 We'll call the January 5th, 2021 Longmont City Council regular session to order. Can we start with a roll call please? Mayors here. Mayors here. Councilmember Christensen. Here. Councilmember Hidalgo-Ferring. Here. Councilmember Martin. Here. Councilmember Peck. Here. Councilmember Rodriguez. Here. Councilmember Waters. Here. Mayor, you have a quorum. Great. All right. Let's go ahead and say the pledge. Paulie, do you want to start the pledge for us? Kick off the year with a good one. Sure. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, one nation, one nation, and indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thanks, Paulie. All right, quick reminder to the public. Anyone wishing to provide public comment during the first call, public invited to be heard, must watch the live stream of the meeting in order to gain access. Callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time. So we'll go ahead and throw this up when it's time. And you can go ahead and call in. And then you'll be notified by the last three or four numbers of your phone numbers. So just pay attention on the live stream. All right, can I have a motion to approve the December 15, 2020 regular session minutes, please? So moved. All right, it's been moved by Council Member Waters, seconded by Council Member Christensen. Any debate on this topic, guys? All right, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, let's go ahead. And we're going to actually, we're going to go ahead and mix it up a little bit. First of all, any of agenda revisions or submission of documents or motions to direct the city manager, let's go with Council Member Reed. I'll go faring. This is the first one of the year. Don't blow it, Susie. OK. Well, actually, I have one question and one something I want to bring to a future agenda. I'd like to see an update on the work that Karen Rooney and Community Services has been doing in connection with Boulder County around RV services or just any kind of RV lot. What have they discovered? I'd like to see some kind of, I guess I was hoping we'd have something before the ordinance came into effect and it's come into effect. And I haven't seen any progress on what we can do for the RVs that are parked in the streets that have no place to go. Right, my understanding, did we table this? I thought we passed it and it goes into effect on the first. Yes. Right, so we can have staff bring something back that kind of lets us know what's going on and what's the result and that kind of stuff. But it's been voted on, but it's already in effect. Yeah, I'd like to bring something just an update a few more rather than later to help these folks out. There's no motion. I would second that. I would say there's no motion, but I'll go ahead and put it on the agenda. But it's been seconded, so let's vote on it. It's been moved that we actually have our update on this. Harold on the RV ordinance and how it's impacting the city specifically where the RV is going. So it was moved by Council Member Hidalgo-Farring and seconded by Council Member Christensen. Any other debate on this? Anybody mind coming back? Council Member Peck. Thank you. No, I'm going to vote for it because we do need an update. But I think part of what I'm understanding from Councilwoman Hidalgo-Farring is are you referring to safe lots? People who want housing here? OK. And probably if not that, how do we house them? So they don't really looking at the solutions aspect of this, what we were trying to pass, you know, the ordinance with getting RVs off the street. Now let's start looking on getting an update on the solutions for these folks. Thank you. Yep. All right, so do you want to put the, why don't you go ahead and make the motion again, Suzy? So I moved to direct staff to provide us an update on safe lots and just an update on how the RV solution is progressing. Second. All right, so the motion is to have an update on by city staff on the safe lots program and how the RV ordinance is progressing. Not necessarily the ordinance, but where do these folks go? OK, I'm just trying to restate the motion. I'm not making a motion. I'm just trying to make. That's all right, so we just need to direct staff. Harold, you got it? All right. OK. Does everybody want to vote on this or Harold says he's got it? And as the mayor, it's going on the agenda. Anybody else, do you mind just a consensus? Harold says he's got it and I'll bring it back. I feel consensus. OK, good. We're going to go ahead and just, Harold, can you be on Tuesday? We'll add it real quick because we have that. Perfect. Good job, Suzy. What else? I'm sorry. Council Member Ridogal-Franc, what else? You know, I just had a quick earlier. I had made the motion. I wanted an update on what was happening on North Main Street as far as in the progress with the comp plan and everything that they had planned for the North Main Street Corridor. I just wanted to know when was that planning to come back to us for an update? When is when, Harold? Mayor Bagley, Members of Council, Joni Marsh, Assistant City Manager. So we did have an information item about the North Main Street plan in your packet about a month ago to give you all an update as to where some of those items were. And we were hoping that if you saw some specific items, we could have a conversation with you and then bring that back. We currently don't have anything scheduled, but we'll be happy to take a look at them. Yeah, I just wanted to see what was scheduled as far as. Nothing at this time, but I can work on that. So can you go ahead and put that on a future agenda here within the next, can you bring it back within the next 45 days, Harold? Yeah, and I think what would be good is on the information item if folks can look at that. And that way we can see what is a particular interest so we can focus on that too. OK, that would be great. Thanks. So I think that was a polite way of saying we have a lot of the information. So read what we got and then come back with questions. OK, anything else, Council Member Ridaglaferi? That is it. Thank you. All right, Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. The Colorado Mountain Pack is a 501C3 nonprofit that focuses on sustainability regarding the Rocky Mountain area. And they have prepared a letter which I sent to everybody or had Dawn sent to everybody this afternoon. And it's a letter to the Biden transition team asking that he emphasize a lot of things that are in our policy, such as the protection of public lands, the control of emissions from the extraction industry. I'm seeing nods. It sounds like everybody's seen it. So I would like to move that Longmont sign of this letter as a city to the Biden transition team. All right, the only thing is we can put it on a future agenda, but this is a time only to direct staff to do things. So we can have it come back, but we can't take action on anything right now. So Harold, when is this letter? Do you know, Marcia, when the council wanted it? Yeah, they wanted it by the 13th. So I did not realize that I could not just make a motion here. Can we put it on for next meeting, Harold? Yeah, that means the packet will go out. I mean, packet's going to go a little late, but it's fine. Not OK, Marcia. We can vote on Tuesday and sign it. Yes. OK, we'll get that done. OK, council member Peck. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah, council member Peck. OK, thank you, Mayor Bagley. I would like to make a motion to have an update on the Early Childhood Education Coalition. I've been attending some of those meetings, and they're doing an incredible job. And I'm very, very impressed with it. Councilman Waters also has been at those meetings. But what I'm finding is that after COVID, there seems to be a move forward on where they want to go and their vision, et cetera. And since this is part of our work plan, I think that council should have an update on it. It looks like, though, from what I've read that it's going to take maybe a couple of months or more for them to get the information together from a survey they're putting out, as well as some of the documentation. So I would like to make a motion that when the Early Childhood Education Coalition has finished with the survey and completed their agenda on where they want to go, that we have a presentation and an update. Make sure that it goes with our work plan. Second. Councilman Waters. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. For whatever it's worth. And I want to recognize that there was a motion to place Early Childhood Education Progress. Councilman McCrack has made that motion to have that brought back in the form of a status report, seconded by Councilmember Christensen. OK, sorry, back to Waters. So specifically, relationship to the motion. Parallel to what's going on with the coalition, LEDP has one of their priority areas, talent recruitment with child care as being one of the areas in which the developer plan to help with talent recruitment. And so in response to the LEDP in trying to move the dial for the Early Childhood Coalition, I've put together a draft plan. I've had some input from members of the coalition. It's going to be presented to the coalition next Monday. And it isn't all that the coalition's doing. But if the coalition gives it a thumbs up, it would be a set of a couple of goals with a set of objectives with some empty cells that have to be filled in with strategies and activities. But it would at least would be a mark for what the work might look like in 2021. And if that would be helpful, I'd be delighted to share that as part of that update if anybody is interested in it. That would be great. And I was curious as to the role of LEDP. So thank you very much. I do think council needs to hear that. I'll talk more about, can I weigh back in, Mayor Bagley? I'll talk more about this when we get into the both on Monday and when we get into this with the council. The intent with the formatting would be not only to serve the coalition and LEDP, but to create a platform from which or off of which we could develop proposals for external funding. There's a fair amount of foundation money that's being made available to support child care and early childhood initiatives. Someone put through the Sorenson Center, Impact Center at the University of Utah. And there is a keen interest, I know, in the part of several who are involved with the coalition. If we could firm this plan up, put it so it's synchronous with the early childhood council of Boulder County and advances LEDP's interest to kind of get behind going after some external funding to support what we are doing as a council and how others are investing in child care in Longmont and in Boulder County. Council Member Christensen. Actually, Erin was first. I didn't see Erin. Erin, are we here? All right, Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. And thank you, Council Member Christensen for acknowledging that. Because it actually is not necessarily a point of order. But to go back slightly to Council Member Martin, some motion, I believe, which I don't think God seconded, I would have seconded it. Mayor, are you actually just going to put this on the agenda without a vote? Just for a clarification, because I did not catch that. And if so, that's fine. But I'd be happy to have it to second it as well as have a vote on Council Member Martins. And what was the, what Council Member Martin? For the council to sign onto this letter that has a number of issues, which a good portion of them, I think are directly related to Longmont, some not so much necessarily. Right. And so what are you saying, Council Member Rodriguez? That nobody seconded a motion and I was just asking for clarification if you're putting this on the future agenda to have a sign onto it. It's coming on Tuesday. Via the mayor's prerogative. That's my question. Yeah, it's coming on Tuesday. Because we didn't vote on anything. No, yeah, we, no, no. The motion was to actually take the vote. The motion was out of order because we can't vote on something only to direct staff. That's the point of this. Absolutely. We just didn't have a second or a vote on that. That's right. And then I, then I just told Harold, let's put it on the agenda when and he says he'll bring it back on Tuesday. I just wanted to clarify that. We were specifically at Mayor's prerogative issue. Yeah, it is. It will be on the agenda on Tuesday unless Harold screws up. Or somebody. Or it's going on on Tuesday, you know? I, I literally, I personally, I mean, anybody want to give me a call and put something on the agenda? Let's just do it. I don't, it's, it's not that they give a deal. No worries. I was just trying to clarify what just happened there. That's it. No Tuesday, we're going to vote on it. Okay. All right. Who else wants to say something? Council Member Christensen. NLC, the National League of Cities also has a lot of early childhood initiatives and they have funding available too. So we should definitely look into getting funding from the National League of Cities for early childhood education and all kinds of education. Thanks. All right. The, anything else? Okay. So Harold, you've made a list on all those things to get put on agendas. Can we just have a vote on my motion? What was it? What was your motion? I forget. It was to put the early childhood education coalition presentation on a future agenda once they have their. Oh yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed to say nay. All right. Motion carries unanimously. It's going on a future agenda. All right. Thanks, John. Oh, sorry. Council Member Peck. Thank you. All right. I just like you guys first name basis. I'm sorry. All right. Let's go on now to, let's take it a little bit out of order and do a proclamation recognizing January 5th, 2021 is Niño Gallo Day or Niño Gallo Day in Longa, Colorado. And is it Nino or Nino, right? Nino, Don, you were supposed to give me a heads up if that was correct. Gallo. Is it Nino or Nino? Okay, Nino. Nino. Nino Gallo. Nino Gallo is how we're pronouncing that. It's like. All right. Just making sure. All right. So I'm going to read this both in Spanish and in English at the request of people asking that I issued a proclamation. So let's go ahead and do, we're going to do English first and then we'll do Spanish or did I, that I say it the other way around. Mayor, I think we have the Spanish ready for, oh, Susan switched, whichever you like to do. All right. Let's do English first. So we know what I'm reading. All right. So it says proclamation recognizing January 5th, 2021 as Nino Gallo Day in Longa, Colorado. Whereas Nino Gallo served Longa in the Boulder County community for 25 years and will be remembered for making those who crossed his path feel welcomed, included and cared for. And for his work with community programs, agencies and local government serving people with low incomes, immigrants and vulnerable at risk community members. And whereas Nino began his work supporting immigrant farm workers and families as a housing manager for Casa Vista and Casa de la Esperanza, both located in Longa and continued his immigrant work with community action programs in 2000 by creating the immigrant advocacy, Latino parent leadership and you know your rights campaign. And whereas Nino created the personal individual enterprise program after attending a national individual development account conference and partnering with the then named Foothills United Way to support education, small business and home ownership goals with match savings accounts to which the city has annually contributed funding to benefit Longmont residents. And whereas Nino was a founding partner of the immigrant integration program that provided coordination of immigrant services and advocacy with El Comité de Longa and other partner agencies. And whereas Nino was involved in multiple community initiatives including the Longmont Housing Opportunities Team, Latino Task Force, Latino Chamber. And whereas Nino was a member of the Longmont delegation that brought home Longmont's first All-America City Award in 2006. And whereas Nino mentored generations that would follow him by modeling good character, compassion and optimism and leading with authenticity, kindness and a love for humanity. 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 recognize today, January 5th, 2021 which is Nino's birthday as Nino Gallo Day in Longmont. Encourage friends and residents of Longmont to engage in appropriate celebrations and reflections of Nino's life and legacy. So, and then la proclamación que reconoce en el 5 de enero de 2021 como el Día de Nino Gallo en Longmont, Colorado, considerando que Nino Gallo servió a Longmont, ya la comunidad, lo condado de Boulder por 25 años, será recordado por hacer sentir aquellos que se cruzaron su camino bienvenidos, incluidos y atendidos con cariño y se habrá recordado por su trabajo con agencias y gobiernos locales en programas comentarios para ayudar a personas de bajos ingresos, inmigrantes y miembros vulnerables de la comunidad y considerando que Nino comenzó su trabajo ayudando a los trabajadores, agricolas, inmigrantes y a sus familias bajo su, su rol como administrador de viviendas en Casa Vista y Casa de la Esperanza, ambas ubicadas en Longmont y en el 20,000 continuó su trabajo con los programas de acción comunitaria, creando programas como Immigrant, Immigrant Advocacy, Latino Parent Leadership y Campaña Conosca, Latino Parent Leadership y Campaña Conosca a sus derechos y considerando que Nino creó un programa personal individual enterprise después de asistir a una conferencia nacional y asociarse con la entonces llamada Foothills United Way para así apoyar la educación y las metas de pequeños negocios propietarios de viviendas con cuentas de oro alas que la ciudad ha contribuido con fondos anualmente para beneficiar o beneficiar a los residentes de LOMO y considerando que Nino fue socio fundador del programa de integración para inmigrantes que proporcionó coordinación de servicios y defensa para inmigrantes juntos con el comité de LOMO y otras agencias asociadas y considerando que Nino participó en múltiples iniciativas comunitarias incluido el equipo de oportunidades de vivienda de LOMO al grupo de trabajo latino y la cámara de comercio latino y considerando que Nino fue miembro de la delegación de LOMO que se llevó a casa al primer premio All American City de LOMO en 2006 y considerando que Nino fue mentor de generaciones que lo seguida por su buen carácter, compasión y optimismo y liderando con altent... My eyes are going on. Y liderando con altenticidad amabilidad y amor por la humanidad. Por lo tanto, yo, Brian J. Bagley, alcalde en virtud de la autoridad de la ciudad y al Consejo Municipal de la Ciudad de LOMO por la presente reconozco el 5 de enero de 2021, hoy, a cumpleaños de Nino como el día de Nino Gallo en LOMO y aliento a amigos y residentes de LOMO a participar en celebraciones y reflexiones apropiadas de la vida y del lego de Nino y del agado del niño. All right, that was probably the most difficult proclamation I've ever read, but thank you, Nino Gallo. And Norma, muchas gracias por compartir tu esposo con nosotros. Mucho cariño, asia tibia familia. Mayor, I think the family has, I would like to say a few words. Absolutely. Mitsuwe, si. Mitsuwe, perdón. Y todos los miembros, la familia, si gustan prender su, sus cámaras. Hola. Buenas tardes. Buenas tardes. Bienvenidos a todos. Gracias, gracias alcalde Bagley. Muchas gracias. Bueno, muchas gracias. Gracias alcalde Bagley. Muchas gracias. Bueno, para nuestra familia, el motivo del más profundo orgullo, conocer del reconocimiento postumo a quien en vida entregó su energía, su talento, su compromiso y su empatía a quienes, necesitando un servicio profesional, se encontraban con quien entregaba más allá de sí a quienes más lo precisaban. Imaginamos, por cada muestra de cariño recibida, que el sello de Nino Gallo, en su ámbito laboral, era de singular éxito. No podemos concebir otra opinión, otra percepción. Sin duda alguna, que su aporte será recordado con el valor y aprecio de quien entregó por tantos años su vocación de servidor público. Él era y estaba siempre para los demás. Por cierto, nada de esto podría ser sin que tuviera esa fina sintonía con la que representaba, además, Nino como persona. Y acá nos encontramos con un muy buen hombre, un padre ejemplar y un abuelo que no paraba de llenarse de vida. Tan buen hombre era que fue forjado en una tierra que le abrió puertas, no excento de enormes sacrificios y silenciosos dolores y que con más de algún temor y duda logró consolidar su futuro. Abrasó a su nina y Claudia y avanzó sin parar, sin detenerse y sin llorar. Su vida laboral y familiar estaba equilibrada por ese buen hombre que nos deja la enseñanza y ejemplo de ser feliz, ser afable, ser padre, todo es posible. Gracias por darnos este espacio y desde acá acompañar en silencio este dolor que nos abraza nos puede calmar en parte el dolor de esta tremenda partida solamente la convicción de que el reconocimiento de su gente allá tan lejos nos permita nunca más olvidarlo. Muchas gracias. No, thank you you guys for having such a wonderful father a member of your family and for all the many things that he did for our community. One of the best proclamations I've done. So thank you. We're very grateful. Thank you. So anything else? Norma, do you want to say anything? I just want to say thank you. We really appreciate it. I appreciate everything you have done for Nino and we're looking forward to celebrate his legacy and today and every single day. Thank you on behalf of the entire family, leaders and community members. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Mucho cariño a ustedes. Mucho gracias a todos. Okay. All right, let's move on now to the city manager's report specifically the update on COVID-19 that might be a little lengthy tonight. So we'll be patient. Yeah, mayor. So we've had a couple of weeks. Still a lot of work going on in terms of issues related to COVID-19. So we're going to have a couple of presentations. The first is going to be with Jessica Erickson and LADP who have been working on preparing to work on with the county. Jessica, are you there? I am. Susan, do you have a presentation? If you want to pull that up. Great. One moment. I got lost in all my screens. All right. There you are. Thank you. And good evening, mayor Bagley and council members. Thank you for your time this evening. I wanted to provide an update on progress towards Boulder County application for a five star certification program. We'll talk a little bit about what that is. Understanding there might be varying levels of familiarity with what a five star certification program is. And then we'll talk about where we're at in the process with Boulder County. And I'm happy to answer any questions as they go along or at the end of the presentation. Susan, if you want to go to the next slide. Just briefly talk about what is five star certification. So back in mid-December, I believe it was December 14th or 18th, but right before the Christmas holiday at the governor's office and CDPHE announced they were going to provide an opportunity for counties to set up programs through an administrative committee responsible for developing, implementing and overseeing five star certification programs, which would offer businesses within those counties that have programs, the ability to operate at restrictions at a lower level on the dial. So if the county isn't orange, those businesses that receive certification would be able to operate basically under an individual business variance allowing them to operate at level yellow. Part of the purpose of the program, other than the benefits provided to businesses, is to encourage businesses to implement safety measures that are beyond what is required by public health orders in order to help slow the spread of COVID-19. The program is voluntary. Businesses are not required to participate. Counties are not required to apply for or stand up five star certification program. I will note, however, that every metro number county with the exception of Boulder County has now submitted an application for a program and many have been approved. The program per CDPHE guidelines cannot be led by public health. However, public health does have to participate on the administrative committee. I know the slide says should, but is requirement of the program that a public health official participate on the administrative committee for the program. Next slide. So just going into a little bit more detail about the benefits to businesses and eligibility. Counties currently in level blue, yellow or orange are eligible to pursue five star certification program. If the following metrics are met. And quite the thresholds of their respective levels for seven days, including incidents rate, percent positivity and hospitalizations. Any county that's currently in red has to meet the additional criteria of a two week sustained decline in incidents. A percent positivity rate under 10% are demonstrably improving over the past two weeks and under 90% of ICU beds. If we were to ever go into level purple, which is the relatively new level that would include kind of a complete shutdown again of businesses. There would be no more five star certification program. So it would be no more variance for certified businesses. Next slide. If a county does see after implementing their five star certification program at the county sees a significant rising cases or hospitalizations. The program may be suspended either by the administrative committee or by CDPHE. Suspension of a five star program automatically occurs. If the region, the county reaches more than 90% of their counties or the retact ICU hospital capacity. So that would result in automatic suspension of the program. Next slide. So the steps for us to pursue as a county or for Boulder County to pursue a five star certification program are to form an administrative committee. I'll go into more details about that in a later slide. Determine the financial resources to implement the program that do not come from public health. CDPHE has been very clear that resources should not be taken away from the important work of public health in distributing vaccines and the other work that they're doing relative to COVID-19 in order to stand up these programs. We have to develop a plan for compliance and enforcement that includes a live inspection. We can use a third party vendor which will be important later in the presentation. We have to develop a plan for applications, training inspections, tracking tailored for our county and submit a variance application to CDPHE with supportive letters from commissioners, law enforcement, and all of the hospitals within the county. Our proposal to Boulder County and our hopeful application by the end of this week will be a proposal and an application that includes contracting with a third party vendor H2 manufacturing solutions, a local manufacturing consulting firm for the administration of a program and the trainer inspector program. I'll go into more detail on a later slide. Next slide. The first step is to form an administrative committee. We have a subgroup that has been working on this from across the county over several weeks. The proposed administrative committee that will include in our application to CDPHE would include Corrine Waldo and myself as co-chairs. It's primarily because we've been leading the charge to get to the application and doing a lot of work, the work that's been required to create the program and develop the program application and all of the elements of that. We'll also include a Boulder County public health rep who we believe will be Lane Drager, a Boulder County commissioners rep. A representative from the Latino Chamber of Commerce to support our ability to create equitable opportunities across our entire community to access the five-star program should we get it up and running. A representative from our third party vendor H2 will have five additional municipal representatives, two representatives from industry or the community at large, one representative from one of the hospitals in the county and a law enforcement representative. We're currently taking applications for those open seats on the administrative committee. The administrative committee will be formed and will meet for the first time on Thursday afternoon. And with the intention to meet weekly for the first three weeks after hopeful application approval and then every other week once the program's up and running. Next slide. So this chart provides just a little bit more detail on the potential benefits for businesses that go through a certification program in Boulder County or anywhere that has a five-star certification program. So if we use the example of a county that's certified businesses would be able to operate at a yellow capacity. So they would go from 25% occupancy allowed to 50% occupancy allowed. That would be for restaurants for personal services would be the same 25 to 50% occupancy as well as indoor venues. You'll see the note at the bottom that says that businesses can only operate at a higher level if the county's metrics fall within the level for two weeks. So as of today, if we had a program stood up, we wouldn't certified businesses would not yet be able to operate in yellow until we meet those orange metrics for two weeks of the county. Next slide. All right. So we'll talk about our proposed solution to standing up a Boulder County five-star program, which includes contracting much of the work out to a third party vendor H2 manufacturing solutions. Again, they are a long-law based manufacturing consulting firm with expertise in operational improvement consulting services as well as engineering and technical consulting expertise. So why are we considering using them as a third party vendor for our five-star program? H2 led the charge to form a Colorado state-owned supply chain. It was established way back in March at the very beginning of the pandemic. Initially to help identify and fill holes in PPE and testing supply chains for manufacturers across the state. And ultimately evolved or pivoted as we hear a lot lately to helping businesses secure resources to comply with federal state and local public health guidelines. So I'm going to go through that in a little bit more detail. So I'm going to go through that in a little bit more detail than implementing that across the state. Again, I'll provide some more detail in a later slide. And actually let's go to the next slide. I think that detail is there. It's not. I'll have some more detail on their experience to date in safety certification with the product that we'll be using that they'll provide. And I think that's a good point. So I'll go to the next slide. That is a good question. Thank you. Including development of business applications, recruiting and training auditors and inspectors overseeing shadowing, administrating quality assurance and control. Retrained auditors deploying the inspectors issuing certifications reporting to the administrative committee and to CDP. I'm monitoring and following up on complaints. application fee, a nominal what we consider a nominal application fee by businesses and that the inspectors and would be volunteers donated by municipalities and businesses. So two sources for those inspectors, volunteer inspectors that would be trained, one would be underutilized employees or employees that are currently on paid leave either in the public or private sectors that could be repurposed as inspectors, volunteer inspectors and auditors for the safety certification program. Next slide. So here's where we have some more detail about H2's experience and their COVID safety system and certification train the trainer model. So we will be identifying 40 to 75 volunteers as I mentioned and our repurposed paid employees from the public and private sector that H2 will train to play and oversee as trained safety certification auditors as part of our five star program. They'll provide 90 minutes of classroom, virtual classroom. We're not going to have a bunch of people in a room, virtual classroom instruction followed by virtual shadowing of inspectors when they go out into the field. They'll be responsible for scheduling and deploying trained auditors at business facilities across Boulder County. They'll also monitor and oversee a command central, which is managed by H2 staff. They'll also compile, test and process findings and data to ensure acceptable input data and variances. So what we mean when we talk about variance is, is across multiple inspectors in a similar environment, what's the variance in the overall rating of a business and H2 currently operates their safety system and certification model at less than a half a percent variance and ratings across, again, multiple auditors in the same environment. They also produce a scorecard and an action plan for a business to correct any infractions and then redeploy the auditor to the facility to ensure infractions have been corrected. They then certify the business and issue a certificate that can be displayed at a facility for eight weeks. And another slide that has a chart that compares different programs, including the original Mesa County model, PDPHE requirements and the H2 program and one of the primary differences and one of the things that we like about the H2 solution is that it's not in any way a self certification program. So H2 is actually going out to or sending their trained auditors out to a business, providing that business with an action plan to get them from where they're at today to where they need to be to receive certification. The business is then responsible for implementing that action plan. And then H2 and their volunteer auditors will go back out and ensure that that has happened before certification is supplied to the business. OK, here's where I was talking about apologies. This was the presentation put together by committee. So I'm a little unfamiliar with some of the order of it. But the H2 inspection system is again a product that was developed by H2 as part of the COVID manufacturing task force. It has been tested in the field for over six months in a variety of facility types, including schools, manufacturing facilities, small businesses, et cetera, throughout Colorado. The inspection criteria was developed by Public Health and is built upon federal CDC, state and local public health regulations and additional Colorado five star requirements. It incorporates seventy five inspection criteria in the following categories. Disinfecting and cleaning, signage, furniture, structure and objects, occupant behavior and screening. A business must get a five out of five reading on the inspection for certification and follow through with the action plan for correcting any infractions and reinspection before any certification is issued so far more rigor than what is required by CDPHE and standing up a five star program. Next slide. An additional element of the H2 safety certification program would be to recertify each facility every eight weeks to ensure continued safety compliance with a new certificate dated certificate issued each time. So it's not a one and done and then you can go, you know, change all of your habits and behaviors back to prior to certification. There's ongoing monitoring incorporated into the program. H2 will provide weekly reporting to the administrative committee containing the scorecards of each business, the action plans for each business, the originally issued certificate and any subsequently issued certificates. So those every eight week certificates will additionally provide support and are currently providing support on the development of the Boulder County application to CDPHE, supporting the development of business application for certification and supporting development of application to solicit volunteers and displaced workers to serve as auditors. I'll also mention that Denver County recently submitted their application and also announced that they've selected to use H2 as their vendor for third party vendor for their certification program as well. Next slide. That's just an image of the scorecard and action plan. A page of the action plan will be provided to businesses as part of the program. Next slide. So why do we think H2 provides the right solution for a Boulder County five star program and want to reiterate that they have six months of testing for their covid safety system and certification program across Colorado. They've conducted over 30 safety systems audits since June of this year, not 2019. Sorry about that. The safety systems have been conducted in seven different counties in both rural and urban environments and across multiple sectors, schools, large and small manufacturers, small businesses, places of worship and a variety of others. The system was developed with the help of public health and specifically Boulder County Public Health. Lane was on that covid manufacturing task force as was I and they have endorsed the system and model, including having helped determine the appropriate weighting of any infections within the model. There is minimal out of pocket expense for businesses. The cost of implementation and administration of the program would sell fund by charging businesses a seventy five to a hundred dollar application fee for businesses. We'll also have programs in place to mitigate those expenses for businesses that truly can't afford a seventy five to a hundred dollar application fee. We'll also have programs in place to help mitigate the cost of addressing any infections that are identified in order for businesses to get certification. So where businesses have the ability to support the funding of the program through an application fee and they will we will expect them to do so. But we have will have systems in place to allow for businesses that don't have that ability to still be able to receive their certification. We really see this as an off the shelf proven and affordable model that is rooted in public health and data science at a level of rigor that we don't see in other five star programs that have been stood up thus far. Next slide. So we specifically compared the original Mesa County five star system that the CDPHE program was based on, as well as the CDPHE five star program requirements and the H two solution. And generally speaking, the number of the elements of inspection for the certification, as well as the rigor with which they provide ongoing support for ensuring ongoing information to businesses about different CDPHE, CDC and Boulder County Public Health Guidelines. We've also been very impressed by again that variance number of less than half percent across multiple auditors in the same environment. Also the reissuing of new certificates every eight weeks. And the weekly reporting that's very rooted in data and again, public health rigor that goes above and beyond certainly the Mesa County five star system, but also above and beyond what is actually required by CDPHE from a public health perspective. Next slide. So the next steps for us, as I mentioned, forming that administrative committee will fill those open positions over the next couple of days between now and Thursday afternoon when we'll first convene that committee. And then that committee will review the variance application that we've developed again in partnership with H two in working with the county and working with county public health, as well as chambers, other economic development organizations and municipalities across the country. Once that application is signed off on by the administrative committee, we will submit that application to CDPHE, but only with support from municipalities, chambers and EDOs to the county commissioners. And so letters of support are being submitted to the county commissioners. We also are required to have letters of support from all five of the hospitals in the county, as well as the Boulder County Sheriff. Well, almost simultaneously, but certainly immediately upon submitting that application will start recruitment of volunteers to be inspectors and to staff the command central working with H two. We don't know for sure how long application approval would take. But what we've seen so far is that CDPHE is turning around approval of those applications within a couple of days in those cases. And then providing general support for businesses to apply for five star certification and show public health and safety protocols are in place. So it'll be part of our role to communicate to our business community that this program is available, why they should pursue it and how they can pursue it, as well as resources that are available, financial resources that are available to support their ability to do so. Next slide. And so that's where we're at as far as the Boulder County application for five star certification program. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I've got some concerns, but let's go ahead and go with Councilmember Christensen. Hi, Jessica, I think this is terrific. We've got to do everything we can to get businesses back in back in the running. But so here's a very tiny point. But on, I think, number four of what Mesa County provides, they provide certification and a plaque and a Wingo cling, meaning somebody can stick on the window that says we're certified. And neither of the other two programs say they provide that. But to me, one of the most useful things for the public is to say to be able to see right on somebody's front door that they've gone through certification. So I think that's something, you know, at a very minimal cost we could provide so that, you know, they can just slap this on the window and then people can be walking down the street and see that they are certified and be assured that they can go in there. So just consider it, please. Thank you, Mayor Bagley and Councilwoman Christensen. That is actually part of a certification, a posted certification at the business facility is part of the Boulder County or will be part of the Boulder County five star program. One of the things that we were trying to show with that with that chart is that that was kind of the primary thing for the Mesa County program. So it was more of a PR program than it was a program that also had or was intended to have the additional benefit of creating improved public health environment related to COVID-19. There will be a certification. There will also be a required posting of how somebody entering that business can file a complaint with CDPHE if they notice something that's happening within the business that doesn't meet certification guidelines. So that just being able to give give them in return for all their hard work something they can put on the window that's decorative and not punitive would be just nice for their, you know, a nice return of, yes, PR. But that's what they need is free PR. So that will be a part of that. Thanks, Jessica. I know you put a lot we spoke on the phone a couple of days ago. And I sorry, I'll always defer to council before I might say go ahead. Councilman Waters, two quick questions, Jessica. In the in the presentation, you made a reference to kind of there's a bunch of thresholds in here in terms of what we can do. I can't do it. By the way, I want to say echo councilmember Christians, its comments. I think you've done a lot of there's a lot of work in its good work. And and I'm very supportive of what of moving this forward. But the two questions of these one, you made reference to the 90 percent of ICU beds being, you know, that's a threshold of 90. If you hit the 90 percent level, then then you've got to take a step backwards. But it did it did spark for me some curiosity about how we're doing that calculus. Is that beds within a county or is it beds counted the way well county commissioners counted with beds throughout multiple counties? It's beds within a county as we count them. All right, very good within this county. And then or generally, my guess is, but this is an assumption that there's been some discussion given the minds that have come together with this and the experience and how deeply you've all been involved in this for now almost 10 months. There's got to be some speculation about the duration. How long do we anticipate needing to take these kinds of work through these kinds of protocols with this kind of rigor? Is this something you're imagining throughout all of 2021 just as a mindset or is there something short of that or longer than a year? I'll listen. Um, based on what I'm seeing, I guess, and you look at where we are with the vaccines and we'll touch on some of that. Probably my gut tells me late summer or fall in terms of how long we're going to to still be to be in this mode based on where we're seeing the vaccines could be shorter if we get more out, could be longer if there's less coming in. And and so our mind we're sort of I'm starting to look at that. August, September, a horizon. So I said, I'd be quiet. I'm going to make a comment. That sounds kind of like we're imagining this is like 40 weeks. Think of this as. Giving birth to it to that whatever comes after would have to go, but that's about the time frame. You're thinking about about nine months of eight week cycles. Likely, potentially, it could be shorter. It could definitely be shorter based on how many people get vaccinated in that world. Yeah, and I'll also add we've absolutely the conversation around is it worth the resource for a potentially short period of time if everybody gets vaccinated or if things just start to go really in the right direction really quickly as far as the different metrics for the different levels on the dial and we get all the way to green or whatever the best level is. But one of the conversations that we've had is that if we're going to build this infrastructure and invest in something like this, both from a human and financial resource perspective, let's put our minds together and figure out how else it might be put to use in the future. Certainly in the situation of God forbid, a future pandemic, we would have this infrastructure available and ready to stand up such that it would have more of a public benefit from earlier on than what we hope that it will have now. But then also, are there other and I don't know what they are. We haven't gotten that far into that conversation. But are there other implications for building infrastructure like this? All right. So first of all, Jessica, yeah, I guess third of all, considering that Councilman Christiansen and Councilman Waters and intelligent comments to say thanks. And I spoke with you and in general, I'm in favor of a five star program and not that anyone cares about my opinion, but to say it anyway, the I was against the lockdown, you know, adamantly, vehemently, because I didn't think it was going to do any good. But what triggered my then anger and was was certain Metro mayors, including Mayor Hancock, trying to go beyond the governor's leadership, meaning they wanted a more strict and stringent lockdown than what the governor was doing longer, harder. And my point was, you know, in general, the lockdown is going to hurt people and it's not going to take care of the coronavirus. And we're going to be stuck at the end of the eight weeks or whatever it is with small businesses out of business and no capital, no powder dry, so to speak. And the governor is the person calling the shots. Right. Recently, I got upset again with Well County because, you know, I didn't flip flop. I would say, let's follow the governor. Don't go rogue, just like you shouldn't walk down. You also shouldn't ignore social distancing. We need to follow the governor. The concern I have with what I heard, if you don't need to throw it back up, but Mesa County has a five star program. It was very simple. Colorado Department of Public Health then has some recommendations. What I heard was yet another instance. You know, I told you I'm supportive of the five star program. What I'm not supportive of is what appears to be yet another race of let's get the businesses to do even more things to shut them down. The H2 solutions list seems, first of all, as a small business owner, I was getting exhausted just reading the list to get a concealed carry permit. You need a letter from the sheriff. They're busy. You know, I mean, it's getting letters from everybody and going through all. I mean, I just I just think it's prohibitive. No, I don't get letters. I want to be clear that the letters of support are for are at the county's application to CDPHE to stand up a program. That's not a requirement of businesses. OK, what would so my concern? So so when you say that the H2 solution. So I guess it seems like they're a little muddled. If I'm a small business owner, once we get approval of the five star program, what do I need to do? Because what I heard was apply every eight weeks, pay $75 to $100 every time I apply. So help me understand that because what do I need to do as a small business owner in order to go from orange to yellow, red to orange, etc. So you once the program is stood up, you as a owner would apply one time to them. So you'd make one application pay one application fee. And that includes the every eight week recertification for the duration of the program for as long as the program is needed. Certainly, if we're having this conversation a year now, there will probably be a replacement if that's if that's the ongoing basis. So again, I don't care about the $75 to $100. I care about classes, applications. It just seems very burdensome. You you complete your application, you pay your application fee. H2 sends out an inspector. They actually create for you the action plan, which is different than other programs that require you to determine for yourself how to meet the public health requirements that would qualify you for certification. So H2's auditors are actually providing that scorecard and action plan for you. You as a business implement action plan, which could be things like or are likely to be things like EPA approved cleaners versus the ones that you bought at the grocery store. Social distancing and training. Everybody wears masks. So for the most part, not very onerous from a financial perspective, things to implement. Though, again, we'll have some resources available for businesses that have greater needs to implement in order to meet those certification requirements. Once you've done all of the things that you need to do to get to a level that makes you eligible for certification based on that action plan that's provided for you, you receive your certification. An auditor comes back out every eight weeks and recertifies you, assuming that you are continuing to do all the same things that your certification was approved based on. If you're not, you get a new action plan, you implement that action plan, you get your new certification. So your answer is, hey, for all you lazy people, H2 will do it for you. You invite them out, they come up with an action plan, create a scorecard. You do what they say, they send off the application and they do all that stuff to make sure that everything's kosher. Yes, I'm cool with that. That the higher level of rigor, I will say, is in the number of things that they're inspecting and I'll be quite candid in saying that CDPHE is pretty insistent that an application come from a county if a county were to choose not to do it than an individual municipality could make application on their own. But it also requires that a member of the local public health authority be a part of your administrative committees. Ultimately, that local public health authority has to support your program and anything with any less rigor than what we're presenting with the H2 solution would not have passed muster with Boulder County or Boulder County Public Health and we would not be moving forward with. So so so when you say you when you say it's it's it goes above and beyond Mason County or the Colorado Department of Public Health, what you're talking about is your administrative team in making the initial application, right? Exactly. Additional stringent, you know, government bureaucracy groups that you have to jump through if you're a struggling restaurateur. Right. Right. And in fact, my point before we we're trying to make it as easy as possible for the business by providing them an action plan to pursue versus, you know, figure it out and let us know when you're done, we'll come and check if you're not there. We'll tell you you're not there, but we're not going to give you an action plan to get there. Perfect. My concern has been resolved. A couple of issues on this that I wanted to talk about. So part of it is in terms of how this is staffed, we're looking and you're going to hear repurposing a couple of times tonight. But in this case, staff members because of the number of people we can have in facilities or some of the folks that we had to when we talked about the 25 percent reduction in hours at the rec center, we're looking at potentially working with those individuals to bring them on and give them the opportunity to be the inspectors in this and we can use cares funding for that. So that helps us deal with some of those issues we have internally. And we're going to be meeting to discuss that issue. There's also other private companies that are willing to to repurpose some of their staff. So cities are going to be coming in with some of the folks to be in those inspector positions. And it helps us solve another issue that's in play in this one. To the point, we're going to be doing that work. The other piece based on that that I wanted to clarify with council is at least my recommendation is to have Joni sit on this committee because it's going to be a pretty in depth working committee. And she's already working on with the economic group on some other things. And so that that's been my recommendation in terms of one application for at least from a staff perspective is I've asked Joni to apply. All right. Well, thank you very much, Jessica. That was that was good. So what do we need to do? Just we'll just sit back and wait anxiously. Yeah, I mean, there's any heartburn, let us know now, because we're we're moving. Move on, get it done. Thank you very much. You know, goodbye or is that Council Member Peck wanting to say something? Oh, Council Member Peck, not leaving yet. So Jessica, I just wanted to voice what everyone else has about what an incredible job you've done. And the frustrating part for me of all of this is that if everybody would just comply with to begin with, we wouldn't have to jump, you know, have this circus. So thank you for helping us work it out. And I agree with you that it does set the stage for what we do the next time this this happens, because this won't be the last pandemic. I'm sure. So thank you again. Yeah, all of us to that point, all of us that have been working on this over the last number of weeks, agree that we don't want to be in this position. But here we are. And so we're trying to figure it out. Exactly. Amen to that one. All right. Thank you very much. Well done. Thanks, Jessica. Thank you. Next presentation is Roberto on the wastewater information you all requested. It was posted publicly. And so Roberto's going to come on again, about 10 slides there. And then I'll take it after Roberto and a number of issues I need to update you on. So Roberto, Susan, can you bring that up? Good evening, Mayor Bagley, members of council. I'm Roberto Luna, water quality laboratory supervisor with public works and natural resources, environmental services department. I'll be providing an update on the city's SARS CoV two wastewater monitoring program, specifically on the state health department's public dashboard and on the graphical representation of SARS Covid monitoring data that is provided to city manager Harold Dominguez and deputy city manager Dale Ranamaker. Next slide, please. I want to start with a brief history of the program. In March, 2020, we initiated weekly sampling with Biobot in August of 2020 through an IGA with the state health department. We transitioned to our participation with a front-range collaborative and increased sampling to twice a week with CSU performing the analysis for the virus. In November, 2020, we moved to increasing sampling to seven days a week with the extra samples analyzed by GT molecular as recommended in the IGA. And in 2000, in December, 2020, the CDPHE released the public dashboard. A goal of the collaborative was communication and data sharing with policymakers, local public health agencies and the public through the use of a public dashboard. The first step in this goal was to develop a collaborative dashboard to be used by the partner utilities. Next slide, please. This is the collaborative's private dashboard. It was the first step in the creation of a public dashboard. It's a private dashboard for the partner utilities so that we can review analytical results and supporting data prior to its release to the public dashboard. The dashboard is interactive. It provides census tract data or county data for new cases and provides analytical results in various units, including copies per leader and loading per day. Once the collaborative dashboard was essentially complete, the state moved to finalize its public-facing dashboard. Next slide, please. This is the state health department's public-facing dashboard. Once the analysis of the sample is complete, data is released to the private dashboard. Utilities have two days to review the data before it's released to the public dashboard. The public dashboard shows a graph of the viral concentration in copies per leader. And it has a separate graph with a three-day average of COVID-19 cases by onset date calculated using census tract data. There is an FAQ on the website that provides information regarding the COVID-19 wastewater monitoring project. There is a link provided at the bottom of this slide that takes you to the public dashboard. Next slide, please. Next, I would like to discuss our data evaluation. But before I begin, I would like to state that I'm not an epidemiologist, nor am I a medical expert. As a scientist and a laboratory supervisor, I have experience in reviewing analytical data and providing data analysis on laboratory results. Casey Campo and I have performed detailed data analysis on our SARS-CoV-2 results. But I want to keep this presentation as simple and as non-technical as possible. So what have we done? First, due to comparability issues, the BioBot data was dropped from any further data analysis. Second, we initiated a collaboration with Boulder County Health Department. They provide the City of Longmont with Longmont specific data and Longmont shares results and data analysis with Boulder County Health Department. Third, we performed statistical analysis of our data and Longmont having and having Longmont specific data and our larger data set helped us with our evaluation process. I would also want to point out that the collaborative has performed similar statistical analysis of our data and of data from partner utilities. Finally, we provide our data analysis and graphical representation to City Manager Harold Dominguez and Deputy City Manager Dale Ratemaker and to the Boulder County Health Department. Next slide, please. The data that we provide is different from that which is presented in the state's public dashboard. There's no doubt that the state's public dashboard provides great information on the front range monitoring efforts, but our data is more reflective of the cities of the city. There are two major differences. We have Longmont specific case data and we use the additional GT molecular data. The other differences are the use of a five-day averaging of new cases instead of the state's three-day average of new cases by onset date. Our statistical analysis indicated that five-day averaging worked better with Longmont specific data. We also initially began using copies per liter but found that the loading data provided better information. The state statistical evaluation indicates that there really is no difference when using viral copies or viral copies per liter or viral copies per day. Next slide, please. So demographic data and biological data is complex and very noisy, but epidemiologists and scientists have statistical methods for dealing with this kind of complexity. This is the up-to-date graph of the city of Longmont data for new cases and for viral loading. The square points are GT molecular data. The circular points are CSU data points. The blue lines are the five-day running averages of new cases. Boulder County provides the daily count and the five-day running average of new cases. And as you can see, the data is indeed complex and noisy. Next slide. But when you apply standard statistical methods, it smooths the data out and it allows you to clearly see patterns in the data and to obtain more information. Next slide. You can then take this data and visually smooth it to make it easier to see trends. Next slide. With this smoothing technique, we can show that viral loading tracks well with a five-day average of new cases. Next slide, please. Many studies have indicated that results from testing can be used as a leading indicator of new cases. Using statistical methods, we looked at Longmont's data. We looked at whether Longmont's data was indeed a leading indicator. The findings did indicate a very strong correlation as a leading indicator, anywhere from three to eight days. Initially, we saw the strongest correlation at seven days, but this has slowly been moving toward less days. The graph above displays this information. But what does it mean? Simply put, it means that today's results are a window of what may happen in about three to seven days. Next slide, please. Finally, this is the latest graphic that contains all the information that we have been sharing with city manager, Harold Dominguez, deputy city manager, Dale Radamaker, and the Boulder County Health Department. The graphic is a combination of five-day averages of new cases, the viral loading concentrations, and the level of restrictions that have been put in place. Next slide. In this slide, we marked the dates for Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. So what have we learned from this project? First, we can say that viral concentrations do trend with five-day averages of new cases. Trends are important. Second, we can say that the data can be used as a leading indicator of new cases. And finally, this is an investigation. It's a study that is ongoing, and as we get more data and as we add more data, we will refine our findings and we will have new findings. Next slide. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. It's the one question. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, let's go with you. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I'm just wondering if there's any conversation at all because there's been speculation about the new strain of COVID and when it hit the United States, whether it was not a function of Halloween versus a function of whether it was the new strain that caused the surge in the cases. I'm just curious if there's conversation about that or how they are reconciling that within the data considering it's supposed to be much more transmissible. I have not heard any conversation with regard to going back to Halloween and looking at whether it was caused by the new strain of the coronavirus. Yeah, I think it's hard to say. I think the other thing is, in part of a lot of the conversations, as we all know, virus continually mutate anyway. And so there's a mutual mutation that's occurring with this to your point. At least what you're starting to hear from a preliminary perspective is the new strain. They're thinking maybe actually more transmissible at a younger age because of what it looks like. But again, everybody's still saying we need to wait and see what they are saying is that they still do predict that the vaccine will still work on this based on the virology that you're seeing on this. And so it very well could have tested in this because you're using the same RNA components, correct? Roberto? Yeah, it's the same RNA components. It doesn't change from one mutation to the other. We're still looking at the same genetic code. I understand. I was wondering if there's conversations looking at whether the surge was actually based off a person-to-person transmission of the standard strain that we've known about for a while versus an influx of a new strain. That was my question because as we know, it is new. And so the date has always changed. Yeah. So Mayor Bagley, Council Member Rodriguez, this is an ongoing study. And I think the more data we collect, this study is gonna be important because we're gonna look backwards and then we're gonna understand what we were seeing. And that will help with future pandemics or a future outbreak of this COVID-19. So I think right now we need to look and maintain this data, continue to collect the data, and then hopefully the experts will be able to look back and really tell us what we were really truly seeing. And right now, the only two conclusions that we can have really are that it's a leading indicator and that trends are important. Council Member Waters? Yep, Council Member Waters. Thanks. Roberto and Dale and Harold, thanks for bringing this to us. I've been curious kind of where we are and this is a good update. I am, I have a couple of questions. One is you're gonna start to make some inferences based on the data. I understand you're gonna look back, but the more data, the more evidence there is of this as a reliable leading indicator, you're also gonna look forward. So what are the explanations, or what are you speculating about possible explanations for a decrease in the number of days between leading indicator and manifestation, right? Or evidence of an outbreak or of the implication of infection, number one. And number two, can you give us an example of a decision or two that you're in real time that you can make or you are making based on what you've concluded now as a leading indicator. Because of that, we can say X, Y, or Z about what's gonna show up and how do we get in front of that? How do we inform hospitals or healthcare providers or who gets that information and what do we do with it? Is there any relationship between these data and what we heard a bit ago from Jessica and what our business community should be advised of or looking for and get ready, right? If they're in the five-star program and to anticipate what might be coming based on data that shows up tomorrow. So I'm gonna take the decision-making process on this and kind of talk about it. So A, we've obviously been through valleys with the copies that we've seen peaks and we can understand what kind of cases are related to those peaks, to all the information Roberto was going over. So for us, as we talk with the health departments, here's what we're seeing. Hospitals, you may need to get ready. If it's something that we see that's, if we start seeing something above what we've seen, we're gonna start having conversations about it. I think for us, the practical application is when you start seeing this to really inform your public information campaigns in terms of how we need to communicate with businesses, individuals, and really let them know that, I mean, it's a point of, I think had we have had this data ready early on, we could have probably intervened and messaged much differently in October, hopefully then limiting the extent that we saw in the peak. And so for me, it's really gonna be about that public information piece and messaging based on what we think we're seeing. It's kind of hard to get much more specific, again, because this is an evolving process. And Roberto keeps beating me on the head with that. So it's looking high level on this and going to inform hospitals, inform public media strategy, and then have a sense of what we need to get ready for, just in terms of our responses in various areas. Your scientific question, Dale and Roberto. If I could just add to that real quickly, Mayor Bagley and Council Member Waters. I think Carol's right that the first and best use is to convey information to the public. We're really starting that tonight with you all. And what I would anticipate is that in the event we see a significant spike in the loadings, that would, I believe, cause us to want to share that information. And so I think we should have this information available to the public and certainly to entities such as the school district or the hospitals or others. What I wouldn't recommend doing is trying to get too fine with it because the data is still pretty raw. It's pretty basic. And so I do think, though, information is always good for all people. But I would look at it in the sense of if it is a significant spike, similar to what we were seeing back in the middle of November. If we start to see that continue to climb, for instance, after the New Year's holidays and those kinds of things, it's good information for the people to know because it will eventually impact, whether it be the hospitals or potential impact on our businesses to remain open. All right, thank you very much. Ms. Luna, we really appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right, Harold, what's the next, one more report, right? I've got a few more. So let's keep going then. I'm gonna go fast. So the one thing I wanted to talk about is one of the things we're seeing is an organization and employers are starting to see this more and more. It's fraud alerts related to unemployment claims. And so we've been communicating that with our staff. I was actually one of them. So this Saturday I got a letter about my unemployment claim and I got the Relya card in the mail at the same point. And so basically someone falsified an unemployment claim with me. Now I got to my address because they probably put a different one on there. It did. And so what we're seeing as an organization is it's creating a lot of work for us within our human resources department because as all of these claims are coming in, we're having to verify them. It wouldn't surprise me if some of you all have not been hit on this. And then one person was, I didn't know who because they come into us. And so then we have to track it down. And so what I wanted to do is to alert everyone. I know that the school district has put information out on this, but basically any employers having to deal with this right now, we're actually now having to go back because when this first started coming in, we knew that there were temporary staff members. So we know our temporary staff have different positions and we know some of them were no longer able to work. And we then have realized that they've come back to us and said, no, I didn't file. And so now we're having to go look at all of this at a much deeper level. And so from the community perspective, what I wanted to do is to make everyone aware that this is going on. And there are some things that we can do as a community when this happens. And this is what we're telling our staff members. So when this occurs, and we're gonna put some information out on this, you can report the incident as a fraud to you go into the Colorado Department of Labor fraud prevention area. You also go to the Federal Trade Commission. I had to go there and fill it out. You then, if you get the Relya card, you have to go to US Bank on that one. And then many of those require you to file a report with local law enforcement to verify this. And then you need to call one of the credit monitoring agencies and let them know that this has occurred. Jason Gates, who's our security person, Ms. Fabulous, by the way on this has really said this is not a long-month thing. It's not a Colorado thing. It's a national thing that's going on. And what they're starting to see is that in one month period in Colorado, he's estimating that somewhere around, I think 48,000 of the 62,000 claims were fraudulent. And what they're hearing on the computer side is that criminal organizations are working with hackers and then they're coming in and filing these complaints. And so, A, what I wanted to let the community know and let you all know, it's happened to me. As you saw, it's happened to the mayor. We need to be aware of this and we're gonna put this information out so people can do what they need to do to protect themselves. Any questions on that? No, but I just want to point out if we resign, we get paid. All right, Councilor Martin. I've got a lot of people that, and I'll ask about that later that are on the other end of that stick. But I want people to understand what the possible consequences of ignoring this are. And I'm thinking it probably is that if sometime later you need to apply for unemployment, they'll think that you're not due as much. Well, it's that, it's also chances are they have your social security number so that it could impact, they could be taking credit out in other ways on you. So that's why you need to let the credit agencies know about this. There's any number of pieces to this that could be problematic for the individual. But you're not gonna get in trouble if you report the fraud. No, not at all. You have to, yeah, reply, it happened. I got fired from the city and the law firm at the same time. So they're going nuts. Mayor Pro Temer, Ramirez. Oh, thank you, Mayor Bagley. This is just a question more for folks that are probably, or could possibly be dealing with this. What would be the easiest way to find out if you've been a victim of said fraud? They sent you a letter. So typically there's two ways that this is coming forward. One, you receive a letter, or two, it hits your employer and your employer's tracking it down. So we're seeing both of those. We're seeing it from the standpoint of, in my case, I got the letter before HR was notified because it has to go through your employer and they have to deal with it. In some cases, HR is seeing it before individuals receive the letter. Other than that, I guess you would have to look at the Colorado Department of Labor to figure out how you can check this out. Sorry, I've got a... That's pretty clear. Can we go on to the next one? Yeah, I'm trying to get my screen up so I can go over this and so I want to talk a little bit about the economic relief update. So a number of changes happened late in the year as we were hitting the end of the year and they were getting the second stimulus package passed and they did believe the second to last day of the year. What it also did was extend the timeframe on the CARES funding. So while everyone's screaming to try to spend the money and time, they then extended it at the last minute and so gave us some options, but I wanted to update you on some information that's gonna go out hopefully tomorrow or the day after. So in terms of the business boost grants, we received about 182 applications. We had 165 eligible applications. Thus far, we've awarded 97 grants and I say thus far because we're still looking at some other opportunities in terms of funding on this. Based on what we were trying to spend in the movement of money that I talked about with you all in December, we have put out 1,327,000 in change into our local businesses. The total amount requested was 2.6 million. The grant amounts range from $5,000 to $15,000. The majority received the maximum. We also have a map that they're going to release that shows the locations because we wanted to make sure that it was really equitably spread throughout the community as we were doing this. Of those that were funded, six were personal care service, six nonprofits that couldn't fit in other nonprofit categories. We had nine others, which includes community centers and childcare, arts and entertainment, construction, events and transportation, 11 health and wellness, 11 manufacturing, 12 professional services, 18 retail and 24 that were in the restaurant bar kept classification. We also were working on the childcare. We had the 700,000 that we were moving through on that. And what we did in that process, and I'm going to stop here because it really started coming into play in childcare. One of the things that we had to do both in the business side and in the childcare side was go through all of the requirements that exist in the federal government. And one of those was duplication of benefits. And that became a pretty significant issue for us because the PPP loan actually was one of the triggers for the duplication of benefits. So if you receive the forgivable PPP loan, we couldn't give you money out of the CARES funds because that would have been considered a duplication of benefits. Now what we figured out, or what Peter figured out that we could do is actually then take and work with the business to say, give us what your total loss was. And if there was money left over after the PPP loan then you could allocate that to the grant process. And so there was a lot of work that we had to do with the businesses and with the childcare. On the childcare side, what we also started seeing too, a little bit on the businesses, this also had a tax implication to it because they had to claim it as income. And so certain people then were making other decisions based on the tax side of it. Obviously because it was federal dollars, individuals had to be documented. So that was another piece. The review criteria on this was significant. They moved through it. In the childcare side, we knew that we probably weren't seeing all of the childcare in it. And so I asked our staff to go back out and personally call those childcare agencies so that we could reaffirm whether or not they wanted to apply. Some did and we came back into the process. We were able to provide grants to 20 childcare providers in Longmont to utilize that 700,000. It's different. I mean, then there's more significant differences there based on the size of the childcare providers and the losses that they incurred in looking at the duplication of benefits. We're gonna send you more specific information on that. But I wanted to give you an update in terms of where we are today. Obviously as additional stimulus packages continue to come out, hopefully there'll be more money in the future. But that's where we sit today in terms of the boost grants and the childcare grants. All right, and I don't know why but my internet connection will be set. So I missed about two minutes we had to say but we're okay. Anybody have any comments, questions? All right, great. Let's keep going Harold. I don't wanna take up, I'm gonna just show you all some slides real quick on the numbers. Because the numbers are continuing to change, Susan. I'm gonna share my screen. We see it. Okay. So when we look at where we are in the dial and you look at the two-week cumulative incident, right? And this was as of yesterday, I believe. It was similar as of 1-4-21. It was similar to last week. I did check it and it looks like we went back into red. And so we're right at that cusp as we're moving back and forth. But one of the things that changed this week was that the governor obviously moved everyone to level orange. And that was something that happened late last week that was a bit of a surprise to us as well as some of the changes to the vaccine piece that I'll cover after I go through this. When you look at the cumulative incident rate 4.3 I think it did go up again today. And then when you look at the Boulder County status, seven days of decreasing or stable admissions, we're actually in the red now. And I wanna bring some attention to this. When we look and I asked Dan today, how many people did we have in the hospital? The number was 50. Remember that number was 80 and above when we were in the peak of this. And so part of this number that we're talking about and I'm gonna have a conversation with the other administrators is that if you're at 80 and you go to 50, then you go to 50 up to 60, that counts against you even though you're still below the peak. And so what I want people to know is, yes, we've had more people go into the hospital but we're still lower than we were at the peak of this based on the information that we received from Dan today. And so we need to really, this is how CDPH captures it but there's more behind this information. When you look at this and you remember the information I just provided, this shows you what's happening in the other counties. So you can see that outside of Gilpin, Broomfield and Boulder tend to be lower. Jefferson's close. Larimer's now closer. Well, is it 567? Grand's at 547. When you look at the two week average and positivity in terms of the numbers we were seeing on this chart based on when the data was presented, you know, we're still lower there. You can see the hospitalization information here. And so this is where we need to spend some time working on it. But again, Boulder County and Broomfield are still doing better than most of the counties. And we talked about level purple and some of the pieces on the data that you all were discussing in the five-star program. Our hospitals are saying they're not approaching crisis standards. No one's using alternative care sites. We have one of the five hospitals are reporting anticipated staff shortages and regionally 17% of the hospitals are reporting anticipated staff shortages, five of 30. Approaching 90%. Boulder County's at 78% of med surge and 78% of ICU beds. No hospitals are reporting and anticipated ICU beds shortage. Transfer capability two are reporting tight ICU capability. Again, that's broader ICU. And then none of our regional hospitals report greater than 10% ICU or less than 10% ICU bed availability. So again, that looks pretty good. When we look at the caseloads, you can see in this information we have and we continue to decline from the 28th through the third we had six days under a hundred cases. One day had over a hundred. We just added another one on this one of, well, 28th. We had 130 just before the 28th and then 106. So obviously, if you remember, we're doing much better than we were earlier on in the peak. When you look at this, you can also see how it's related to long-term care facilities and the impact there that's gonna touch on that when I talk about vaccines here in a little bit. And then this is what our five-day average a number of new cases looks like within Boulder County. It's about 83. And it's increased since last Tuesday when we were about 79, so, but again better than where we were prior to the new year. Again, what you can see here is you can see Boulder, Broomfield in the light blue. Some of the other counties are starting to get closer, but still as a metro region, we're doing well. Adam, but you're seeing this slight tail here where it's starting to move up. And so those are all things that we're watching. When we look at Boulder County, I think the big piece is since November one, Longmont has had the highest case rate per 100,000 out of, but the other municipalities, Lafayette, Boulder, Lyons, they've also had high case rates since that timeframe. In the past seven days, 33% of the new cases have been in Boulder and 39 have resided in Longmont. Again, when you see this, this is just more of that information. When you look at the weekly cases, Boulder had 172, Longmont had 233, Louisville, Lafayette and Superior had 74 cases and then the other unincorporated area, Minnesota had 80. Again, this shows it by age range. And then when we look at our children, zero to 17, the case rates have decreased for every age group over the past two weeks compared to the previous two weeks. And this is showing you by age group here. We did see cases among 25 to 34 year olds increased by 3% while cases among our oldest and highest risk age groups have increased. And again, this is a percentage on small number of 53% in the 65 to 74 year olds and 12% in 75 plus. And if you remember, we saw a big increase in assisted living facilities in that data. 75, when we look at the race and ethnicity on this, we continue to see persistent large disparities among our Hispanic population. One of the things that we are seeing in this when you look at this chart, while the disparities continue, the case numbers and the proportion of cases among Hispanic community members has decreased over the past several weeks, up until last week, which we saw a slight increase in the number of cases, but not in the proportion of it. And then when you look at testing, you can see this is an update based on the other slides, 5.4% is the five day average. A month ago, it was 7.6%. This looks at the number of tests that we're performing and the number of positives. The rolling percentage, you can see where we've moved down. That also may be a product that we back up. We've had fewer tests being performed compared to what we've seen earlier. When you look at the hospital, this is also cumulative data. But when we look at this, I think the big difference is, these are slides provided by Boulder County Health. You see a lot more in green. Med search beds are in red, but remember that also contains elective procedures. And then the ICU beds are there too, and that may have other people with other medical issues beyond COVID. And this is what the hospitalization for Boulder County looks like. Again, what we're looking at is the trend here. And I think that's part of, when you then look at what's happening in the state, was the impetus for the governor moving everyone to orange. We're in a much different position. Everyone's still though, cautiously optimistic. And then unfortunately, when you look at the deaths, you can see that we've hit some pretty high numbers recently in Boulder County. And I think what you're also seeing is associated with long-term care facilities. And you saw that increase that we saw in the number of cases in our long-term care facilities. And then when we look at social distancing statewide, we're at 48% compared to 40% lastly. 50% before that, when we look at Boulder County, we're at 48%, it was 53%, but we're still at a higher social distancing rate than we were in October when we saw the peak occur. So this is all the data that we're starting to look at. And we're also comparing that to the BioBot information. We're not doing BioBot anymore. Well, the wastewater testing with the other agents. I was just showing you that I was paying attention. Yeah. Good. I was just showing you that I was paying attention. All right. All right. Let's move on. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I am wondering, since we look pretty good on the dials except for hospitalization and utilization, are these numbers corrected at all for the fact that the hospitals in densely populated areas like us draw from a wider area than just our locality, both for elective procedures and for very serious COVID cases potentially? That's the question that I asked today and we're gonna have to start tracking it down because that's when I talk about the anomaly in this. And so I wanna get some more information on that. Thank you. Thanks. So. Yeah. Thank you, Harold. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Just a question, I know that I have expressed this via email to Harold at this point, but with the governor's decision to move red to orange and also seeing some of the data we've just now seen, this seems to be a very good possibility, not that it's guaranteed by any sense that there could be a surge based off of holiday activities. How likely are we to see the governor's decision rescinded and pushing these restaurants, for instance, back into outdoor dining only? And as such, are we as the council, and this is two of my greater council members here, are we as a council willing to continue to allow, I know we said we're gonna be consistent with the governor, but how much do we want him dictating it seems to be somewhat whimsically at this point, at least with this most recent decision, because I just did not see the data. Most of the time I could defend the data that he was looking at too. I didn't understand this move as far as it could be really catastrophic to some of these restaurants to open up, close down, open up, close down, open up, close down and flip flop if we could keep looking at this data at a very narrow level. So that's just my question that I posed to Harold as well as to now my colleagues on council is I almost am ready to defend our restaurant tours considering what could be a somewhat tumultuous decision-making process over the next week or month or so, especially considering the holidays as well as the winter season. So if I can jump in a little bit on the data piece. So I think one of the things, and again, this was a bit of a surprise to a lot of us, but I think if you look at the data, everybody was anticipating a spike or a peak related to Thanksgiving and we really didn't see that in terms of the state. We actually were continuing to decline in December when we look at the wastewater data and we start seeing what's happening in that three to seven day window. It looks like there may have been a little bump in Christmas, but it didn't bump to where we were before that. The big thing that I think they were looking at and I've got to go back to the beginning of this pandemic that where everyone was really talking about it was really the impact on the medical systems in the hospitals. And I think the biggest change that we've seen is the number of hospitalizations. If you remember that graph where we were moving down. So I think that was part of the impetus. And then I think also there was a recognition at the state level and I think they said this of the press from businesses coming to them where they were literally at a breaking point of not being able to survive. That being said, I think it also corresponds with the five-star program because the five-star program, if you go in and do this and it's moved into red, it still allows them to stay open, which helps with that vacillation of open clothes because we did have a number of restaurants locally that said we're just going to close until we can ensure that we can stay open because of the amount of money they lose in product and everything that they can't use because they're closed in a day. My gut tells me it was the business pressure and the dire straits that some are in. It was the five-star program and it was the hospital that led to that decision. I'm obviously not in the room. I'm just banking on what I've seen in the data. But I think the five-star program is going to be the key piece in this. Did that, I mean, that's my thought. You all can jump in. Well, I just want to say real quickly that I am a proponent of the five-star system. I have some similar, I guess, concerns to the mayor as far as how we're implementing that as well as the way that Boulder County is decided to implement that. But regardless of that, I do agree with getting the five-star system into place as fast as humanly possible. So we can, at certain points, I guess, and it wouldn't be us anyway, obviously, because we're not the county health, but implementing these kind of variances for the really good actors in the community. And I don't think they should be penalized in any way for people that are not taking it as seriously by any standard. My point is that it's very easy to defend the governor when it's very consistent and data-driven. When he starts to make decisions that don't make as much sense based on the data, it becomes much more difficult to tow the line, if you will. And so that's my question is, I've also heard, obviously, some rumors about the depletion of certain funding at the state level, and that has also driven some decisions at the state level. That's hearsay, that's anecdotal. And I'll admit that now, but I've heard these things. And so I'm just curious as if the metrics change for the decisions at the state level, can we still as confidently back those same decisions? And that's, again, a hypothetical question to my colleagues on council. It's not based on what we're hearing right now, because we don't know. We simply don't know at this point. Sorry, Council Member Beck. I actually, Mayor Pro Tem, I agree with you, but to Harold and possibly to Jessica with the five-star program, is Boulder County looking at, as vaccines increase, the ability to possibly go beyond the 50% capacity if someone has proof that they have taken the vaccine? And are we looking in, excuse me, in Boulder County at some kind of a card or a phone app to show that we have gone above and beyond, we've got the vaccine, still wear a mask. But I would think that the capacity would probably be skewed or change a little bit with that. It is something I think that needs to be addressed. So at least what we're hearing on the vaccine side right now, and I'm gonna talk about this. Will we lose Council Member Beck? Oh. Oh, sorry. Oh. I think part of it, what we're hearing in terms of the vaccine is even if you get it, you still, the masking requirements are still gonna be in play. Because what they don't know, and this is the hard part, it's not those that are vaccinated, it's those that aren't vaccinated that become the concern. Because what they don't know right now is whether or not if you're vaccinated, you may still shed the virus and potentially infect other people. So until there's more, I think that may be something they look at further once they get more people vaccinated in the state. But there's those conversations in the mix, but they're still pretty adamant about if you're vaccinated, you still need to wear your mask because we're not sure that you're, you can't potentially infect someone else. Speaking of vaccines, there was another change that occurred late last week. Oh, sorry. There's another question, Mayor. You're muted, Mayor Banglet. I said, I've been working at the computer all day and my eyes are, I have a hard time seeing the screen, the water, and it's staying pretty bad. But I saw a bright red movement in Dr. Waters. That must have been you. Thanks. Mayor Prochem asked a question. I just wanted to respond. Like a lot of people, you and I and others have wondered about the basis for some of the decisions the governor made last week because the data didn't seem to square with the data. I agree with that. I have to say though, I have two concerns. I share the aspirations that we do all we can to support our local businesses, especially our hospitality industry. However, once we pull the pen that we've decided we're gonna selectively comply with the mayor, with the governor, then I think it's a free-for-all. Then we're gonna spend a lot of time on Tuesday nights arguing whose data is gonna be the data or the data, I think that's dangerous. Number one, I think we made a good decision when we made the decision, like it or not, we're gonna follow the governor. That's the reason we made together. Once we take a step back, I think it's a free-for-all in that whoever makes the best point, I guess, on a Tuesday night, or we simply don't comply with anything the governor has to say. I think that becomes a concern. The other is, we did that. I would wanna be in really close touch with our healthcare providers because what I wouldn't wanna do is due to our healthcare providers or hospitals and others, what I think the Well County Commissioners have done to theirs or that other municipalities have done. I mean, you look at our hospital rates and I think, hallelujah, we still have capacity. But I look at the news reports and what is happening to the healthcare system that's about to collapse and the people in it and we just can't ask much more of them. So, I don't wanna trade off hospital or I don't wanna trade off hospitality industry for healthcare workers. We're gonna figure out how to, we gotta figure out how to do this in a way that doesn't put those people who are on the front lines of keeping people healthy to put them over the edge in the interest of trying to keep restaurants open, even as much as I wanna keep restaurants open. I just think we have to take a real thoughtful approach if we're gonna not comply with what the governor's orders are. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? All right, Harold? So the last piece is, what's going on? So the vaccine information changed also last week and we're trying to work with that and understand it. And understand it. So to let you all know what we were doing, there it is, I'm gonna show you the screen. This is from CDPHE. Do you all see the vaccine screen? Yes. On phase two. So this changed a little bit. And so what you're seeing in one B is the one that changed the most. And so Colorado's H70 plus moderate risk healthcare workers, first responders, frontline essential workers and continuity of state government. And so what they're looking at right now is, and what they're talking about is one B above the line in terms of those that can be vaccinated. So we are running our firefighters and police through the system. Healthcare workers have been running through that COVID-19 patients, home health, hospice, pharmacy, EMS is in that. As part of that, there's also other positions that are related to law enforcement that in some cases are in public safety but may not be in other organizations if they're included in that rangers is an example of that piece. The interesting thing that we've had to really look at is this COVID-19 response personnel. And so that's really looking at emergency operations folks in terms of how we've talked about it. So we're having a lot of conversations and then people age 70 and older. And that's gonna be important because until they can really tackle that group, what we're hearing today is they're not going to move to the group below the line. And what we're also hearing is that when a provider signs a contract with the state, they're also saying they're gonna hit the state guidelines. So there's a lot of conversations regarding this as we continue to move forward. To put it in perspective for you all, what we're hearing is the state receives about 60,000 doses a week, of which 20,000 is going to healthcare and long-term care facilities. So then when you look at the remaining 40,000 and they're really focusing on that 70 above and some of these other 1B above the line, when you said how long does it take? You know, what we're hearing is it could be March before we start moving into 1B below the line. And so then obviously late spring is removing into phase two, which is why when we talk about phase three, that's why we're kind of saying in the summer early fall is what's in at least our mind as we're starting to consider this. We are working with Kaiser, they are a provider. We are providing, you know, we're in conversations now with them on this issue. But what we're all trying to be really focused on is making sure that the individuals that we include are in those categories so we don't have any issues. We did make a run at saying critical infrastructure workers. Obviously you see some of them below the line in 1B potentially. Most of it's going to be probably in two. And we were trying to just say we needed them above the line, but they're not there. So what we're doing today is there's a committee working in Boulder County. Dan Evens, our representative with Shannon McVaney and they're working with a broader group in the county and they're working through these issues. They had to retool their plan last week because they were going down this road at change and they had to adjust it again. One thing is that it's very clear that I heard on my admin call today and I said you're gonna hear this again about repurposing is we know that the county health departments are gonna need assistance when this comes into play. Some of the providers, the large providers like Safeway and Walgreens and CVS may need locations. And so what was made very clear to me in the admin meeting is that cities are gonna have to step up to assist and facilitate this as we start moving forward. And we may not have a lot of time. So I wanted to tell you this, as these things come up I may very well have to make a decision that says I need to use Lashley Street Station to help someone. Or we may need to use a senior center to help these groups. And but they are saying cities need to be part of that. Just wanted to let you know we're gonna be responding to that real time. And Mayor, Council, I know this is a long update. It's been a couple of weeks and things have changed dramatically on us. So I'll have you happy to answer any questions. That's where Martin. Hold on a sec, beyond the screens frozen. I don't see any, can you guys hear me? Yep. There we are, customer Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I probably should have asked about this earlier when you were talking about PPP and unemployment. But we do have the new federal law out. And I am hearing a lot of confusion about availability of the different benefits from that law, especially a landlord and tenant assistance and the date of the end date of the eviction moratorium, which that law extends at federal level to January 3, 1st. That was captured. The state did extend it. The state did get that. Okay, I missed that. Okay, so good. Because I've been telling people it would happen but I wasn't sure. Yeah, I found out today this afternoon. Okay. All right, so I'm not behind the times that always makes me feel better. So the Colorado eviction moratorium also goes through January 31st. A lot of people are still really nervous about that because less than 30 days isn't a lot of time to react to that. And what I am hearing, which is gonna be exacerbated by the news about unemployment fraud is that a lot of people aren't applying for assistance because they are afraid to. They're afraid that if they're committing a crime or they're gonna get in trouble somehow if they apply for benefits from two different sources and they're not sure where to go or what the priorities are. And unfortunately, the result of that is that too many people are doing nothing when in fact, well, my understanding is that the federal benefits want you to have sought help locally first. So they're doing it backwards. And so what I wanna understand is and get out in front of the public is where people go. And I also want, I think, some assurance that if people tell the truth, they're not gonna get in trouble. So I don't know what, I guess, Harold, I'd like you to say what people should do and what we're gonna do to make it easier for them. So a couple of things. I think A, if you need assistance, pour it into us and we will find a way to connect you to the appropriate agency. And we have some contact numbers and actually council member Martin called me, Brian, where is they're from? One day. One of those days. About our website. And one of the things that we realized is we have a lot of that information on the COVID piece but we think what we realized is the further we get away from it, folks aren't going there to me type in housing assistance or rental assistance and what we work and what we found based on that question from council member Martin is some of those pages don't have the same information. So we're gonna talk to Marike and we're gonna work to retool that to make sure that's all over the place. So depending on how you search, you get there because I found some of those dead ends where it said we provide the service. So we're gonna clean that up a little bit. The key piece, what I would say is if you think you need help, connect to us via those numbers that we have on our website and the information we put out. It is our job. And when I say our job, it is the program administrator's responsibility to work individuals through that process to ensure that there's not a duplication of benefits and that we are applying the appropriate standards and procedures. If the individual is being honest with us and they're not committing fraud and we don't do it correctly, then the cities and the state, the cities, the county and the state are responsible. And that's what you hear us say in terms of the clawback provisions. They actually claw it back from us, not the individual, if we didn't do it right. And so when we talked about what we were seeing in the business and the childcare piece, it actually was in those conversations where we were having those discussions that Peter and Molly O'Donnell would port out of it and then go to the state and ask the questions and then come back and work with the applicant and really we're getting clarity in terms of, okay, if they receive PPP, it's not an automatic disqualifier. Do they still have needs beyond that? And that's the work we have to do. So I would say come in and those folks administering it will work them through the process. Thank you. That's very helpful. I'm writing down the time that you said this. Okay, so that we're now at 9.15 and we haven't hit public invited to be heard. So I'm gonna ask that if there's, unless there's something extremely pressing to say that we move on, anybody? Okay, so let's move on to first call public invited to be heard, but let's take a five minute break, hit the restroom, et cetera, while we open up the lines and let people queue in. All right, back in five. Okay, folks, for those that are watching our live stream, now is the time to call in for public invited to be heard. You can do so by calling our toll-free number 1-888-788-0099. Again, that's 1-888-788-099. And when prompted enter the meeting ID 875-9083-2677. Again, that meeting ID is 875-9083-2677. You will enter our waiting room and then you will be admitted to our meeting. And when the meeting resumes, we will call on you one at a time by the last three digits of your phone number. So please mute the live stream because there is a delay and listen to us on your telephone for instructions. Thank you. Hello, for all of those that have joined the meeting now on your phone, please make sure that you mute the live stream and that you listen for instructions through your phone. I will ask you to unmute by the last three digits of your phone number and you'll be able to state your name and address and you'll have three minutes. We will return to the meeting shortly. Mayor, are you ready to return? Yeah, we're ready to return. I'm seeing Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Christensen and another, everybody else gets back. Well, boom, boom, boom, there they are. Like the water, is he back? There he is. All right, let's go ahead and start with first call public invited to be heard. Let's just all keep time. How many do you have in the list? Mayor, we currently have 10 callers. I'm just gonna wait a second for it to clear the live stream before I begin and it looks like it's just doing that. All right. And then let's go ahead and close the room so we don't go from 10 to 20. All right, I will begin with the first caller. Your phone number ends in 035. 035, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Hello. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, and I can hear myself in the background. Is it possible for you to mute the live stream? I will do that entirely. Thank you. There we go. All right, you may begin by stating your name and address for the record. Okay, thanks. I am Jenny Black. I live at 2609 Elmhurst Circle in Longmont. Good evening, Mayor Bagley and council members, Christensen, Haldago Faring, Martin, Peck, Rodriguez and Waters. The comments I'm going to make are about the rogue bike park constructed in the Repairian corridor along left-hand creek, which item 12C on the agenda. I emailed the longer version of these comments to council back in May, but did not speak to the council at that time. Just as background, I am the mother of two boys who have now grown with boys of their own and concerned about what happened to the Repairian way and seeking expert advice on boys and bikes. I sent the Times Call article of May 20th to my sons for review and comment. Both expressed empathy for the riders while recognizing that they must bear some responsibility for their actions. Their suggestions are incorporated in the following comments. I hope they will be helpful. Well, the creativity of these boys in building the chorus and in calling attention to a personal need or a perceived need for a bike skills course in this neighborhood is admirable. It is unfortunately in the wrong place. This is public land that has been set aside as a Repairian way to protect both the river and the wildlife that use this corridor. This mistake, however, can serve as a teaching moment for the whole community. To honor their petition request and or leave the course in place, allowing de facto continued use would not be the appropriate lesson. To remove the skills course and repair the area as soon as possible would, particularly if those involved in the destruction were to help working with the city and perhaps with the aid of concerned community members and wildlife restoration volunteers with whom the city has partnered on other projects. In addition and equally important after or while the repairs are being done, those interested in the bike skills park in this neighborhood could work with the city to plan and obtain funds for building one in a more appropriate place. In the meantime, Dickens Park was safe although more distant access could be used. Taken together, these actions, which are consistent with option two being considered this evening, would serve as a lesson in environmental conservation and the necessity for compromise in civic planning and political action. Thank you very much for your consideration of these suggestions. Thank you. All right, next caller. And the next caller, your phone number ends in 347. 347, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. 347, try hitting the star six on your phone. If you hear me, there you go. Oh, thought I was all already muted. This is Mary Lynn. I live at 744 Atwood Street and I'm recalling regard to actually two issues. The first is I'm very, very concerned about the very, very weak scientific justification for the restrictions that Governor Paulus is continuing to put forth and that the city is unfortunately still complying with which are devastating our local economic community especially our restaurants. Every week I look at the statistics that the city is using and I think as someone with a scientific training how can they possibly justify this? How can they possibly justify the numbers of quote unquote cases when the international community is now working rapidly to make sure that PCR tests are never used, ever used to actually make case diagnoses. We don't know how many people who are sick at this time or are dying from flu's A and B because the CDC is not tracking the flu this year. I urge the city to recognize that the information that's coming to you while you're trying to be safe is very weak and you are restricting the rights of businesses, their natural rights, their constitutional rights to make a living and it has to be stopped. We have got to get the city back on track and people loving walking around in downtown Lamont and loving our city again and we have to recognize that whether the governor says it or not, whether the department, the health department says it or not it is the responsibility of the people who are carrying out these restrictions to make sure that they are actually correct in terms of doing legal right to restrict people's businesses and I know that's being questioned. I heard about another lawsuit today against the local business. I don't want to hear this. They don't want to be in this position. Please do the right thing and open them up. Thank you. All right, next caller. The next caller, your phone number ends in 452. I'm going to ask you to unmute. There you are. Can you hear me? Yep. You may begin. Sherri Malloy, 2113 Range v. Lane. Thank you for recognizing the beautiful life and legacy of Nino Gallo tonight. In May, 2020, the issue about the creation of a BMX bike course by area youth along the creek by left hand park was discovered. Created without approval by the city, this course was not only very damaging to this section of the riparian corridor, it was also illegal. Obviously the kids didn't intend to cause harm nor break the law, but that's what happened. At that time, due to COVID restrictions with kids not attending school combined with pressure from parents and online petition, the youths created and a Boulder bike groups involvement, this council directed natural staff, natural resources staff to monitor the situation. David Bell told me the parents and the bike group folks all realized what the kids had done was wrong. They just asked for leeway and time in hopes that the COVID impacts would be short lived. The parents and bike group understood the bike trail would be shut down in the fall. That approach and rationale seemed to make sense at that time. Well, it's now January, 2021. And while we all know COVID impacts continue to be significant, the kids have used this area for eight months and it's time to get real and fix this unfortunate situation. Option two is how councils should direct staff tonight. This means spending the money required to remove and restore all impacts to the disturbed riparian corridor, including the removal of the bike course. Council has a contingency fund that can and should be used to fund this project. Option three is out of the question and option one reinforces improper behavior. What the kids did though unintentional was misguided and unacceptable. No one wants them to be held responsible for the $35,000 price tag to repair the damage they caused. We look the other way long enough and it's time to make it right. As a parent of a dirt biking male enthusiast, I get it. Kids will be kids, but that includes being held responsible for their mistakes. There is a bike skill area at Dickens Farm, which is only two and a half greenway miles away with no street crossings. 2.5 miles is not far on a bike, especially when one realizes the entire argument for letting this continue eight months ago was to give the kids some exercise and enjoyment. Option one reinforces irresponsible behavior and teaches a dangerous civic lesson. As a retired teacher of 35 years, we should be using this as an opportunity to teach you about the value of riparian areas and why it's necessary to respect and protect this space and other natural areas. 95% of all wildlife depend on healthy riparian areas for their survival. I would love to see a restorative justice approach where the youth involved might take responsibility for the harm caused and be involved in the repair project. That would be a win-win full scenario, full circle scenario. As a volunteer with natural resources, I'm concerned about the previous efforts to plant natural vegetation in this area, which has not been successful due to the unintended abuse. I look forward to help with the restoration efforts. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next caller. The next caller, your phone number ends in 488. I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can, you may begin. All right, yeah, my name is Scott Cunningham. I live at 3771 South Narcissus in Denver and practice integrative internal medicine. My comments this evening are in reference to the Climate Action Recommendation Report published in June of 2020. I wanna begin by congratulating the council for embracing the very ambitious goal of 100% renewable clean and safe energy by the year 2030. At the risk of stating the obvious, I want to bring to mind that in order to reach this worthy and audacious goal by 2030, you can't afford to waste any time spent in distraction along the way. As an example, I'd like to draw your attention to initiative three, marked as RE3 in the recommendation. RE3 suggests that in conjunction with local utility, by 2023, options and incentives will be provided for electric utility customers to participate in a demand response program that manages electricity use in the home to reduce peak demand, shift the peak load or absorb excess production. I would suggest that if all you have is a demand response program by 2023, you won't be even close to meeting your goal of 100% renewable by 2030. Now, in contrast, I'd like to focus on an aspect of the recommendation that I believe is right on target. I'm referring of course to RE5, which suggests that by 2021, a pilot renewable energy grid would be a huge step in the right direction. I agree with you that a renewable grid to include residential rooftop solar and a beneficial, sustainable and above all safe electrification plan is absolutely critical to meeting your 2030 goal. So in conclusion, I recommend an aggressive state-of-the-art 100% renewable pilot to be implemented immediately to demonstrate to all observers that Longmont has acquired the technical expertise and possesses the collective will to create a fully functional, 100% renewable, smart, fully wired utility grid in 2021, effectively bringing Longmont's bright future into the present and positioning the city for first mover status and gaining recognition even nationally. Thank you very much. All right, thank you very much. By the way, I love it when people like hit three minutes exactly, like exactly. So that last caller was like on. Anyway, next caller? Yes, the next caller, your phone number ends in 579. 579, I'm gonna ask you to unmute 579. There you are. Do you hear us? Hi there. Hi. I do. Thank you city council for taking my call. My name is Greg Swart. I live at 2023 Sundance Drive. I've been a Longmont resident for over 40 years and I'm calling regarding the proposed Recs Maintenance Facility at the Uke Creek Golf Course. First of all, I'm Abbott golfer and I voted in favor of the maintenance facilities at the Uke Creek Golf Course. I feel I was misled because I believe I believe what I was signing up for was remodel or revamping the existing facility, not a relocation. Since then, I've learned that the facilities are planned to be relocated to the parking lot in the clubhouse, by the clubhouse. And I'm outraged that it wasn't disclosed at the time of the vote. That would have absolutely changed my vote along with many of my friends at Uke Creek. I have had the privilege to play hundreds of golf courses, nice golf courses all over the world. Never have I seen a nice golf course with the maintenance facility by the clubhouse. I were all the clients in patrons park. The nicest golf courses on the planet have done a fantastic job of hiding their maintenance facilities away from the participants. Uke Creek is Longmont's premier golf course. And I just hate to see it degraded by the exposure of the maintenance facility. After talking to several of my golfing friends who also voted for it, they were disgusted that the plan proposal was that we were gonna custom, have a custom architectural building as a maintenance facility, instead of a standard efficiency building that could be provided at its current location. I'm asking the city to please be financially responsible and please don't degrade the nicest golf course we have. Please keep the facility in its original location. Thank you for your consideration. All right, next caller. The next caller is 681. Those are the last three digits, 681. There you are. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Wonderful, you may begin. Yes, Scott Pierce, 2017 Sundance Drive in Longmont. Good evening everyone and happy new year. I too am addressing the city council regarding the proposed relocation of the Youth Creek Golf Course Maintenance Buildings. The current maintenance facility has been located along the Highway 66 area for 25 years for the original Youth Creek Golf Course layout that was designed by the Robert Trent Jones, the second golf architects. And as you know, the city of Longmont staff, which also happens to be the applicant here, is proposing to build a new facility right next to the existing clubhouse. This decision is opposed by several hundred of the homeowners who live all around the Youth Creek Golf Course and also many of your paying golf customers. Many of us have spoken with members of city council and city staff regarding our issues and the disapproval to move the facility, but we have not been provided any feedback to our concerns and the project continues to keep moving along behind closed staff doors. Our request is that the current facility of Highway 66 must be upgraded at its current location and not relocated. The city applicant is justifying holding itself to a lesser design standard by citing development cost savings. We strongly disagree with this position. In addition to centrally relocating the maintenance in a waste yard, the city applicant is requesting variances to install a chain link fence and buildings with non-conforming sheet metal exterior designs. These variances exempt the city applicant from meeting building standards for design and compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Simply put, city staff is holding itself to a lower design standard than the surrounding homeowners and their HOAs are required to meet. In 2002, a non-public administrative approval to move the maintenance yard was never acted upon and technically expired one year after the project inactivity. There have been no public discussion regarding the relocation issues since that time. Did you know that there are over 240 public and private golf courses in Colorado? And our research shows that nine, zero of these courses have built a maintenance facility next to or even within 1,000 yards of their clubhouse. Even the Robert Trent Jones Golf Course Designers and two other golf course architects indicated to us that they would never design a golf course with these two facilities in such close proximity to each other. Why should Longmont do this? Who does it benefit? Come on, we request that the current maintenance facility be upgraded at its current location and not relocated. The city must hold itself accountable to its own standards and abandon this preposterous proposal that will devalue the premier golf course in Longmont. All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 696. I'm gonna ask you to unmute. There you are. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Can you hear me? We sure can. You may begin. Thank you. My name is Chris Hammersmith. I live at 2619 Fernwood Place in Broomfield, Colorado. And I am calling in response to the businesses that are currently shut down in your city. I have looked at all the data on the Colorado website. I am a data analyst. I deal with a lot of data. And I pulled the data for the outbreaks, both the resolved and active cases for both Boulder and Weld counties. Most of the resolved cases were found in healthcare facilities and schools. In Weld County, a lot of cases came from meat processing facilities and the only cases in restaurants were due to staff testing positive. There are no members of the community that have tested positive from restaurants and no deaths have resulted from the restaurants. The largest source of active community outbreak of about 2000 was at the University of Colorado and resulted in zero deaths. The whole food store on Pearl Street had 20 people test positive and no death. And the only grocery store in Weld County was King Super's number 117 with 28 confirmed lab staff cases. The other retailers in Weld County who had lab confirmed cases was Nature's Herb and Wellness Center and the Target and Greeley with six and 11 cases respectively. The only deaths have been in healthcare facilities and jails. I've been reading this book called The Transmission of Epidemic Influenza by R. Edgar Hope Simpson. He states that viruses are seasonal, which is what we are seeing now where you're seeing the rise and seasonal cases of a virus. Influenza in the North Hemisphere appears from September to April, exactly this timeframe, with a peak in January and in the Southern latitudes, influenza appears from April to January. This is all well known. I am asking you to open these businesses instead of punishing them for something they have no control over. And this is the data that you guys should be looking at. And I will just state a Facebook page from a restaurant here in Broomfield County. I'll make it short. This is a restaurant owner. And this is some of the excerpts of what he put in here. As I take a cart that has just had this handle sanitized, I think about my restaurant which invested thousands of dollars so far on ink and paper to print disposable menus to ensure no touch, no two guests touch the same menu. As I watch the woman next to me pick up apples with her hand, check them over closely and then put them back on the open pile and repeats this until she finds the perfect apples. The same thing that all the other people that day who want an apple will then do and then put those apples in their mouths. I think about the two-step sanitation process in place at my restaurant for all cutlery and dishes and glassware in between every single guest and the sanitation of every surface, guest touch, tables, chairs, salt and pepper shakers, et cetera. I just wanna leave you with this. I don't think your H2 solution, your five-star mandate is what businesses need. They need to open. They are in despair. They are in desperation and they need your help to open right now. And none of the data that is on the Colorado website says that they are at fault for what is happening in this community. A virus goes viral, that's what a virus does. And so I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mayor and for city council members for listening to me. All right, thank you. That's three. Thank you. That it? For one more. Mayor, there's three left. The next caller, your phone number ends in 949. 949, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Hi, my name is Ruby Bowman, 1512 left hand drive. Mayor Bagley and city council members, city council should spend the funds necessary to restore repairing habitat on left hand creek that was damaged by the illegal BMX track. Habitat restoration should be done as soon as possible. As you know from previous council discussions, the city stream corridors are highly valued habitat in terms of species richness and they serve as wildlife movement corridors. Environmental sensitive areas like left hand creek should be protected. If residents want a bike course in their neighborhood, there is a proper way to advocate for their project like attending a proud meeting and asking proud members to include a bike course as a park CIP project. It will probably have to be a CIP project because of the high price tag to build it. The illegal excavation of left hand creek bank was not the way to do things. I also asked council to consider requiring a restorative justice measure in dealing with the BMX course. Those who damage city property should be required to participate in repairing the damage. Thank you so much. All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 789-789. I'm gonna ask you to unmute. There you are. Thank you, good evening. My name is Shannon Klubein and my address is 6469 Pulpit Rock Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado. And I represent a group here called Make Americans Free Again. Dear city council, thank you for staying up late with all of us tonight. We have reviewed the following information and have concluded the following concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. During the year of 2020, we witnessed the unlawful incarceration of millions of Coloradans without due process. Our right to travel freely was severely restricted. We watched our children's spirits dampen as their schools were closed and they were forced into online learning depriving them of knowledge and social interaction. Our elderly grandparents were jailed inside nursing homes deprived of fresh air, sunlight, and visits with loved ones. We were kept out of our religious and spiritual centers and told we could no longer have fellowship with others. Our businesses were forced to shut their doors, forcing many of us into poverty and or bankruptcy. Our fundamental rights granted to us under the US constitution were stripped away at breathtaking speed. This was all decided for us by Governor Polis and the unelected health officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This was done to us by force, all under the guise of a health emergency. Well, we have examined the evidence for the so-called pandemic and assert the following. The death count is misleading and substantially overstated. Testing for COVID-19 has huge flaws. The cure is worse than the disease. The public has been severely misled and masks and social distancing will not stop the spread of the virus. Furthermore, COVID-19 is no worse than a seasonal flu. Our conclusion, there is no emergency. Therefore, we the citizens of Colorado have decided for ourselves, we do not comply. We do not comply with unconstitutional orders that are not even laws. We do not comply with unscientific emergency orders using manipulated data to target our livelihoods. We do not comply with the use of fear tactics and manipulation to coerce us into our homes. We do not comply with the wearing of face coverings that do not stop the spread of infection and hide our faces and block our voices from being heard. Instead, we declare we are citizens in charge. We declare ourselves free. Free to educate our children as we see fit. Free to see our friends and family members at the time of our choosing. Okay, if you could cut her off, thank you. All right, next caller. And by the way, in just to reiterate, everyone gets three minutes, you know, sorry. And our last caller, your phone number ends in 926-926. There you are. Can you hear me? Hello, good evening. Thank you, Mayor Bagley and council members. I am calling today to mention the fact that the Wall Street Journal is just publishing article about how, yeah. Maybe please state your name for the record and address. Thank you. Okay, sorry, it's Ben Sargent. And I live on Atwood Street in East Side. Thank you. Okay, so Wall Street Journal article, the big tech giant Cisco Systems is now dropping out of the smart city technology market after investing heavily in the initiative over the last decade or so. So why did that happen? Because they recognize that people don't want it. Cities don't want to be smart city surveilled because of all of the publicity around surveillance technology basically. And Google also shut down this model project in Toronto for the same reason. No one in the community wanted it. It was bad for their brand. So I'm calling because I understand that the city is trying to move ahead with putting smart meters on all of the houses and apartments here. And I suspect that the real reason that it's being rolled out is, again, for surveillance because if the only intention really was to balancing and regulating of power needs across the city, if that was the only goal, Longmont could achieve that with approximately 406 smart meters, maybe a few more, maybe a few less depending on how evenly distributed they are. But it's completely unnecessary to put smart meters on every house. So the only justification for imposing smart city meters on all of the homeowners and all of the rental property owners is that the data collection has monetary value. And that's why the cities want it, obviously. They can monetize it, but that's why the people don't want it. And so the cities that are listening to their people are actually stepping back from the whole smart technology, smart city push. And I hope that Longmont will wake up before it's too late. This is a gross misuse of public funds to do this entire project. It's completely unnecessary. There's no justification for it. And if you want to regulate the usage of power in the city, you can start sampling this all you need. I hate to cut you off, but that's three minutes. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. And Mayor, that was the last caller. Cap meal from somebody. But anyway, let's go ahead and move on to the consent agenda and reading or the consent agenda and introduction and reading by the title of first reading of ordinances. Dawn, you're muted, it sounds like. Thank you. Mayor, item nine is resolution 2021-01, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and the regional transportation district for eco-pass contract. Nine B is resolution 2021-02, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and Boulder County for parent education services. Nine C is resolution 2021-03, a resolution of the Longmont City Council modifying the method of appointment of the commissioners of the Longmont Housing Authority. And nine D is designate the city's website as the official posting location for city council meeting notices for 2021 meetings. Council member Martin. I move the consent agenda. Second. All right. The consent agenda has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. The consent agenda passes unanimously. Let's move on to items or actually just general business. I'm gonna move that we recess the Longmont City Council and convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Longmont Housing Authority. Second. It's been moved by me and seconded by Council Member Christensen. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. The motion passes unanimously. We have a motion to adopt the revised LHA bylaws that are consistent with the Longmont City Council as the LHA Board of Commissioners establish the Longmont Housing Authority advisory board and take specific actions called for the bylaws. So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Martin and seconded by Council Member Peck. Anybody have any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Let's vote. All in favor say aye. Oh, sorry, I saw you at the bottom. All right. Dr. Waters. Thank you Mayor Bagley. My question really is not as much about this motion. I'm gonna vote for this motion, but we didn't seem the right time to weigh in as we were approving the consent agenda and I didn't wanna pull an item off. Is there a provision on tonight's agenda to appoint the immediate past, I guess, now LHA board members minus me to the advisory board? Is that on the agenda? Are we doing that tonight? If not, at some point we should. Just say that and be quiet and vote for this motion. So there's some pieces in this. So point one, Adopt the revised bylaws that recognizes the city council as a LHA board of commissioners and it establishes the Longmont Housing Authority Advisory Board. Second piece is appoint the former members of the LHA board as members of the newly created Housing Advisory Board. The other piece is council chooses to appoint me as the Interim Executive Director of the Housing Authority. So that's the adoption piece. So Harold, just let me interrupt. So if we pass the bylaws, then we've taken care of the appointment issue of the advisory board. Thank you. Across the board and for the executive director too. Did anybody else have any questions? All right, it's been moved and seconded that we adopt the revised LHA bylaws and the rest of 12A. The motion's on the table. It's been seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the ayes carry unanimously. Do we have a motion to adjourn as the board of commissioners, the Longmont Housing Authority and reconvene as the Longmont City Council? Council move. Second. Oh, councilor Peck, you got sniped. Oh man. Oh God, that was brutal. Council member Christensen made the motion. It was seconded by Dr. Waters. I swooped in. I had to swooped in. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Let's move on to 12B. Possible changes to Inclusionary Housing Code for review and direction. Harold. It's actually going to be Kathy. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Kathy Fedler, Housing and Community Investment Division Manager. And tonight I would also like to ask Molly and Heidi to turn on their video and unmute themselves in case there are things that they need to answer. Heidi Peterson is our Inclusionary Housing Program Specialist and she, and then Molly McAvoy is our Housing Program Specialist. And Heidi takes the development side of the Inclusionary Housing Program through the provision of units working with the developers, attends the DRC meetings, tracks the projects, collects the fee in lieu when we get that, and approves middle tier housing when we get that. And then Molly works on the home buyer side once we have housing units, gets down payment assistance as needed, processes fee waivers, and other financial support through the CDBG and Affordable Housing Fund. So both of those folks are integral parts of this and have been involved in the Inclusionary Housing since the beginning in the case of Molly and as soon as she was hired in the case of Heidi and worked together to make sure that we always have somebody who's knowledgeable about the Inclusionary Housing Program as we move forward. So what we're bringing forth to you tonight is some updates that we have observed over the course of the two years that the program has been in operation all of 2019 and all of 2020, since the ordinance was passed and approved effective December 24th of 2018. You remember it's a citywide and a countywide goal of 12% of the housing deed restricted as permanent and affordable as our goal. There's so many options for compliance with the ordinance and accessory dwelling units, individual single-family homes are exempted. You wanna bring up the PowerPoint, please? And go to the third page. All right, there. Okay, so like I said in the two years following the adoption, we've identified some areas. Some of these were identified by planning staff and some by us just going through the processes. So this is a review of some specific areas where there's either been conflicts between the language and the code and possible intent. Sometimes council has actually brought up issues as you have reviewed some of the voluntary agreements, et cetera. So we're providing options for resolving these scenarios that have arisen for your input. Items one through nine are possible potential amendments to the code. And then we have two areas at the end, items number 10 and 11 that we just wanna bring forward and get your initial thoughts on them, any further input from the community, how you want us to get that kind of thing. So those will be coming back for further discussion for sure. Next slide, please. So the first one is an exemption for existing housing units. So the current code does not provide for an exemption for existing housing units that would remain as part of a new project. If you remember the Martin Street multifamily project, council did approve a motion to give the developer an exemption for the pre-existing unit that was gonna remain and be included as part of the project on site. It was the original house and they were gonna rehab it and rent it as part of the project. There was also another home on the site that they demolished. So they did not get an exemption for that. So based on council's previous direction, the question is should the code be language be amended to reflect an exemption from the inclusionary housing calculation for existing housing units that would remain on site. So option one is to change the code to provide the exemption for existing and remaining part of the project housing units or to leave the code as is and deal with those on a case by case basis. And if you wanna provide direction as we go through this, that might be the easiest and I can answer questions about each one as well. I suggest that if we do take motions, we'll have to exit in and out of the presentation for the mayor to be able to accurately see. You wrote up real quick. Can you say it one more time? May I put it down? I was just saying, if we're going to take motions after each bullet point or item that we should probably exit in and out of the presentation so you can accurately see who wants to ask questions and such. That's true. I just noticed that Heidi Peterson, Kathy Fedler and Polly Christensen and yourself currently do not have any hands raised. I don't see anybody else. But what I would like to do is how many slides do we have? Is it possible to go through it and then return and then do that all at once? Yeah, there's 20 total or we could stop at the nine and go back and do those and then have the discussion on 10 and 11. What do you think is best? You know what's coming, Kathy. What would you recommend we do? I think it would probably be most, quickest and most helpful probably to just take each one as it is. Take the questions on each one and do it on each one. Let's do that. I mean, I can see everybody right now. So you put up the slide real quick. So we're looking at option one, the change the code to provide an exemption for existing and remaining housing units or two, leave the code as is and deal with it on a case-by-case both basis. Okay, Council Member Christensen. Sorry. We're making a decision on inclusionary housing at a time that is kind of a financial meltdown. So first of all, Kathy, thank you for all the hard work you've done on these. These are things that we need to deal with. So, and I think we can go through them pretty quickly and get it out of the way. This particular one has to do with already built housing that will have stuff added on. I think each one of these cases will be very different. I would rather not try to do a one-size-fits-all and I would like to see us leave this as it is on a case-by-case basis for a while and maybe reexamine it after the economy picks up a little bit. I think that because these are gonna be odd cases, we should look at them on a case-by-case basis. So I would recommend that we, I would move that we suggest, you're not looking for motions, right? Yeah, we need to pass motions to give direction. Okay, I would move that we go for option two and leave it as is for now. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Anyone disagree with that? All right, all in favor of the motion, which is just to leave it as is, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, motion carried. Thank you, Joan Peck. Well, can I make a statement here for a minute? Yeah, sure, go ahead. I don't, are we voting on each one of these or are we just going to tell each one of us what option we prefer? We're going to, we're going, well, if there's a motion. Okay. And there's a second, we will vote on it. All right. I just missed the strategy here. So thank you. Okay, that's all right. So to be clear, it was a six to one with six ayes and one nay with council member Peck dissented, right? Okay. Let's keep going, Kathy. Can you put up the slide again then, please? And go to the next one. All right, so on group homes, right now there's the code does not provide for an exemption for additional units added within the current existing building footprint and or conversion of non-living space to living areas or bedrooms. So in this example, we did have a group care home conversion provided application was submitted and then later withdrawn, but what happened was the proposal was converting a single family home of three bedrooms into a group care home and converting the garage area and some former non-living and living areas into five additional bedrooms for a total of eight. The code currently requires all the square footage to be considered in the inclusionary housing calculation. So similar to the one before this, option one is to amend the code for group home conversions to exclude existing bedroom spaces from the inclusionary housing square footage calculation and only new bedroom spaces would be applicable or two, we could exclude group homes from the inclusionary housing code requirement altogether. I guess the third one would be just to leave it as is. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Kathy, are group homes typically not for profit organizations or can they be for profit? It could be either one. This particular one I believe is for profit. Okay. That makes it more complicated in my mind, but I wanna listen to other people first before making an immersion. Council member Waters. Well, just to get it on the floor, I'm not gonna argue one side of this together. I'm gonna move that we approve option number one, which is to exclude existing bedrooms, but any additional or new bedrooms are subject to the code. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Council member Christensen. Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Sorry, hold on. Sorry, sorry. I thought I think I, Council member Christensen, you wanted to talk and then you moved it like go on, go on, and then you wait that again, do you wanna say something? Okay, I'll briefly say something. I'm in support of what councilman Waters suggested. Does the language specifically say group care home? It needs to say group care home because a group, just a group living together would be a totally different thing. We'll make sure that it matches the planning definition. Okay, okay. Yeah, I do think we should, I don't think we should exclude them because as councilman Martin pointed out, there's a big difference between a for-profit and a not-for-profit, sometimes not, but anyway, I would support option one. Okay, there's a motion on the table to adopt or instruct staff to adopt number one, option one. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Nay. All right, the motion carries six to one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez in the dissent. Thank you. All right, and just for future reference, we're not gonna do it now, but anytime, Mayor Pro Tem, anytime you've got an opinion, I'd love to hear the reason behind it. And I don't mean that to argue, I mean that with all sincerity. I did raise my hand, you just didn't catch it. Oh, then let's, you know what? Then point of order, that's my fault. Let's go back and actually we'll re-vote. If you don't mind, I'm sorry. I think the vote is fine to stand. But I'd be happy to explain real quick. Go ahead, please. Is that I feel that the affordable housing program, at least in this case, is going more by the letter of the law than the spirit of the law in my opinion because when I think of trying to provide said housing for the community at large, group homes don't necessarily come into my mind as something of working-class folks trying to find a place to live, much less anybody trying to look for ownership of a property or rental of a full property. This seems to me to be a completely separate issue in the sense that these are folks who are needing some sort of assisted living in concept. And so I don't think it really is a detriment to our housing stock, just an opinion, but that's why I voted nay. I would have preferred option two to exclude all group homes from the affordable housing program. Councilor Martin. All right, just to be clear, before we start talking, the motion's passed. Like it's passed. Yes, it's passed. So I just didn't call on Mayor Pro Tem and if you wanted to take the vote again, I would have asked us to go ahead and do that because I did not, on my screen, he's at the very, very bottom. And so for some reason, I'm not saying Dr. Waters, I missed one from Dr. Waters, missed one from Aaron. I'll just start vogue-ing next. Yeah, exactly, just if you move, I catch it. So I apologize. So all right, so thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So that motion is passed and carried six to one with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez in the dissent. All right. So I had a hand up and was called on and didn't say- Go ahead, Councilor Martin. Well, I wanted to comment because I'm not sure we shouldn't vote again. That was the reason I asked the nonprofit question was because these are institutions, these are not housing. We don't need to vote again. Mayor Pro Tem was the only dissenting vote and he did not object. So Council Member Christensen. I see what both points that you're making. However, this specifically talks about when you're converting a home into a growth home. So it is actually affecting our housing stock. And particularly if it's a for-profit, very high income stuff. Anyway. So again, we've taken the vote. So all this is politely obsolete. So let's go ahead and move on to the presentation and go on to the next hotly debated topic. And could you go to the next slide please, number six. So single family home conversion to a duplex. We've had several residents have brought proposals to the DRC to convert existing homes into duplex homes. We're allowed by existing zoning. Proposals have not included a change to the existing footprint of the residents of what we've seen so far. Option one is to keep the existing language in the code which is a conversion from a single family home into a duplex is subject to an inclusionary housing requirements. And one of the two units would need to meet the inclusionary housing requirement. Option two would be to exclude single family conversion to a duplex from the inclusionary housing codes similar to the exemption for ADUs. Or option three would be to apply the inclusionary housing only when adding more than one unit. So converting it to a triplex or a multiplex. Those are the three options that we have are proposing. And two and three kind of go together by exempting a duplex, but if it was more than one unit added. Go with Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. The bottom of the screen, but the hand is up. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. This is just a question about the difference between option two and three in the sense that, let's say you had a triplex and you wanted to convert it to a fourplex or a fourplex to a fiveplexer. Say just adding one unit, does that then apply an option three to any size complex that just wants to add one unit per se? Just curious. I guess you provide direction to me. What would make sense in that situation if they are just adding one unit that are what the size should it apply or does it have to be more than one? Okay. Well, I mean, there's obviously certain limitations based on square footage as well as zoning of such things. I would be okay personally and I'll move option two specifically for single family conversion to twoplexes. I will second that, which would make it exempt, correct? Correct. Council member Waters hands up, but I noticed council member Peck you had a hand up and you have not said as much as others. So do you wanna say something? Yes, thank you, Mayor Bagley. So my confusion comes in if someone wants to have a triplex or a fourplex, then are they excluded as well or is only the duplex excluded? And that I'm not sure that is clear to me. If we go with option two, does option three stand as being included in the inclusionary housing? I guess this is for Kathy. I mean, I would say yes unless you're telling me that if you're only adding one unit, one additional unit that it doesn't apply. Otherwise I would say if you vote on number two, number three is assumed. See that I was going to move option three because that automatically took out the duplex. But if we just vote for option two, then I'm not sure if we have a solid reason for option three to include inclusionary housing. That's a gray area for me. Council Member Martin, because your fingers move faster than Council Member Christensen. Oh, point of order. Council Member Christensen, I'm just kidding, Council Member Martin, go ahead. So I actually have, I think a solution that first of all, we can use, we could have two motions, right? We have more than one option that could be implemented independently. So I would like to, I'll tell you in advance what my two motions are. I think I would move or I guess we should vote on Council Member Rodriguez's motion, which is to exclude duplexes, right? Exclude a single family home being split into a duplex and it's exempt. So we should vote on that. And then after that, I would like to vote on the adding one unit to an in-plex and exempt that as well. So I'll move that after we've done voting on the first time. And the reason that, and the anything that's different from that would have to be handled as a separate case, as a special case, but that would be seems like it'd be pretty rare. The reason that I think of it this way is because these are adding density, which is what we want. So let's be lenient about it and encourage adding density. They're gonna go down in price anyway, because they're smaller. So Mayor Brontan, would you accept the Friendly Amendment from the second that basically just says that we will exempt anyone adding a plus one, meaning if you have a single home going to a duplex to a triplex or a triplex to add on one more, then it would be exempt. Yeah, and just to make it a little bit more complicated, I would accept the amendment as long as it doesn't exceed zoning limits. Yeah, absolutely. So the motion is that anyone adding on one more unit to an existing unit, as long as it's one more and does not extend or go beyond the zoning, what is permitted by the zoning limits, that is the motion in the second. But we have plenty of questions, comments, concerns and debate left, Council Member Christensen and Council Member Waters. Okay, I'm all for adding density in the right places. The right places are downtown and some of the other areas where we already have apartments and things like that. When you start adding more and more and more density to a neighborhood, what you take away is your neighbor's right to any kind of sunshine in their backyard, your neighbor's right to any kind of privacy, your neighbor's right to any kind of peace and quiet and having the neighborhood that they moved into. I think we can do that in a smart way by just limiting things as we did with ADUs and STRs to not that many per neighborhood. But once we start just saying, do what you want, you know and it doesn't have to be affordable, you can just keep adding and keep adding and keep adding because I have lived in big cities and this is what happens, it creeps along until everybody's filled up every available piece of space and that kind of undermines our carbon sequestration and the ability for the ground to absorb things it messes up drainage, it messes up, it stresses out sewer systems, it stresses out parking, it stresses out everything. So I really think we need to be careful about doing this. I think it's fine for people to do this but I want them to be making it affordable instead of just doubling their income and monetizing their neighborhood, turning their neighborhood basically into a commercial district. So I'm not gonna vote for this unless it's option one. Okay, Dr. Waters. Thanks, I see Harold wanting to get in. I'll come in behind Harold. Yeah, I don't know, yeah. Harold, you're at the bottom of my screen, sorry buddy. That's fine. For some reason my, just these are bifocals and they're, for whatever it's worth, they're progressive lenses. And so if I'm like this, I see the top three rows but I don't see Mariputam or Harold. So unless there's movement, I'm like a dinosaur, I'm a T-Rex. If there's no movement, you gotta weigh that ham, all right? Dr. Waters, sorry, Harold, let's go with you then Dr. Waters. Yeah, the only thing I wanted to clarify, so you've got two different issues here. You have one allowing the one additional and then you have a zoning issue. And so even if you could allow the one additional that doesn't override the zoning if you can't have that many units in that area. So the zoning's always going to regulate how many units you can have. This is simply saying if you could have additional units by zoning, how do you want to do this? So I wanted to kind of pull those two things apart for each, from each other. Do I have the floor? Yes, you do. Yeah, thanks. So I just would like some clarification on exactly what the motion is. I think of what I heard is that if you are gonna build an ADU, that's not subject to the ordinance, but if you're gonna build a duplex, it is. We're expanding. We're talking about going from one dwelling unit to two, meaning taking a single family home to a duplex. Or a duplex to a triplex, a triplex to a duplex. So I'm accurate. The motion is, if you're gonna go from a single family home to a duplex, the motion is that it's subject to the ordinance. No, it's exempt. Okay. So let's just clarify. An ADU or a single home to a duplex would be exempt. A triplex, the third unit would be subject to the ordinance. No. Yeah, anything about- That's all I need to know. I'm gonna vote against the motion. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Eagle-Fairing. I see your hand, Marcia, but Council Member Eagle-Fairing hasn't said anything tonight. So I'm down. You were up first, but I'm just trying to give everybody voice. Yeah, I'm trying to wrap my head around this one because, okay, so if you had an existing home, is it talking about expanding it? So using up yard space or is it just converting the existing space into two parts? Or like I think about where we used to live on Bowen Street, people had converted their houses, like the top part was the house and then the basement or was the additional duplex. So it wasn't expanding space and would this differentiate that? So this, the motion is only pertaining to whether or not the expansion is exempt to the, what do we call this? The, it's getting late. What's the words that we use? The inclusionary housing code. It does not change zoning. It doesn't change zoning. It doesn't say they can do it automatically. It just says, if they do get permission, if there is a, if they wanna do it, do they have to pay into the inclusionary zoning fund or are they exempt? But as far as whether or not they're permitted, the size, the variances, that all still says the same. The motion does not touch on that. Only if there is a. That would kind of change my mind though, because if they're utilizing the space in their yard to add another, an additional unit, I would go with option one. If it's just taking your same house and not expanding, I, yeah. Why is he saying? So you're saying that you say, you're viewing a difference between going from one house contained to two units versus one house to an ADU. Yes. You view a difference. Yes, I do. And so ADUs are already exempted under the code and we're not proposing that that be changed. Okay. A couple of examples that we've had. So one homeowner came to us and they wanted to put two units in the basement and one unit upstairs. So they're going from a single family home to two, three, four, a quadplex basically. So in that instance, they didn't change the footprint. So this could be either adding units within the existing footprint or they could have added on and used up yard space. So either one could apply on this. ADUs would be exempt. And my understanding is what the amendment was that one additional unit could be added and be exempt. But if it was two or more existing footprint or new add-on, that would be subject to the inclusionary housing and ADUs stay exempt. And there's very clear definition around what's an ADU. Okay, so if we pass the option two, then that is only the addition of one more unit. So if we go for two to three, then it is subject to the inclusionary housing. If they already had two units and went to three, that would just be adding one. So that would be subject to the amendment, yeah. Okay, thanks. Is my understanding, Mark? Council Member Martin, you might have a better explanation. Says it was your amendment. Well, it sort of was. Council Member Martin. Thank you. The mayor changed my proposal. I was proposing to handle it as two motions. And I think we'd be done by now if we'd done it that way because all these complexities are putting it in. So let's return to the Mayor Pro Tem's original motion and vote just on whether you can divide an existing single family unit into a duplex and have it be exempt. And then what I would suggest instead of my preview of coming attractions was let's let Cathy move the two to three and the three to the four into number nine and 10 so that we can think about it more and not be here all night. Right, but there's a motion on the floor that belongs to the Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. So to a certain extent, it does sound like Council Member Martin has asked me or is retracting an amendment or I can not accept a friendly amendment that wasn't technically offered maybe. That's right, it wasn't offered. It was going to be a second amendment. Yeah, yeah, I understand that point. And in that case, I will reject the friendly amendment at this time. And I just would also like to say that in the concept of folks worrying a lot about this when I said zoning requirements, I also am very well cognizant that each zoning district within our city has a density cap, okay? And so when we were talking about ADUs, we were talking about density caps and I was suggesting at that time that we count ADUs towards said density cap, which would be essentially the same issue with converting single family to duplex or triplex or quadplex, it doesn't really matter. It adds density units to whatever that acreage unit is, say eight units per acre, which I believe is our current residential single family requirement. And then so on and so forth as we go up from to residential multi-neighborhood or mixed neighborhood to residential high density and as we go along or multifamily, I mean, used to be high density, it's multifamily now. Anyway, the point being is that there are density caps and you're not going to drastically change the character of a neighborhood because of these density caps. And so I don't want there to be some sort of huge fear out there that all of a sudden you're in a single family neighborhood and there's an additional 16 units. It's just not going to happen on your block. That's my point, but I'm happy to go with the motion I originally made. All right, so Council Member Waters. Yeah, just I should have asked the question when I, before I signed off. What's the rationale for you or the Mayor Pro Tem in exempting an ADU from the ordinance but requiring a duplex, adding a second unit as a duplex to be subject to the ordinance? In both cases you're... It's the exact opposite. The ADU is exempt already. I know it is. The motion and the exemption is saying this is exempt. Well, that's the question I asked and I had a heads go and no and I had an explanation. The motion is that if you've got a unit and you're adding one, two or one to two, two to three, three to four, four to five, that new unit will be exempt, just like an ADU. Then I'm going to vote for them on you. That's what I wanted to clarify. You're right. I just, as long as we're not treating the... Yeah, that's nice. Adding a duplex one way and an ADU another way. We're treating an additional unit in the same... One unit no matter what. The one additional unit is exempt. Thank you. Correct, yes. I'll vote for the motion. All right, Council Member Christensen. Council Member Pecks, loving this, welcome to 2021. Council Member Christensen, floor is yours. In the example that Kathy gave, that same homeowner could create one unit a year and all of them would eventually be exempt because he'd be creating one after another, after another, after another. Or would that, how would that play out? Your house would be very small. Also density caps. So in my opinion on that question, we would be tracking and we would know if they were adding one a year and one exemption would be the, we'd have to add that into the language. So that would be per property. Yeah, okay. So Harold, sorry, you're at the bottom. Yeah, I just want to reiterate again in case people are watching. And so here's the point. Somebody can come into Kathy and go, I want to convert this house into a duplex. Kathy, Heidi, or Molly. I want to convert this into a duplex. At the end of the day, they may be able to do it via the affordable housing ordinance. But if zoning says they can't, they can't do it. And so I want to just make that clear. So to your point, there's two checks to, this is what Council Member Rodriguez or Mayor Pro Tem said. There's actually two checks, A, Kathy, B zoning because you can't allow that growth to go. And so zoning is always going to overrule on the affordable housing ordinance. Yeah, zoning is the first check. We just come in afterwards and apply it as affordable housing, we're not approving plans. It's just how the inclusionary housing is applied. Correct. Not changing any variance codes, et cetera, then are we going to make them pay into the inclusionary zoning fund? Council Member Hidalgo-Ferring. So this is just, I just want a clarification for people who are listening as well. So if we pass the option to exclude the single family conversion to a duplex from inclusionary housing, it's not going to create a system of development gone out of control. Where our neighborhoods are gonna have this influx of, because of the zoning component that's going to put a cap on that. So I just wanted to have that clarification as we move forward. So primarily for people listening. Okay, go ahead, Kathy. Can I ask a point of clarification? So as I've heard this discussion, are we really talking about option three as opposed to option two where we're applying inclusionary housing only when more than one unit is added? Not specifically just single family to a duplex. I thought I heard discussion around if it was a triplex to a quadplex or a duplex to a triplex, adding one more unit is allowed, but anything above that, regardless of where you started out would be exempt or would not be exempt. So that's just a point of clarification. Are we really, is it really number three? I would draw my motion and subsequently move option three. Can you put some, can you put a second? Second. Can you put option three back up? So that is option three. Yes. All right, okay. So who was the person who said we should take down the slides while we're discussing this on Mayor Bagley can see all the hands? Me. Mayor Pro Tem, well done. Well played, my friend. That was funny. We just got punked by the Mayor Pro Tem. I'll second that. So it's been moved and seconded that we go with option three. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose say nay. Nay. All right, the motion carries six to one with council member Christensen in the dissent. We discovered a new way to count to three people. I think that's great. Typical government in action. All right, let's keep going to the slides. Okay, one of the situations that came up was a property line adjustment. This proposal was to move the property line between two lots so then an existing driveway would be located completely on the lot of the homeowner. Typically a lot line would not have triggered affordable housing or any kind of a review but because this was complicated due to the driveway location a replat was required which does trigger the process to go through inclusionary housing. So the question is, do we want to maintain the language in the inclusionary housing code and continue to have minor lot line adjustments subject to IH if there is a replat that's needed and deal with those issues on a case-by-case basis or do we want to amend the code to exclude the specific type of replat? Take the slide down please. So that said, do we have a mayor pro tem? There you go, we got it. So if it truly is that specific, I'm okay with the exemption on that. But that's extremely specific and so I'm just curious what you would consider other examples of that besides that specific example. Otherwise I'd be more than happy to move option two, I believe. Is that a motion? I just want to answer the question first before I make that motion. So Heidi, do you have any background on this? This was a very specific one and I don't know if she's still on or not, if she has anything to jump in as well on what other kind of anomalies we might see but this was a very specific one that did come up and I don't know that we've seen any other weird ones like this yet, not that it couldn't come up. Mayor Begley and Mayor Pro Tem. So yeah, I think lot line adjustments in my professional opinion certainly wouldn't meet the threshold of necessitating an inclusionary housing ad. However, I think the way the original ordinance was written there wasn't a clear cut way for someone to exclude them. So I think this is certainly an anomaly. Well, I think if they're replatting in order to or changing a lot line in order to have a developable lot that's quite different than this particular instance as well. I see how changing lot lines could necessitate falling into the IH. One thing I also had a question on but this could be answered later possibly but I'm gonna throw it out there now is that it seemed like a lot of the communication in our council com was that specific things were hitting a certain level of review in the development process that were throwing them into the IH category. And so that becomes some of my question because the specific example cited obviously doesn't make an exemption or it does make exemption status to me but as somebody pointed out hypothetically you could totally redraw a lot line that would add enough space to build an additional unit as we were just talking about. And so I guess because of what assistant city manager Marsh just said, I'd rather do this one on a case by case as far as redrawing lot lines. So I guess I move option one based on hypotheticals alone the specific the specificity of the example given that I would have advocated for an exemption. So I think this one seems a little up in the air. I'll second that. Council Member Martin, your first question I'll second that Council Member Martin, your fingers again, we're moving fast and we'll go with Council Member Christensen. Well, I don't have a comment because of the direction that the Mayor Pro Tem went. So your fingers were still moving fast Council Member Christensen. Yeah, I would support what Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez said. I think that it is very weird. I mean, we don't want to make development and renovation impossible, but we also don't want, I just think it's better to review this on a case by case basis since it's kind of a strange little anomaly waters. Thanks Mayor Bagley. Kathy, is it, is this like the one exception that's come along? If that's the case, I'm comfortable with the motion, but I do have a question. How often, how much staff time has spent reviewing the exceptions that you could reduce staff time if you just change the ordinance to exclude the kinds of replatting you're talking about? Well, I don't remember exactly how much time we spent on this. We did have multiple discussions with planning staff and with the city attorney's office around this one and what to do about it. Some might be easier than others to move forward on. I don't think it's an inordinate amount of time. And I think we resolved it, if I remember right internally, Heidi correct me if I'm wrong and it didn't come to council for a resolution that we all fairly agreed that this really wouldn't trigger inclusionary housing because of what happened. So I think dealing or leaving it on a case by case basis until we get more data would be perfectly fine. Okay. We need a second. We've got a motion for number. No, I seconded it. So we have a motion on the table by mayor pro 10 which I seconded for option one which basically is taken on a case by case basis. All in, Harold, you look like you're confused. Okay, all right, all in favors. All right. Eugene. Go ahead. Yep. Go ahead, Eugene. Mayor and council, there is really no case by case basis. It either does or doesn't trigger inclusionary housing. And so if you leave it as it is, it will trigger. I think staff, if I recall correctly said, we would let this one go and fix it in the code. So if you leave it in, it does trigger inclusionary housing then you get into an E six circumstance where it has to meet the criteria that creates more affordable housing and we get kind of stuck. So the case by case basis, I think is not an accurate representation. Replats trigger inclusionary housing now. And a property line adjustment is a replant. All right. So March, I see a hold on one second. It's going to be Marsha then Polly as soon as we finish. Mayor Pro Tem hearing that, what do you want to do with your motion? Well, now I have a question in the concept of leaving it as is versus completely exempting. If we completely exempt, will we have some sort of recourse in the concept that somebody does adjust lot line or replant to add additional units without triggering the code, the affordable housing code? I think if we, so basically it's not a case by case basis. What we're saying is that we're going to keep it in the code. We're going to include them in inclusionary housing fund and if we choose later on to make an exemption, then we'll do that. Well, that was my question. Is there recourse for the specific example cited as far as just moving a lot line for our driveway? So we can allow an exemption to happen, even though there's no case by case basis to make set exemption. That's my question. It's happened once, right? So, all right. We'll go with Harold. Go Joni first and then I'll go after Joni. Okay, Joni. Mayor Bagley, members of council, it might be important to understand that the code for a lot line adjustment limits that lot line adjustment to no more than 10 feet. So it's a pretty succinct and basically you can only affect two adjacent lots. So the zoning code is really specific about a lot line adjustment. And so I would say in the 20 years I've been working in the planning department. I've probably done at least one of those a year and they have always been for something where perhaps a neighbor is giving someone five feet or they're moving something after the fact to accommodate utilities. So that's the typical standard for a lot line adjustment if that helps. Mayor Potehm, does that help? Sure. Is there the ability, as was pointed out earlier also by the assistant city manager too, or maybe it was by the housing and community investment director to say buy into a neighboring lot to get the lot line adjusted to add more space for your development? Certainly if 10 feet provides that that would be a workaround I guess as you're indicating. Okay, I guess I just worry about dinging people for wanting to get their own driveway or what have you. But at the same time, I have an issue knowing that there's very creative people out there which I'm not going to fault them for but there's very creative people out there that can figure out some infill projects that could probably bypass us. And I guess at the end of the day, nothing's perfect. So I'm gonna go with I guess keeping the code as is. Okay, I'm gonna second that because we just one way or another we need to- Motion. All right, council member, yeah, that was a motion. I'll second it. Council member Martin. So it seems to me that in the example given it was impossible for the number of units total on the two pieces of property to change. And so isn't there some criterion that if the number of allowed units or existing units on after a replant plate doesn't change, then it shouldn't be retroactively subjected to inclusionary housing. I mean, that would be a really terrible result. If I'm sitting there with a triplex and I give a move my lot line so that my neighbor's driveway is in his own yard and suddenly I have to make an affordable unit out of my existing triplex. I mean, that's not a good result. Councilor Christensen. Yeah, I was just wondering why it, if you're not going to build anything why a lot line would trigger an inclusionary housing thing that if somebody eventually decides to build something then yeah, I just don't understand why that triggers a replant. I think it's, yes, I'm sure that Harold will tell me. So I think the issue is the letter of the law versus a practical application in this case and that's what the struggle is. So under the zoning code, if you have to adjust the lot lines, you have to do a replant. Even if that's adjusting it so you can build a driveway. So the practical application of this is they're adjusting the lot line to build a driveway. But because the way it's written is connected to the replant it's what's putting that in the IHPs. And so that's at times, I think this is where Mayor Pro Tem was going at. And you're giving us direction today and we can think about this, but there's a point too where we give the admin planning some discretion and maybe we look at it from the standpoint of if the replant is not going to create a condition for additional units to be developed, they have the ability, and again, we got to work the legal piece of this where it's not beholden to the IHPs because it really is a practical application versus the letter of the law and that's what's catching this thing in this situation. So one solution maybe is give staff that discretion, one solution may be to give staff discretion if it's not going to create the scenario for additional housing units, that can be a staff level decision. And then we'll figure out how to wordsmith it. So basically, to restate the motion, Mayor Pro Tem, I'm hearing the motion to mean that it will be exempt so long as it does not create new housing units. My original motion was to leave the code as is knowing that we can't do a case by case basis. So I'm not sure what the wordsmithing would be because in concept to me, that sounds like case by case, but I'm not putting the words into obviously legal or staff's mouths on this one. That's just what it sounds like to me. I'd be happy to change the motion if they can figure out how to thread that needle. But right now where I'm sitting at, there's not a needle to thread without any sort of wording for us to review. So that's why I'm sitting at leaving the code as is on this particular item. All right, so we have a motion to leave the code as is. Dr. Waters, go ahead and say what you have to say. Thanks, I'm gonna vote against leaving the code as is because it sounds to me like Harold just laid out option three, which is to come back with language that rather than try to wordsmith something at whatever time it is on tonight with another item on this agenda, that option three would be to come back with language that is more specific about the kinds of things that would be and would not be subjected to the code, which is where I think we ought to end up. But based on what I've heard, I'm not gonna vote to leave it as is. All right, so any other night, any other night I would let us go to 11 and I'll tell you guys and just end the meeting, but Sherrie Malloy I know is really concerned about left-hand Creek Park and she was extremely nice to me and said some very nice things to me when I got divorced, when I was really needing some support. So this is payback for just being a good citizen and treating your elected leaders just like humans. So I'm gonna move that we extend the meeting beyond the 11 o'clock limit. Okay, back in. All right, it's been moved by myself and seconded by Council Member Pack on favor say, oh, sorry, Council Member Christensen. I think we're gonna have a lot of discussion at the rest of this. I would move that we vote on this, the property line adjustment and then move on to the other, the riparian area, because we have a lot of people who've spoken on it and finish up number five to nine next week, if possible, or have a special meeting. Can we push it off till next week, Harold? That can be a problem. Or what we could do, what we could also do is, we could also vote on this. Let's go ahead and address the left-hand Creek Park riparian restoration. Then we can actually move to suspend the meeting and then just pick up, finish this, then go into our next week's meeting. You don't want us to do that, Harold. I'm sorry. You're on mute, Harold. You look beautiful talking, but we wanna hear you. You're still, yep, you can do this, Harold. The mute button, hit the space bar, buddy. There you go. No, it's my mouse. It's my mouse. We don't have anything on general business next week. We have the items we need to add for you all, so that'll let us move it. So we could move, we'll just move this on. You don't need to continue it. This is just a study session item. There's a motion on the table. Aaron, since it's coming back theoretically, it's coming back next week. Mayor, do you wanna vote on the motion to extend the meeting first? All in favor of extending, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say nay. All right, motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Don. It's your motion, Aaron, or Mayor Pro Tem, you can do whatever you want, but do we want Tim Hull and Eugene made and maybe provide some language that would provide some clarification? Okay, this one obviously has been slightly more tricky than some of the other questions, I think. And as a real estate guy, I'm always happy to continue talking about real estate. So I'm more than happy to continue the conversation. All right, so I'm gonna move to the table. So I guess I'll withdraw my motion. Cool, but I'm gonna move that we table this conversation the next week. Say it again. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say nay. Harold and Tim, could you guys just put together some language that would address this that we can just vote on and you guys could like look smarter and save the day and stuff? Okay, thank you. All right, let's go on to, did somebody else say something? I didn't see movement. Okay, let's go on to the left-hand creek park riparian restoration. Please. Hey, David. Hey, good evening, Mayor and council members. David Bell, director of parks and natural resources. Appreciate you taking this forward because I do know this is important for a lot of the members of the community as well as council. I have a quick PowerPoint presentation to kind of set the stage for this. With that being said, I think some of the stuff that I heard this evening, I can add some clarification that might make this easier for council to make this fairly quick as well. So again, this is really kind of a restoration of the creek area where we had the BMX track and the bike area made along the creek. Next slide, please. Again, just kind of putting in perspective where this park sits over there along left-hand creek, left-hand park. Next slide. It's really hard to see John Fier. I had written a story about this. I want to go and take a look at it with the tree canopy. It's difficult to see from above, but as you get into the trees, these next slides will kind of show kind of the impact that was created down along the creek. Next slide. This area was always intended to be more of a natural area. I did have one access area so people could walk down to the creek, but there was fencing. There was signage in place to try to make sure people understood that. And we definitely want to look at throughout any options we look at how we enhance that signage. So next slide. This I'm going to use, this is a point to talk about some of the damage caused by the individual kids that I know were contacted by the papering and really were kind of focused at the vet. If you look at this area, this is more than one or two kids working this area. And when we found out about this, this is a piece where I think the city needs to look at our process too, that not having a range of patrols that are looking at this all the time, this probably should not have gotten to this level of impact had we had the patrols out there, I think we need to be monitored in these areas. This was the result of Dan Wolfer's natural resources were about there doing some restoration work where we really came upon this. So the idea of taking a certain group of kids that were out there at that time and to take credit for doing some of the work, I think there's significant work here that was done by multiple kids over many, many years as I talked to people in that area too, that they had kids that were out in that area as well. So if you want to pursue that line of restorative justice, you really would be having to take those individual kids at that point in time, be sure you can get my summons or a ticket and then using restorative justice as an alternative to do that. So I think we've kind of passed that point. And David, I'm gonna actually, I mean, just to be clear, city council, somebody else wants to debate it, I don't think we should, but there was a lot of talk about restorative justice, punishment, fines, fees, city council has zero input on the enforcement of our laws. That should be up to code enforcement and the police. So let's don't even talk about that. Great, I just want to make sure that we knew that we did something that, again, I think it's the same place that city staff in this position was now that the spots really pursue restorative justice with those individuals as well. So we'll go to the next slide at that point. Again, I think this is, as you can tell, lots of use over time. Next slide. Next slide. Again, that continued impact there. Again, just trying to reinforce the idea that this was long-term use by probably lots of different individuals. Next slide. So I think one of the things I can maybe help, council, as they look at these different options, we heard the public that wrote in and also recommended option two. The real reason the staff recommended option one, and it should be a piece that I could have made clearer when we said we're using $9,000 to leave the BMX area in place, it was still to use fencing and signage to close it down. So there wasn't really a rewarding of individuals from doing that. It really was saying that we recognize there's a bigger cost here, and we can work that into our work schedule and our budget. We would need $9,000 to go ahead, reinforce, rebuild and put some additional fencing and reinforce our signage to close that area down. We'd also bring in community rangers this summer and have them out helping control that area. Again, once they're always our ultimate goal is to get voluntary compliance just using education, enforcement, people being out there to try to remind people. So option one and option two really are the same other than the time because staff was really looking at not asking council to give additional funds at this point to speed the process up. We could speed that process up if we had those additional funds and it would be something that we would be willing to do. I also heard from the community about volunteer work and we have worked with Wildland Restoration, they've been a great partner over the years especially in riparian areas. They have moved from Boulder to Laumont so they're not right here in our community and we know that we can work with them to do some work there too. So I think as you look at options one and two, it really is, does council want to use their discretionary funds? Staff would then could re-prioritize our projects and we could try to address this sooner, but one and two really do the same thing. We would be closing it down under number one. We would just be trying to work it into our budgeting and our existing CIPs timeline. Next slide. And that's as simple as I can make it here, Stephen. Mayor Bagley. Mayor Bagley, we're looking at you. We're gonna go with council member, can you not hear me? Yes, can you hear me? We can hear you now, but we were waving at you and you were ignoring us. Oh, well that was because you guys were obviously not waving strong enough. All right, council member Peck, were you screaming or were you waving? Because when everybody came back on and my screen was still and then now you're all moving. So council member Peck, did you? Thank you. I went on mute. I move option two. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded for option two. Council member Waters. And then council member. Mike, everybody else, I think we need to restore this area. I'm just, if we're gonna go to option two, we just heard David say that basically the effects of option one and two are the same. And I'm puzzling David or Harold, we delayed dealing with this for a number of reasons that we all understand. I guess I'm a little puzzled why we didn't make some provision as we were building a budget. We're in the first meeting of a new year and now we're talking about spending $35,000 for which we didn't budget. And I understand we would take it out of a contingency fund on $35,000 on day one or meeting one of a new year as opposed to 9,000. Is there a reason why we didn't budget for this knowing that we were gonna deal with this early in the year? I think the reason we came with option one and two is really that we feel we would have the budget that $9,000 really would be staffed using our internal budgets to manage this. To get it on a faster track though is where we really want to say it. In council priorities, whereas this fall, it may not fall as quickly as council would like to see it or some of the other members of our community would like to see it happen if we work it into our budget and into our timeline. By coming back to council to give you an update to say here we're at and if you hear from the public, we know what the priority is still but it may not be our top priority. If council would like to get some digital funds we will then make sure that we are meeting those priority timelines. All right, it'll be interesting to see what kind of demands occur or needs materialize for which we would spend contingency funds as the year unfolds. It just seems a little out of sequence because this isn't a surprise about what it's gonna cost. We knew that before we finished building a budget. So I'm gonna jump in here again. Hold on guys, okay, so just so you know, you have the floor, Caspar, pick after this we're gonna go Harold, then Marsha, then Paulie, okay? And Paulie, then you're gonna be first the next couple of times because I realized that, okay, let's do that. So David, I understand the need to act swiftly on rebuilding this riparian area. So my question is, if we use contingency funds in the next budgeting process is there a chance for us to get those funds back so that we can use them for other important issues that are gonna be coming along? And that would be an amendment to my motion actually. I would have no problem looking at our budget and see how that fits in. Again, I think that's what we were really trying to do is say we could probably find these dollars over time within our budget. So if we had a up-fronted budget, we could use those same dollars that I would be finding later to return dollars to the council budget. I'm gonna say that probably looking unable to look at Harold or Jim, if I can do that but I'm sure there's a process in place where we could actually take dollars that we would have used it in a further out of timeframe to make this happen, it may happen, you know. I need Dale to jump in. Can I interrupt just real quick, guys? I'm sorry, and I see council member Martin, you've got your hand up, don't fire me. But I wanted to respond to the council member Watters. This issue did come up in your budget process. We did bring it up towards the end of the budget process. And I don't know if you recall, but Jim Golden did set aside additional funding as opposed to allocating it at the time in your contingency funds or you to be able to respond to this issue. And so we knew it, you're correct. We knew it going into the budget. Our budgets get prepared back in May though, but by the time we got into the September, October, we knew the cost, we knew where we were. And Jim mentioned that to y'all. And I think, and I think Jim's still on the line, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that we did try to make some provision to set additional funding aside in your contingency to address this particular issue if you so chose to do that. Thanks, Dale, for the quick refresh. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor Begley. I will not vote for option two if the funds have to come out of the council contingency fund. I have been speaking to Mr. Dominguez and Mr. Bell, both about other priorities for restoring the depredations on our park system that I think are in fact a higher priority than the restoration of this area. And so I would like to see the area closed off and protected which is what the staff recommendation is. And then consider separately what our priorities are. The reason for this is that is because I have been hearing from constituents who are saying that we've got conflicts between our homeless populations use of our parks when we don't have restroom facilities are in them and because those aren't there during the wintertime, there is the parks are rendered uninhabitable, things like that. I think that's a higher priority. I do. And so I would rather see those things that cause health issues and conflict in the neighborhoods be addressed first, that said basic human decency issues. And we can work in the riparian restoration over the course of the warm months and come up with funding however we see fit. But I don't see any reason to go against the staff recommendation and rush to restoring this particular little piece of the riparian area with the understanding that yes, it's gonna get restored. And having been burned throughout this discussion with complex motions, I don't wanna do it now, but I have a proposal that I could talk to the staff about and maybe get on a future agenda about controlling the time and getting volunteer workers to work on this piece of restoration. And maybe the amount of volunteers that come from the community could be a measure of how much we really wanna accelerate this, which also introduces an aspect of restorative justice into the matter without actually going through the legal system to do it because we could never identify all the perpetrators, but we would like to be able to let the guilty come forward and bend their backs a little bit to do this work. So for now, I'm just saying I would prefer item number one and I won't vote for option number two myself. We have a motion on the table, number two is on the table, correct? You made that motion, Joan, wasn't it? So I said to the council member, Christian's done, then we're gonna go up mayor pro town. So in the last few days, we've gotten many letters from people who I have a great deal of respect for, Ruby Bowman, Paula Fitzgerald, who is the queen of parks, J.D. Sherry Malloy, J.D. Glites, Paige Lewis, Anna Rivas, Nadine Lester, Susan Summers, Hazel Gordon, Kathy Clark, Karen Dike, Anthony Cartridge, Jenny Burke, whoops. Anyway, all of them are advocating that we do, that we do number two. And I thought about that for a long time. I really originally thought that number one would be sufficient for now, but it doesn't really, you know, things will start growing in March. It's now January. And if we're going to restore this, we'll have to wait another whole year. If we make this, if we find the funds to do it this spring, then we will have more, it's just the right time in terms of what grows and in terms of flooding and in terms of spring runoff. I just think we should actually fix this, but I would caution people to not think in terms of these young people as being somehow terrible or anything. We were all young, we all did dumb things, but there are now twice as many people in Longmont as when I moved here 30 years ago. There is very little free land. And so I don't blame them for what they did. I understand wanting to have fun on your bicycle. It's like other things you can do, but there needs to be some education component here to the idea that just because something is open, but peers open and it appears abandoned, it isn't. It's somebody else's property, somebody else has to pay for liability insurance, somebody else to pay for maintenance. You can't just build on a piece of land and their parents should have told them that. And it's just too bad because it's a great idea. I admire their hard work. I admire the fact that they got 2000 people to sign a petition. So let's see if they'll get 2000 people to come help restore, okay? Which is what Marcia suggested. And we could make this a really good positive thing for our community. Although technically it's called adverse possession. You can technically steal the land if these kids actually have been doing it long enough. Although I think Colorado changed the law, but anyway, we won't get into that. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. So I'm just gonna start out with the fact that I support option one because to me, foremost, we need to protect from further degradation. That's a one on my list of things. The other thing is, I don't think has really been spoken about too much is that I always felt that as a council with the way we use contingency funds, there seems to be to me in a way a precedent, either with helping people, helping nonprofits or helping businesses, generally speaking, versus what to me appears to be something that, while also has not necessarily been outlined for us, the difference in timelines between the expedited use of contingency funds and how long that process would take versus the $9,000 protecting of it, regardless of option one, option two, and option two being, or I mean, and option one being the gradual restoration of it through normal budgeting process or reallocation process that Director Bell was somewhat speaking of in relation to the staff recommendation. So I haven't heard yet the difference in timeline, but I think that based on the fact that it's only January 5th, we have a lot of unknowns facing our community, not knowing exactly what the rest of the economy is gonna look like throughout the rest of the year, not knowing exactly what the pandemic is gonna look like as throughout the vaccination rollout, which as we just heard, looks like actually late summer, early fall at this point before a good amount of people are vaccinated. And so I'd really prefer to keep the contingency fund as much in place as possible to continue ideally helping with housing assistance if needed or small business assistance if needed, because all things considered, the contingency fund is not that big and a $30,000 hit to the contingency fund is rather significant to that fund specifically. That's why I prefer option one because it's still the promise that the city is going to restore the greenway. It's just maybe not as expedient as some folks would like. And again, I'm only okay with it because it's already been expressed that we are going to attempt or make all attempts to protect from further degradation of the greenway. And just in anecdote, I did grow up in this specific area of town and as a young boy, we had a bike, an illegal bike course on city land that was at one point taken out by the city to make the underpass to go into Left Hand Creek Park. And while there was not as many people living in Longmont at the time, it was still a big blow to me as a child, but I had no concept that that land was mine to do with as I pleased, you know. And so it just has an anecdote for those people to say, you don't have kids, you don't understand what kids are going through. Actually the city tore down my bike course right in that exact same area 25 years ago or 23 years ago. Just as an anecdote, this is not a new thing. So anyway. I'm going to insist that you recuse yourself. The conflict of interest here is apparent. I'm calling you out publicly. Kidding, by the way. All right, Council Member Peck. Thank you. I'll withdraw my motion, but I also think that because it's extremely late and we're not making much sense as I listened to us. Yeah. Amen. Here, here. Motion is withdrawn. Is somebody going to make a motion? So I do want to say something though. And we do have enough money in our community fund. And we also, I agree with Councilwoman Martin, but I haven't heard any proposals as to what to do with that money come forward yet. So Harold, can you expound on what's going on here? Harold? Yeah. Thanks. I've been trying to, so a couple of questions. Hey, as this was coming in, obviously the request in the budget are pushed early in in the process. Right. That wasn't part of what was submitted and what I considered to the best to my recollection going through the budget process. It came in much later. So that's the question to Council Member Waters on this. When we look at Council contingency, what I wanted to let you all know is if you remember, we carried, there were two pieces to this that we talked about. And there's other components that we looked at within the budget, but this one, we carried money over from this contingency. Plus, if you remember on the CARES funding, we replenished the money that Council put in for the mill program. So there was another 40,000, or so 40,000 of that was from CARES. So we're carrying over next year, 102,000 into the Council contingency. And we've allocated another 60,000 into the Council contingency for 2021. So you'll have about a hundred and I think 62,000 on that. And Jim's working on some of the numbers on this. And then we had some other pieces that we need to look at. So I wanted to clarify that too, in terms of the numbers. So I think I answered some of the questions. So can I simplify this? Let's just quickly, one, what do you wanna do? And then two, how are we gonna pay for it? So are we gonna, so are we going to, somebody make a motion to leave it alone or fix it? And then the next question is, how are we gonna pay for it? And lastly, when are we gonna do it? So Council Member Riddleford. You know, I would like to make a motion to select, to stay with 35,000 to fix it. However, so use Council contingency funds minus the 9,000. So the 9,000, the city, the parks budget would cover that. And then the 26,000 would come from the Council contingency funds. Currently we're at 67,000, is that correct? Around that, but you said, by the year's end, we're gonna be at 162,000. You're at 67,000 now because that's what was budgeted. Yes. Before the new year, I got the direction from Council to carry over those additional funds. And remember that has to come in through the carryover appropriation piece. So before I second this, the motion you just made was, you said 26, but you meant 36,000 from contingency to fix it immediately. Is that what you're saying? So the 35,000 was the amount they gave us. I wanna subtract 9,000. That was 45, or was it 35? 35. 35, okay. 35. So, and when would you wanna fix it? When? As soon as possible. Okay, so the motion is to fix the riparian area, do away with the bike track, as soon as possible using 26 or $26,000 of council contingency money. I will second that because it's late and just wanna get on with it. So council member Christensen. Just one clarification. We were going to send $5,000 to the Lodin-Raphael, correct? That was done, that was done, right, Errol? Jim, were my numbers correct? What I said to council? Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Dr. Waters. Yeah, I'm gonna, I'm more council member Martin is I would like to see this area restored, but I'm gonna support the staff recommendation. They know what they're doing. Not that I'm gonna do that in every case, but it's not like they didn't think about this and we've got, we do have a lot of unknowns going into the year. So I'm gonna be happy to see the area restored, but I am not gonna vote for option two. Obviously if there are four votes, that's the path we're gonna take. David Bell. Just real quick, mayor, I'd like to respond to council member Christensen and mayor Frotam. Those letters, I read those two and from people I definitely respect as well. As we start looking at planting season, fall is definitely a good planting season for grasses and stuff along those rest lines. Wetland areas, we do have another windows. We started looking at how we can look at kind of facing that budget out. So that goes back to mayor Frotam's question about what is that next timeline? So I would say we'd definitely try to be shooting for a fall, maybe restoration, planting and seeding. If we missed that window, it would be the spring the following year. So I would see this being done within a year either way with that commitment to the area and that expedited means of getting it closed down. So we do protect it in the interim. So what you're saying is if we vote on this motion, you'd close it off, not let anybody use it and then reseed it and fix it next fall. That's exactly what happened. Yeah. So we've got a motion that would basically take $26,000 out of council contingency to fix the riparian area as soon as possible. And we're hearing that it's just what Mr. Bell said. And yeah, that's a motion. It's been seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, opposed say nay. Nay. Nay. All right. So I voted nay. Who else voted? Do we have four votes? Interesting. All right. Which for what? Against the motion. The motion was to apply. I voted against the motion. That's what I mean. So the motion fails. I move option one. Okay. Hold on a second. The motion fails with myself, Council Member Martin, Dr. Waters and Mayor Pro Temer-Rigas against. Well, option one, specifically Dr. Waters, will you, instead of just saying option one, will you clarify the motion? It's late. I move. We leave the disturbing where a repairing air corridor as is. Keep the area from suffering additional damage. There would need to be a fence repair, additional fencing and new signage. Would cost approximately $90,000. Increase city range of patrols and the eventual restoration of the disturbed riparian corridor would be absorbed by the parks and open space budgets. That's my motion. Okay. It's been removed and seconded for option one. Would that would also entail that no one would be allowed to use that bike? Correct. It's going to be fenced off, posted and patrolled. All right. And Mr. Bell before we vote, is it possible to come up with money to get this done in the fall anyway? Harold's saying yes. Yeah. Yeah. So it looks like we're going to get the same result. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right. The motion carries unanimously and it looks like we're going to rope it off. We're not going to spend council contingency and it's going to come out of the budget. And it looks like Harold's going to try to make us all happy by fall. All right. Thanks guys. I'm going to challenge him to do it a little bit quicker. And that's my job. Yeah. I just think it's funny because tonight's been interesting. I guess we're out of practice for a couple of weeks. All right. Let's move on to a final call public and by to be heard. Let's take two minutes and see if anyone's still awake watching us. We'll be back in two. All right. Is there anybody in the queue? No mayor. We have no callers at this point. I didn't think we'd have any. All right. Let's go ahead and move on to mayor and council comments. Anybody want to say anything so pressing that it's willing to keep us up past 1130? Council member Christensen. No pressure. First, I just want to say I was very happy that we had a proclamation for Nino Gallo. He was a very strong and kind man who was a mentor to many, many young people. And he will be very sorely missed one of the victims of COVID anyway. All right. Thank you. Thank you. To the public, school starts tomorrow full-time for elementary school. So drive slow, pray for us. And be careful. Be safe. Don't go out if you don't have to go out. I was very angered by the, people have the right to their beliefs. However, people are dying from this. And there was a teacher in El Paso who passed away, a video she did went viral with the handshakes and just really connecting with her first graders. I've met her through our National Education Association so I know who she is. And it's hidden home for a lot of people. And simple things that everybody can do to be safe and stay alive. Wear your mask, social distance, wash your hands. We can have businesses open and we can function and we can have schools open if people are smart and safe and careful and not acting out of selfishness and irresponsibility. So that's all I have to say. So good night. Councilor Peck, you're just not getting back to you want to say anything? All right, we're going to move on to city manager remarks, anything? No comments, mayor, councilor. All right, city attorney, anything? No comments, mayor. All right, can we have a motion to adjourn, please? I'll move that. Second that. We have a motion to second and I believe it was made by Councilor Peck. So let's go ahead and vote. All in favor of adjourning, say aye. Vote to say nay. All right, we're adjourned unanimously. Thanks guys, see you later. Bye. Bye.