that's a big amount of room to cover when we're talking about the budget that we have as well as the services that are actually being provided to the public. These are one of very obvious reasons or one of the various obvious services that is provided to the public that they can see and find to be tangible and see what they're getting for their money. So I am open to option two, I prefer option one personally, but I'll vote either way, knowing that we have the flexibility moving forward that say we go with option two this time and find out that there is some wiggle room to get us up to $117, then I would also support amending it at that time as well. But I think this is a vital service that I don't think we should be looking at cutting as far as transparency between City of Longmont and the residents of Longmont. Dr. Waters, I don't think you've had to. You're right, I have not had to. So thank you for acknowledging me for a second comment. I think if we want, first of all, I appreciate Mayor Pro Tem's comments and the other comments that have been made about the value that LPM has brought to the City, I think far beyond what we'd experienced in the past. I think if we want to position them, acknowledging this is one-time money, as Jim said, we want to position them to be able to be viable in 2022 that I think we need to make the investment this year that optimizes that possibility. I think if we put them on a shoestring, which I think that option two does, it keeps them kind of status quo, I just think if we're going to take, if we're going to invest one time to try to get them ready to be viable over the long run, then we ought to commit to option one as the $40,000 is not going to make a difference in a 2020 budget and give them the chance to hit the ground and finish the race. All right, I'm going to go ahead and call on Joan. So thank you Mayor Bagley. So here's my thought. There are other things in this budget also that I want to bring up about perhaps we should look at as a priority and fund. So is there any way, when does this contract have to be signed Sandy? Mayor Bagley, Councilmember Peck, they're under contract currently until the end of December. So this contract, you know, we wouldn't have to bring back to you until we got closer to the end of the year. So I was wondering if we could put this off until we bring out all of the issues that we would like to fund and Jim can actually give us some hard numbers and how, you know, one time funding I agree with, but there are other things that I think we should look at funding a little better as well. I'm just going to say I'm going to probably vote no so we can vote for number one, but if two passes, that's okay too. It's not going to roll. All right, so we've got a motion on the table and delegating staff to proceed with option two. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, all of that's an aye. Councilmember Delgado-Fairing. All right, all opposed say nay. Nay. Aye. Is that a nay, Marsha? Were you aye or nay Marsha? I was an aye because I thought it was good to put a stake in the ground for at least that much. I wanted to go with Mayor Pro Tem's plan. But all right, so with the motion passes four to three with Councilmember Martin, Councilmember Christensen, Councilmember Peck, and Councilmember Delgado-Fairing voting for the motion. So all right, let's move on to actually Jim, is there anything else? Yes, there are just a few more budget presentations. The tax was passed in late 2018, began to receive revenue about a month after that. The first full year was 2019. We had $265,000 of tax revenue. So in 2021 we're projecting the tax revenue to come in at about $410,000, which is similar to the pace that we're on this year. So there will be money in excess of budget in 2020. The 2021 proposed budget so far only includes half of the amount, $205,000, again designated for affordable housing. The DDA Act budgets actually have six individual funds within the DDA. And then in addition to that, they also do proposed budgets to you for the downtown parking fund and the general improvement district. So I've given you all a lot of information on those budgets within the Council of Communication. I'm not going to take you through them, but all right, we can move into the final item and that's the Gallagher Amendment. So first I want to point out that the city's, what we do with the property tax detail, what we do, it's basically administered by the county. We receive money from the county every month based on their collections, but the actual administration of property tax is done by the county assessor's office and the collections and forwarding to us by the county treasurer's office, and they all have to follow the state statutes and those regards. So we're not the experts on property tax, but having said that, I put together information that I have gathered from a few sources, mostly from CML. Actually the best source that I have found of information on this topic is in the election blue book. It does have quite a bit of detail, it's useful. So property tax is paid on a property's, sorry, I'm just going to fix my slides, a property's actual value. Assessor determines the actual value of a property. The actual value is then multiplied by the assessment rate to get the assessed or taxable value, but the assessed value is multiplied them by the tax rate, which is our mill levy and any entity's mill levy to get to the amount of the tax owed. So the Gallagher amendment passed in 1982 and the intention of it was to maintain a ratio between the taxable value of property as 45 percent residential and 55 percent non-residential. That's the ratio it was back in 82 and it intended to keep that in place and it's statewide, not on a say a city or county level, but the whole state. So amendment B would repeal the Gallagher amendment. The General Assembly also adopted a statute that if this does pass, they would freeze the current assessment rates at 7.15 percent residential and 29 percent non-residential. That is something that could be changed by future legislators, but they could only reduce either of those rates, because again, because of Tabor, they're not able to increase those rates without voter approval. So the residential values continue to grow. Non-residential values are expected to drop in the coming year, in the next assessment year, and due to the impact of COVID on business. Jim, the state legislators put this on the ballot because they've been squabbling about this for 10 years and they couldn't figure out a way to fix it. So they're kind of throwing it off on us. But why couldn't they just adjust, make a different adjustment to the proportions? Is that set in the law? The Gallagher amendment is in the Constitution. So what they're doing is they're following the Gallagher amendment every assessment year. Their hands are tied in that respect. So there's no flexibility in adjusting those ratios? Not as long as Gallagher is in place as well. Okay, I understand. All right, John. Thank you, Ryan. Jim, well actually I want to throw this out to all of council. We all know that the library needs to be funded. It's in the feasibility study. It has been talked about here for years. It is underfunded. Jim, I was wondering if there is a way from perhaps cutting those budgets. I know that the directors aren't going to like this idea. By a half a percent or some of the one-time funding either from marijuana or the other places, if we could put more money into the library, we've really got to keep that library viable and up. I know that we probably can't fund it to the extent that the feasibility study said it needs to be funded. But could you come back to us with some cobbled monies that we could put into it, whether it's one time, whether it's ongoing, and let us know if that's a possibility? All right, let's go ahead and move on to the last item, the rental fee moratorium. Good evening, mayor and city council. My name is Karen Roney with community services. I will introduce this item, which council asked staff to bring back recently. I believe in August of this year, the city and county of Broomfield did adopt an ordinance which enacted a temporary prohibition of property owners to assess late fees when there was late rental payments, which basically in essence temporarily prohibits property owners from assessing fees for late rental payments. It suggests that the prohibition ends with either the expiration of the centers for disease control eviction moratorium order, which is set to expire the end of this year or unless that is extended, or when the governor resends the declaration of the emergency disaster related to COVID-19. The thing we wanted to point out is that Governor Polis did appoint a task force that basically started to meet the mid part of September to also advise the governor as well as the Department of Local Affairs on various strategies to really look at housing stabilization. So they are to bring back their recommendations to the governor and to DOLA by mid-October. There was a 30-day window once they had their initial meeting and at this point really turned it over to City Council to provide staff direction on whether to bring back an ordinance for first reading or any modifications or anything else that you would like to direct us to do. Karen, thank you for explaining that task force. When I read it, I realized that late fees were not really the target of what they were getting at, but if they do address that and come up with some ideas, I would like to add that the temporary, let's see how do I put it, that this temporary thing would also include whatever that task force comes up with with late fees because that may determine a different end date for this and a better one, a better outcome. When I talked to Susan Spaulding earlier in the spring, she mentioned that she did a renter landlord one-on-ones to work out some kind of a situation and that the city could use that neighbor to neighbor fund to help with the landlords getting some support from the rent if the renter could not, working out a compromise between them. And the reason I'm saying this is that I don't want the property owners or the landlords to think that the city is not concerned about them losing revenue that they need to pay the mortgages on these places. It was Councilman Christensen and then Councilman Martin. Thank you, Carmen and Karen and Harold. I just think it's very important that property owners understand that this is not punitive towards them just trying to keep people in their homes and that the idea is that if everybody can work together a little bit and they can use the city to work together to get this help that they need so that everybody winds up doing a little bit better. Yeah. Marcia? Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I just would like to say that I think the more holistic approach and offering assistance to tenants so that they can meet their contractual obligations to the landlords is a better approach than reducing their obligation under contract. And the reason for that is that the latter can have unintended consequences. I was just going to say that I don't think that Council has the expertise or nor should we have the authority to be telling private property owners how they should charge their late fees. And I just think it's a huge mistake and I think it's overstepping our authority. I understand the point of what Broomefield did with this one. I feel like for us due to the lack of data release that we're going from not an A to B and A status quota B solution issue here, I think we're going from A status quota D, A solution, but we haven't taken the time to connect the steps yet. I'd like to see us provide support for those folks that are possibly incurring late fees that they can't afford or as was I think proposed in the Council of Communication that we might look at a cap on late fees before we look at an absolute ban. I just feel that there are some steps in between where we are at now and what's being proposed in this ordinance before we get to the straight ban. I appreciate the Mayor Pro Tem's comments about getting a little bit more information. I think that would be helpful as well. And in that information, Karen, you were specific to point out that there's been really no analysis of unintended consequences. I'm sitting here imagining what the unintended consequences might be. If the City says I can't collect late fees, what I'm going to do is I'm going to double up on my security deposit. I'm going to do things that protect my interest and in the long run hurt the very people we're trying to help. So I'm sympathetic to the ordinance and to what Broomefield did, but I would like to get a little bit more data both in terms of income, the kind of data Erin was talking about, but also what your take is on unintended consequences and it may be that Susan has a pretty good idea of that as well. So if the Governor doesn't do anything, then we are starting from scratch in mid-October. This ordinance does not ban outright late fees. It bans any late fees that have to do with COVID hardships and you have to prove that you have either been late or that you have had COVID and thus were unable to work. It's really a very modest little ordinance and it will prevent a lot of people from becoming evicted by the end of October. If we do nothing, then it'll be by the end of November and then we're just talking about keeping people off the streets. I wasn't suggesting that we not proceed. Polly, I was suggesting that as we move forward, we'll have more information from whatever the Governor does before this would be before us for a second reading and in the meantime we could benefit from the analysis of unintended consequences that Karen and or others on her crew could do and inform this. So I favor moving forward actually with something. I was just observing that we're going to learn a lot more before we get to a second reading at the end of October on this. The other piece is, so when we have a landlord who is struggling to pay their mortgage and make their mortgage payment because of a tenant who's fallen behind, would they be able to apply for any of the, would the CARES funding piece be able to apply for them? I think what we would want is the landlord to connect the tenant with us so that they could get the CARES funding that we have available so we would then in turn pay the landlord. And I think it's really important to note too that as you go through the process and it comes to surface that the reason why the tenant is behind has nothing to do with COVID, they will be charged a late fee. So you know you have these bad players on both sides. I mean I rent a home. I love the homeowner who we work really well together and you know my husband's a plumber so it's we have a good open relationship between landlord and tenant. So and I know I hear that happen often but I also hear that that's not happening and what we can do to really ensure that people are not because of COVID getting kicked out to the streets. And that that's what I was getting at. Make sure that the property owners, the management companies know that before they go to the nth degree of late fees or whatever to direct that resident to Susan Spalding or whatever website we need to go. All right so what do you need from us Karen? Well we we could use some direction on whether you want us to bring forth this ordinance for first reading like it is modify it don't do it at all or something else. All right there's a there's a motion on the table I don't see any more discussion or debate so let's go ahead and vote on it all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. Nay. All right raise your hand if you said aye. All right so the motion carries four to three so we'll proceed with that. Do mayor and council comments? Anyone? Councilor, Councilor Christensen. I just like everybody to remember that the opening for the day of the dead is at the museum is October 1st and it's a wonderful time for everybody around the world to remember all the people who've gone before them. Thanks. Yes I would actually like everyone to know that the League of Women Voters has done a really fine job of deeply researching the issues on the Colorado ballot this year all the way down to to municipal level issues and uh that their voter guide goes online live at 411vote.org on October 2nd which gives you a week and a half a good 10 days to really study the ballot before you have to fill it in and still vote really really early um that you know they're a non-partisan organization they did wonderful research and they endorsed both of Longmont's ballot questions so everybody go to 411vote and get that get that ballot in early. I move to adjourn. I'll second. On favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries unanimously. All right see you next week guys. Thanks. Bye.