 I am recording. Nancy welcome everyone to the seventh of eight climate action task force meetings. I will go through the agenda quickly and then we'll jump in we have a lot to cover today. So I'm going to do my best to both honor and respect the conversation that needs to happen, as well as to try to keep us moving forward. So we have a public comment period to the best of our knowledge there is no one from the public present. He says no there's not. So then the second order of business is to review the round two draft recommendations and approve them as a collective, and we'll talk a little bit more about kind of what that means. And then we will take a brief look at the outline for the report that's being developed based on all of the work from this group, as well as including work from the outreach work and survey that we did or the questionnaire that we did. And the work with the Just Transitions Committee. So we'll talk about that. We will speak briefly today about the presentation to council, although that will be more of the focus next time so we'll touch on that today, and then we'll take a deeper dive into that next week. And then one of the bigger decisions in addition to approving the round two recommendations is to discuss governance. So we'll be talking about the future of this work and the governing body or bodies that may be available as well as sort of how you individually might be involved, but our focus is actually on what group is going to carry the work forward and how. And then we'll finish up by talking about next steps, including scheduling and upcoming deadlines. So that's the agenda that we have. And that was was posted to you as well. Before we begin, are there any additions or comments on the agenda. And can everyone hear me okay. Okay. Okay, hearing hearing no additions to the agenda. And believing we have no public comment, we'll move into the draft round two recommendations. So, thank you for for incorporating the feedback from the staff and the task force in your recommendations. So our business today is to, while, while we understand that you broke into subgroups to develop the recommendations, we do want a unified if not a consensus move forward related to what is presented to council. Each of you as a task force member has a responsibility to essentially endorse the recommendations that move forward to be presented to council. Now, that can be, you know, I think last time we kind of did, you know, you want to be north of 50%, 75% to 100% good with the recommendations. So this group doesn't have the sort of, I think, time and capacity to really get everyone all the way to 100%, but you want to be mostly good with the recommendations that are going forward. So today we want to look at those round two recommendations again you all should have seen those through the review process. So two of the subgroups provided updated recommendations. I think there's a bit of a question regarding the resiliency and adaptation subgroup and how to move forward with with those recommendations. And that I think I think that group in particular has struggled to meet the sort of the review cycle and there are a number of reasons for that. So we want to talk a little bit more about that. I'm just clarifying questions about the role of the task force related to the recommendations before I post the recommendations for you to look at. Josie, I do just want to note that we have 10 people that are missing from this meeting tonight. So we have 10 people that are it sounds like trying to get on but that is more than half of the members so we do want to have an opportunity to make sure we're sticking to our agenda and going through the round two recommendations but I would also recommend that we do a follow up email with the rest of the members that aren't present tonight to make sure that people have an opportunity to at the very least, you know, do the thumbs down with any of those recommendations before we finalize and move forward. I do want to be able to respect those folks that aren't able to participate tonight. And that's a very important point and so we will, we will do that as well. In addition, the meeting is also being recorded so hopefully those who are not able to participate will be able to watch at least the key sections of the meeting to get additional content. Any other comments or clarifying questions before we review that round two recommendations. I just joined sorry I'm late. Glad you could be with us Lynette Francy I think I made you the host. And it's saying that I need permission from the host to screen here. Okay, I. I just changed it to multiple participants can share so you should be able to share now. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for being able to see my screen. Everyone's zoom acumen has grown exponentially in the last couple of months. So. Just a minute or so from each of the, each of the, the folks who started the recommendations. So let's, let's talk about the aggregate, like so first I think we want to just present each recommendation briefly and particularly if you made any substantial changes to the recommendation based on feedback. Just as a reminder, the last time that the whole group saw the recommendations was in their unupdated form. So it would be nice to say briefly what is the recommendation as well as what changes if any that are substantive I don't think we need to go into the details obviously but if there were any major changes that have happened since the time that people had a chance to look at it. It would be great for you to share that with the group. So is there someone that would like to volunteer. And again I realize we're missing quite a few folks so we may not have everyone present who for each recommendation but we'll do the best we can. So extended agricultural zoning is someone willing to speak to that Marsha. So, first of all, I'll say I did not take a topic in land use and waste management so I my role in this was pulling it together and doing the updates and stuff. But I. So if there's somebody here that worked on it more, I will defer to them but I don't recall that there is or just check. Sounds like I'm it. Okay, so the first, the first topic that we, I think we spent probably the most effort on this one was extending agricultural zoning, which really means putting in a lot of ways to facilitate agricultural zoning. It's inside the city. So people can have front yard gardens backyard gardens. The, we would create neighborhood or regional cooperatives so that to create markets for agricultural and floral produce. So, and scientific help to encourage people to grow heirloom crops and things that are hard to find in the grocery store, preserving genetic diversity in the legacy. And so those are the reasons that it's a citywide cooperative. And if you look at the wider recommendation came up with some resources for places in Europe that that do this and you know what the value propositions of it are. And I think that's probably all I got. Can I ask a question about this. I'm wondering, does that require a code change because I've seen vegetables growing in front yards is it because they they're going to sell produce that makes it necessary to have a code change. There are a couple of, there are a couple of things that you need code changes so that homeowner associations can't rule it out changes for the to create the market, and then you would need appropriations for the subsidies that would be needed to get it going. Okay, great. Thank you. Marsha could this is Peter, could I just ask one question I wondered whether there was any reference to community gardens as it in augmenting it all seemed very backyard private home orientation and very little emphasis on the community aspect. No, actually there, there is language in it about. I don't think it goes as far given the amount of time we had on round two doesn't go as far as identifying tracks of land that could be used for community gardens, but it, it does mention establishing land cooperatives and and allotments on unused land from anywhere from, you know, the banks of ditches to some public open space and allotting that to people who live in apartments and stuff where they don't have private land of their own. And the nature of the clarifying questions works right now and I want to emphasize that we are only asking clarifying questions at this time, not debating the merits and we'll we'll move into that in a minute so right now we just want to make sure that everyone understands the recommendations as they stand and then we can talk, then we'll move into assessing them but first is just to understand what's here. All right, any additional clarifying questions for this recommendation. Before we move on to the next one I do want to do a moment of housekeeping. I realized that some of you may be calling in on a combination of a telephone and a computer. I'd like to clarify who's on the call so I see a number from 303-681-7722. Can you identify who that is? This is Lynette. Okay, great. Thank you Lynette. And then I have a seven, I have a number ending in 1452. This is Joanie. Thank you. Another ending in 8075. Andy Butcher. Hi, Andy. I think that should be everyone. Nancy, do you have any questions? Did I miss anyone? I think I got everyone now. Thank you. Great. Thanks for that brief intermission to do a roll call. So let's go to the next one, residential and commercial composting. Is there someone from that group who is able to speak to that one? Marcia? Yes. Again, you know, we have, we have some barriers to going farther than this. And this recommendation really is aimed at two things. One is to eliminate the barriers or find ways around the barriers. And the other way, other is to make use of the benefits of composting. So we can, we cannot provide composting for commercial businesses, but we can require that they use a third party. So that's a very important part of the commission. And it's not only a commission program to compost. That's what Boulder does. The state does not allow municipal palities to require people to use their composting service. So that's in there. The changing, changing. The fact that the city, the city of Boulder, the city of Boulder who acquires city service city waste diversion services. Is automatically entered in the composting program and they have to do something specific to opt out. Other trivia leaf trivia about making it easier. And then the other way around is to provide subscriptions for people who want to do urban agriculture to get hold of compost and products in either powdered or tea form so that it at least feels like you're getting the full circle benefits of composting. That is your garbage goes away and fertilizer comes back. That's because of the arrangement that the city has now with a composting service that's not necessarily easy to do, but it's part of the recommendation. Marcia, any clarifying questions on this recommendation? Moving on, downtown pay for parking. I can do that one. Great. Phil Greenwald from the city of Longmont. Just real quick, we had written up kind of a very basic outline of this. And obviously what happened was when we started to move into the different issues with COVID, we weren't able to put a lot of meat to the bones, I guess, as it were. So I appreciate everybody's comments. We got a lot of comments back from folks about trying to make this better. So we did try to incorporate that into the document. There were a lot of issues with how are we impacting folks, especially those with people with disabilities and people who might be not as able to get around. So what we really try to say is if you have a handicapped placard or a handicapped license plate, I mean, that's the way they're called, unfortunately, but it is with people with disabilities is really the term that's more appropriate. And so we really tried to indicate that if you do have either one of these items that you can park wherever you'd like to with any time limits, and everything basically goes away as far as any kind of enforcement on those types of individuals. So that's one piece. And then really trying to open up the parking along Main Street and try to do this in a phased fashion so that as you're bringing on, you don't just maybe make it paid parking for the whole entire region. So we really wanted to get through the idea that there's a phased process to this as well. And so it's not just a blanket coverage of entire downtown immediately. And also with COVID, we had to explain the piece that this isn't probably something that's going to happen tomorrow or even this year. It's going to have to be one of those things that we have to consider as far as how it impacts businesses as they currently are. And so there was a couple of comments anyway that came back about how are you going to make this work with COVID currently impacting our businesses so much in the downtown and making people have to pay now seems really tough on folks. So we try to incorporate all these pieces that it's really more of a phased approach and it can happen as we start to recover from a lot of these different things. So it's not something that happens immediately. But it also could happen more quickly as well as if we do the phased approach. And some of the comments were interesting because it really has talked about how if you have paid parking, it's really tough then to get people to walk and bike downtown. Well, as Marsha pointed out in one of our comments, I mean, it's really about the idea that if you're paying for parking, there's an incentive then to leave your car at home and then take a bicycle or walk to downtown if you're close enough to be able to do that. And really, if you phase it, you're really trying to keep those spaces along Main Street opened up. And typically when you do a parking plan, it's keeping 15% of the spaces along your paid parking open continually. So you always have a space and you're not going around and around in circles, wasting a lot of gasoline and putting a lot of pollutants into the air. You have a space fairly immediately. And there was some issue about, well, then only the rich benefit from this because only if you can afford a parking space, can you get the really good space? And the idea is as people pay for their parking, that money could be reinvested into the downtown and provide better links for pedestrians and bicyclists. So with that, I think I'll stop. But if there are any questions, I'd be happy to entertain them. Just Karen, I'm wondering if it seems to me there's a lot of people in our town who are my age and older, and we don't typically walk a mile or bike. I tried biking and I fell off several times because I had no sense of balance. And so at some point, we have to realize that in our current system, it's going to be very difficult to get rid of cars in the city center. I think what we'll see, unfortunately, is people moving to restaurants away from the city center. Is there any way to do a study or just talk maybe with people who are parking downtown to see what they would see as alternatives? I guess I'm not. Oh, go ahead. Oh, you probably have a better answer than I do, Phil. One of the things that we sort of put in during the review period was to introduce the idea. And obviously this has to be a post-pandemic innovation because people don't like to be on multiple person vehicles right now. But the idea would be that for people who don't want to walk, that we would have very high frequency electric shuttles and ring parking around the high occupancy area that we want to have so that it would be like 16th Street Mall in Denver where you wouldn't have to walk more than 100 feet or so from where you got off the shuttle to your destination and you would still be able to be a car-based person. We just have this wonderful pedestrian mall where you could hang out and then not have to walk a long way to get home either. Another piece of that, if I can just add on, is thanks, Marcia, for bringing up the idea of the shuttles. That was a big component of this also to make sure that we have a shuttle program that this could, again, you can use the money that you generate. And I don't want to make it a panacea of like it's going to pay for everything, but that you would be able to put some of that money back into a system of shuttles. And maybe there's some other subsidies that come into play. I think, Marcia, put some good language in there about business owners and other folks that might have some stake in this to invest in the shuttle system as well. But the other idea is that, you know, as we try to open it up for, or as we try to, yep. I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you on this. I want to try to get us to just enough information where. Sorry. No, it's OK. It's just, again, I know we have a long agenda tonight. I want to make sure that we get through it. So if we can see if there any, and, you know, obviously everyone is welcome to and we will share the full recommendations and still do a final approval of the whole package next round. But in the meantime, are there any additional clarifying questions that anyone has regarding the structure of this recommendation? And if you're not speaking, it would be really helpful if you could mute yourself there. The background noise does get to be a bit much. I know it's hard to turn yourself off and on to you. But anyway, are there further clarifying questions about the structure of this recommendation? If I could just make one last that last point. Yeah, sorry. It's just that by incenting people to not drive as much and those people who can use bicycles and can walk are not driving downtown and you're opening it up for everybody for for people who can who have to drive. Seeing no additional questions will move into education and outreach. Peter, I know you did a lot of work on these and kind of led this group. So I will leave it up to you to decide if you would like to present each of these or if you would like to ask one of your teammates to do that. And again, I will just request that you're mindful of the time and your explanation of the recommendation. And you are muted if you can unmute yourself. And Francie, I think you're capable of doing that as well. Peter, we still can't hear you, unfortunately. I was just saying we got good feedback on all of these and tried to incorporate as much as we could. I think this first one is really the most important as the one I had the least to do with. And maybe Joni or Anne or others would like to speak to it. But they're so I'll pass it to them first if they want to comment. This is Joni. I mean, if somebody has a specific question about the workforce development recommendations, just let me know or let us know. Thanks. I just add that there's no question that there's a real that we're already doing some good things in this area, but there's an obvious possibility to expand and expand pretty rapidly. And this proposal was designed to create a program and a committee that would oversee that process over the next couple of years. Moving on to the lecture series. This is the one that has the nice advantage of already being funded through a grant from CU. So we've been working with the Longmont Museum to see if we could set up a lecture series that COVID problem pushes us back to the spring. And even then, we're not sure. So one of the changes, one of the revisions we made was to make sure that the museum would be able to provide some alternative way for people to access this if we couldn't have meetings in their beautiful, big auditorium. It judging from the feedback, it raised some interesting questions about whether everything we do should be very local and very present oriented and speaking to specific needs. Or my own preference, I guess, is that in some of our recommendations actually be trying to pull back and take a bigger picture and and aid people more broadly. None of us know as much as we need to. And we have good access to people who can help broaden the discussion. So this one is definitely intended more towards broadening the discussion. Any clarifying questions from the group? Karen, it looks like you're saying something. Yeah, so there is a CU grant for this. Is that what you said, Peter? Yes, thank you. Their humanities program has a special outreach program and we applied to that and they gave us five thousand dollars. I've worked with the folks at the museum on how that best spent for support and publicity and we'll go from there. Just as an FYI, I muted the phone number who ends in seven seven two two just because there was a lot of background noise, but just wanted to make that person aware in case they tried to talk. You should be able to unmute yourself if you need to talk. Newspaper. The background share noise is still there. On number three, the newspaper article series. This is obviously. Old time, 20th century communication technology. But the if the Times call and survive a few more years, they've run some good articles recently doing historical projects. They had a nice piece on. 1918 influenza epidemic in Longmont. The idea behind this would be to put together a series of short articles aimed at the public that tried to if the earlier one was the big picture, this would be trying to localize issues of climate change for the local community, try to make it locally relevant. Since I'm a historian, my push is often to try to reach back to the beginning and try to tell a progressive story. How the heck did we get in this crazy situation? But I think there's. Possibilities. It seems like this is an appropriate time to add that starting Friday anyway, certainly today, we have a new local newsroom in Longmont that is called the Longmont leader. It's funded by the McClatchy Google project. And their objective is to become 100% local over a period of some number of years. As opposed to the to the Times call, which is no longer present in Longmont other than one reporter. So we just should not assume that the that the Times call is necessarily the vehicle. If that's the free copy that I got thrown on my driveway a couple of weeks ago, I was pretty dubious, but maybe that was something else. The Longmont leader is actually 100% online as the long river was. OK, good. That was something else. Yeah, I don't know what you got on your porch, but I wouldn't start a paper newspaper now. It was it was bad. Yeah. OK. Well, that's good to know. There may be an amendment to this one regarding an online newspaper. Right. Is a paper newspaper. I think that sounds I doubt anyone is going to vote for against this based on if it's on a physical piece of paper or not. OK, I was going to be my comment, Josie, is just is this could this be geared for being an electronic not just newspaper, but like social media posts or something else that we could follow electronically? And Peter, did the group make any accommodation for that in the recommendation itself? Or might that be something that would be down the road? I think we already put that in. We added we certainly added something about trying to do a Spanish language version. But that I'll have to go back and check. Yeah, so maybe just flag a note for that one to, you know, sort of adapt to the media outlets. That that's the most viable over time. OK, yeah. I should add that the that the leader, if you submit something to the leader and it's published, it gets spread across social media automatically. OK. Meaning that the city doesn't have to spend money on it. And then the last as the next. I guess two more. That number four is pretty simple and hinges. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the. Permanent exhibit that's at the Longmont Museum called Front Range Rising, but they it's a it's a really wonderful. Condensed condensed version of of Longmont history. And they it's can be used in various ways. And I think without it's without changing the exhibit, it could be presented in a way. That put emphasis on on climate change and energy use change over time. And I've worked there as a docent with that exhibit. I'm pretty familiar with it. So I have a sense of what that could be. And I've talked to people at the museum who seem. At least interested. I can't speak for them. But I think there's a possibility of doing something good there. Peter, do you have a clarification on the timeline? How far out do you think it would be before the proposed updates might happen to that exhibit? Realizing that there's, you know, there's factors at play, but. I think we could put 2021 or 2022 in there either. Either one. I think that the key is that the exhibit is already in place. And and they they are thinking I gather about changing it if they go into some major update or renovation or improvement. Hopefully we could be involved in that and have a say. But I think even as it exists currently, simply by changing it. Simply by changing some of the ways that it's presented or certain things are highlighted, I think the story could be told pretty well. So in a sense, it's it's a low budget thing that would not not impinge on the on the museum's other work. Would you like to propose 2021 or 2022? Knowing that over time, given all our current problems, I guess I'd say 22 and then we could come in ahead of time instead of behind. And then the last one for this group. I'm guessing there's not a lot of clarifying questions. That one's quite straightforward. I don't want to shortchange the process. OK, community sustainability liaison program. I speak quickly to what that program is. I can talk about that one. Yeah, yeah. Um, so yeah, I was inspired by our discussion with the Just Transition Committee. And so I recommended this sustainability liaison program around. I know the city is like spending a lot on messaging and like trying to get some of these the word out about a lot of these programs, but it's still not exactly. Either getting to certain communities or there, you know, maybe don't understand the significance or the ins and outs of the program. So yeah, I was suggesting that we have volunteer liaisons who, you know, are well known in their community and maybe they can talk to their church groups or, you know, local, you know, their kids schools and local groups like that. And they can talk about certain programs that the city is offering. You know, if someone wants to add compost and they don't know how to do it and about energy efficiency programs or weatherization, you know, just like really connecting. Being the voice in the community. Letting people know about these things. Thank you, Michelle. Any clarifying questions regarding this recommendation? Arsha. Oh, you were just so I was just waiting to people coming into my house. Got it. OK. So I would like to ask a question of the members of the resiliency and adaptation subgroups who are present. So I guess first is if you have intention to make additional updates to the best of my knowledge, we did not receive updates from this updated recommendations from this group. I know there have been a number of scheduling and workload challenges associated with that, but it would be helpful before we go through these recommendations to understand from that group what the intention is. So I don't know who or which of you would like to speak to that, but it would be helpful to the group for us to know. This is Karen. I went through mine, the public health piece independently. I know there was a lot of things written on there like there's too many coalitions already. We don't want another coalition, but that's not something that I chose to add into here. I don't know if everybody else on the team got a chance to look at theirs. I didn't hear from any of them. I know that Lynette's on the team and I can't think of the other person's name is also one other team member. I haven't heard from some of the members since the last time we met. I think everybody's lives are kind of upended, so I think Bloss, Lynette, I believe Ocean was on this team. France, maybe, no. I think they said no. No, I think Ocean was on land use. I believe it was Greg Magnolia and Bloss. Right, and Greg's not here today. So, and I think, though, for the recommendations that were made, Lynette, you did the water conservation and Bloss, you worked on the flooding mitigation and preparedness. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Can you hear me? Yep. OK. OK, so, you know, again, understanding that everybody's lives are pretty upended right now, we'd be interested to know, does the recommendation, as it stands, do you feel like the comments from the task force and staff are represented? Or are you hoping for a little bit of time to be able to update this recommendation? Are you talking to me? OK, I'm sorry, I got confused. I've not read the recommendations or comments on this yet. I was hoping to, I was out of town this weekend, but I can certainly do that in short order and tweak this if necessary. I mean, the whole idea behind this flooding mitigation thing is basically just information, just trying to get information to the public. What it is, I mean, it's just a program that's been around for a long time. All cities are part of it. However, if they need technical information, that's not something you can easily convey to the common citizen, but we can at least have a program so that they can understand how it works and what concerns they need to have if they are near or in a flood plain that floods in a 100 year period, which just I just wanted to clarify 100 year period means it's very possible that there is a flood within 100 years. That doesn't mean there's only one flood in 100 years. And I suspect that we will probably experience more floods down the road. And that's part of the climate change that we're experiencing. The weather is the weather patterns are changing. And it's hard. It's hard to predict when a flood will come or not. But the 100 year flood plain is primarily the area where the attention is given for homes that are either existing or they're trying to build in these flood plains that the public needs to be aware of. Great, thank you for the overview on that. Again, I guess it's not my place to say, but that seems pretty straightforward. And Blas, maybe I would just ask, is it possible that you might be able to review and update that recommendation by Wednesday? As I know that that's the deadline. Absolutely. No, I will. I will do that. I will update it and read the recommendations. Great. Thank you. And then sorry, I'm bouncing around a little bit here. I guess we're going to work from the bottom up. Lynette, would you like to speak to the water conservation recommendation as well as the plans to incorporate feedback from the task force and staff? Yes, I can do that. Yes, you can work on doing the updates by Wednesday. But were you saying yes to? Yes. OK. And do you want to give us an overview of the recommendation as it's currently written? Um, I am I'm not available to really look at it right now, but so I'm not in a very good place to be able to say anything. I'm I'm out doing some things. I just had another I had another commitment that I had to do. So I'm not in a place to say anything. And if somebody else can go over it, that would be better. Would you like me to go through that? Yeah, that would be great. OK, the idea was to reduce water use. We know that as climate change occurs, we will have probably flooding because we'll have those big rainstorms, but we're very likely we're likely to become more drought. More drought days than not. So the idea is to begin to reduce water use. And that's through and we probably need to fix that date. Lynette, that would be one thing. And that's through different education, policy, projects, resources, and this would be both indoor and outdoor. So, of course, zero escaping on new construction. Hopefully we can get rid of some of the HOA pieces where they make you have a green lawn and be able to use more zero escaping. Go to more native vegetation in parks and open spaces. It should also reduce mowing and some of those things that I see them doing at our little local park down the street from me. I think we could offer support for zero escaping. There's already some of that through water through Resource Central. They have some nice plants, so I think we could add on there. And then just increasing awareness and promotional event. And then, again, create HOA and city ordinances to promote zero escaping and drought tolerant, drought resistant gardening. Thanks, Karen. Any clarifying questions for this one? Regarding public health, Karen, could you give us? We kind of jumped into the logistics of rounding out the recommendations. And on that one, I would I would like to present the recommendation, but I would also if you haven't already, I could use an updated text copy of the recommendation, which I think there was some email correspondence back and forth about the changes. But it would be helpful if you could draft the language inside of the body of the document for that. Would that be achievable? I am so confused with how many documents we have. We have three, you know, there's three attached and then there's two more the next day. If you will show me which document it needs to go in, I will update it. I would be happy to send you one single document. OK. For you to add your comments to. And we realize on that front that it's been a lot. And we have tried really hard to make it straightforward and I just don't think there's a way to do that. You know, I'm a retired ICU nurse, right? And we have algorithms. Do you do this and then you do this? How do you do this? This this going back and forth to five documents. I can't keep track of it. So it's my mind. OK, thank you very much. Yeah, I'm happy that we have support in any way that we can. It's you know, we all have different thought processes and this one is it doesn't follow my learning needs. I do have a lot of learning needs. OK. Well, thank you for tolerating to all of you. Thank you for tolerating the process and doing your best to keep up with. Yeah, yeah. OK. The thought behind this is that as we as we warm that we will have a lot of very hot days. And if we think about our community, a lot of our low income housing might not have air conditioning and also the homeless population will be very much at risk with heat waves and then also just other severe weather events, those huge rainstorms and such. So as we warm, we will also have more forest fires and we'll have air quality issues. And as you have that, then you have other health issues. So we really need to have a system ready and in place to to have cooling areas. So if it's really hot, that maybe fire, migrants are turned on that that we have ways for those people who don't have air conditioning to be able to to cool. And if you, you know, if you followed our history person, we'll tell you, Peter, that there are issues that occur throughout the world where they'll have a heat and and and tens of people will die just from the heat. So we need a way to do that. One of the main ways we wanted to do that is to have a coalition between cities and health departments in the state health department to bring forward good ideas and also to be able to rapidly identify when we need to implement certain issues and also to detect if our communities start having severe health issues as related to this. We will also have an increase in disease that we're not used to other than the coronavirus disease that we're not resistant to. So say Zika and Chikununga and all sorts of fun things that we'll be able to grow in our climate as it warms. So just to be able to surveil that. That's the idea behind this. Thank you. And they now have a good they've been working together well, so they'll just need to stay working. We are going to attempt to do our voting. And again, we're going to, you know, it's important to speak up if you do have some serious reservations. It's also important to understand that. And we'll talk a little bit more about this in terms of governance that, you know, we understand that these are preliminary recommendations and that in almost every case, there will be additional planning, work, resources and efforts made to adopt the recommendations over time and that that will be the responsibility of a governing group for body to manage. So so we want to have the right amount of discernment and detail that somewhere in the middle. So not just the intent, but we want to and not every single detail that you need to agree with, but sort of in that middle level of both the intent and the ideas as they're written and presented. Is it something that you as a task force member are comfortable putting forward as a recommendation to online council? So with that, we're going to start at the top. And we're going to again, it's seven o'clock, so we're halfway through our time. It took us about 40 minutes to go through each of these. So what I might do initially is just to get a straw vote and see if there are any hot recommendations that we need to come back to where there is a degree of concern in the group. And before we do that, I do have, I want to go back to the question. And Francine, maybe you can help me with this. I know we have Lynette and Joanie on the phone. I think there's one other person on the phone. We also have Andy on the phone, but Andy is not a voting member. So he will not be participating in the voting. Josie, I also had a quick clarification question for you. Lisa and I had two quick staff comments. And I just wanted to see if you wanted us to do this before the straw vote or after the straw vote. Two comments on different recommendations. Yes. OK. I think we should which two are those? Extending agriculture, zoning and water conservation. I think we should address those before the vote. I think there's something to be said there that may affect people's decision. And just to note that we could have a couple of potential outcomes. So just to we may have, particularly with the resiliency group, it may be sort of a conditional approval, if you will. So meaning that there are updates that have been made so we can have approval, conditional approval and maybe something that either that needs more conversation before the task force is willing to get there. And I don't know that we've ever. Last round was really easy and maybe this round will be too. Last round, we had pretty much universal, you know, thumbs up or mostly up on these recommendations. Should we run into there being something in this round that doesn't garner that we may have to talk a little bit more about how to address that, but we may have a category of needs for their work. If there's some tension there. So we are trying to work towards consensus, but that shouldn't stop anyone from sharing their their reservations. Karen. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Oh, that's OK. Did on on the staff recommendations, are these new ones since the last review? Because I did incorporate two staff recommendations into extending agricultural zoning. It was for extending agricultural zoning. It was that one is actually was more of a clarification. On code and H O A's and less of a staff recommendation. And and then the the water conservation was more more. I wanted to check in with Lynette a little bit about her about updating that one. And I can go into that. I want to follow when I should go into that with Josie. Well, let's go ahead and go there since I happened to be the first one and we're there. So, Nancy, could you share with us the staff comment that you'd like to ask? Sure. And I think Lisa was going to do this one, so I'll let her do it. Yeah, I'll jump in on that one. So I did just want to clarify, we had some folks from planning review that the ag recommend recommendation. And they they did not think it required a code change in terms of allowing agriculture itself. So agriculture production is already used by right in all of our zones. So you don't need to ask any permission. There's no code restrictions that prohibit people from doing that. And we can't actually regulate what H O A's do because they're a separate entity from the city. So we can't recommend a code change regarding regulating H O A's. That is something that I believe can happen on the state level because there are some state level regulations around H O A's not being able to ban things like their gardening and that kind of stuff. So they didn't feel that that did require a code change and did suggest that maybe revising the focus to be on the ability to market like retail produce and things like that. That is something that we would have to look at. Our code doesn't necessarily allow for that currently for people to sell produce to, you know, local markets and stuff from from their home gardens. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear with the group so that you guys can decide if and how you need to revise that recommendation. It there was some confusion as to whether it had to be a state preemption to, you know, I believe the deal is that H O A's can make requirements more stringent, but they can't make them less stringent. And so there's a question as to whether to I mean, clearly, if we want to allow extensive internal agriculture, the state could do that. But if it could become the minimum for the city as well, I'm I'm not sure that that the Asia ways could could print could prevent that either. So we need we need to discuss that. But I do think that all of the stuff about creating markets and so on is already in there. Not necessarily as to whether it needed to be, you know, how it would need to be detailed in terms of the code. But but the fact that the infrastructure needs to be created is in there. I think so. I think they were more looking at because the title of the recommendation itself was extending agricultural zoning. So I think that was what kind of flagged that. So it might be and it's up to you guys how you want to change it. But changing the title to reflect kind of what we just talked about. And then there can be content in the recommendation itself around those other pieces that need to be clarified or explored more. Josie, I just want to make sure you're aware that you're sharing your email right now. I was trying to look up a comment from Amy that she had submitted on this. And I think she dropped off of the call. So I was looking to see if I might share that with the group. This was the one. So I'll share a comment from Amy based on my own research into agricultural economics. It's unlikely that a black backyard plot would be profitable for the vast majority of households. There's a real risk that people's expectations don't match the reality that they feel like the city's program and that they may feel like the city's program would be misleading. But she said that she would recommend asking the group to either eliminate or alter this recommendation. So without going into the details of her comments, I think it's fair to say that I'm from a voting perspective. That comment indicates something below a 50%. You know, below something neutral to pretty shaking towards down comment. So it sounds like at minimum. Well, so I think that we want to maybe look first at if the group feels like the recommendation should be adopted as it stands. Or if it should be contingent upon some modifications based on the feedback from staff around the use of the word zoning and the legality around ways. So that might be a contingent approval, or if there are others who share a concern about the recommendation at large. So with that, we will take a visual poll from those of you who are on on video and then we have Joni and Lynette that we can hear from individually. So if you would like to, let's just do actually just just a straight up vote, not thumbs up, middle or down, but if you'd like to vote on approving the recommendation as it stands. Let's do the first round of hands of that 1234567 and then Lynette and Joni. Yeah, this is Linda. I'm in favor. Hey, Joni. Yes, this is, I'm, this is Joni. I'm in favor as well. Thanks. Okay, so that would be nine in favor for the recommendation as it's written. And then go ahead, Marcia. Oh, I was just going to say if it's a matter of comfort for things like taking zoning out of the title, I'm certainly happy to do that, especially since everybody else is. I think it seems to be pretty favorable about it. I think Amy's comment was a misreading and that it doesn't make promises of profitability. Okay, so then the next group would be that you're comfortable with approving this recommendation conditional on the changes around the language regarding zoning or HOA. I think we're the two main recommendations with an emphasis there. Sorry, I meant to vote for this one. Well, it's okay. Good. I didn't count you. Okay, hold on, hold on. You all can only vote one. Sorry. I thought the other piece was like a process question, not specific. I got it now. Okay. Amy, all right. Scrap, so Francine Helen, I know you're both taking notes. Scrap all votes so far. We're going to start the bond work our way up. Is anyone opposed to this recommendation in most anyway shape or form? Okay, seeing none. The next option and you only get to vote for one of the following two options would be you will approve it with some changes around language regarding zoning and HOA to increase the focus on marketing and marketability. So that would be the conditional approval. So approved with some modifications to that group, a show of hands, if that's your first preferred option. So I see Michelle. Yes. No, where you at? I can't hear you. As well as I voted for the last one. You voted that you voted no on it. I voted yes. Okay. So in the middle, we have to Lisa and fell. Okay. And then the recommendation as it stands, I assume is the rest of you. I'm not voting just showing you raise your hand. Okay. Keep your hands up. Keep your hands up. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six. And then we heard from Joni and Lynette that we seven eight blast video vote. You're muted. Are we okay? What portion of this are we talking about again? Okay. This option is to wholesale accept the recommendation as written or to accept it with amendment, which is your preference. As, as written. Okay. All right. So we have then Francis that nine as written and two with amendments. Does it come same? Okay. Okay. Moving on to residential and commercial composting. Are there any opposed on any that believe this needs recommendations or modifications of your first choice? And then I assume all in favor is everyone. As written. So then fancy that's 11 right. Downtown pay for parking. Opposed with modifications. One, two. Two with modifications and approve as written. The other nine, I assume Lynette and Joni, you'll have to speak up if I'm assuming, I'm assuming you will let me know if you are opposed or with modifications and otherwise I will assume you are with as written. Yeah, this is Lynette. Yeah. Agreed. This is Joni. Thanks. Yep. Education and outreach comprehensive workforce development. Opposed with amendments. In favor of that one would be unanimous 11. Big picture climate lecture series opposed with amendments. Can you state what that amendment. I should have probably done this before. Can you say what amendment you would like that to be. Just, I was just concerned with this one because I'm not sure how it reaches out to the entire public, except it offers, it offers people to come, but it seems to be addressing one aspect of the public that is very much, you know, about understanding climate, people that already understand climate change, I feel like, unless this has more language about being more inclusive about all different views. It's going to really just kind of be on one side. And this is kind of one of my questions that I brought up early, early on when we were meeting is how are we going to get all the different sides to start talking about this. That's, that's my issue. Thank you. And then all in favor, and we will note that and that will get included all in favor of this recommendation is written. I assume that's everyone else that would be 10. Can we go back to downtown pay for parking. I think Lisa and Karen said with amendments, would you please share with us what those are. I think some of it was discussed, but I didn't see it in there. And that is sort of some sort of concept of that shuttle type thing, not having to get on the regular bus with some sort of shuttle from areas to help those people who don't want to bike or walk downtown, which would still, you know, maybe allow a little, little less parking on me. So just to flesh that out would be my Karen, is it possible that you read the original that circulated and not the amended one because we did put a lot in there about that. Okay. I'd need to go back. It's been a while, a long while. Well, and then there were like 300 documents to look at. That's right. You know me. Okay, so it sounds like from the from the subgroup though that there were significant changes to that one to include a shuttle recommendation. So it sounds like that that may be in there. Lisa, can you tell us what your conditional approval would be? Yeah, I think that we, I think this maybe was discussed a little bit also, but a little bit deeper dive into the potential negative impacts from an equity perspective because I wasn't part of this group, but I remember that this was something that was discussed pretty in depth with just transition plan committee and just wanting to make sure that those questions or concerns are are really addressed on a on a root level or at least acknowledge that that there might be some deeper analysis that might need to be done on that side of things. Thank you for clarifying. And I think we are pretty clear on the extended agricultural zoning that the reservations there were to take the word zoning out as the zoning requirements did not feel like they were needed by staff as well as maybe some kind of caveat around according to what is legally permissible for HOAs at the state level and that it's just outside of the jurisdiction of the city to regulate HOAs. So maybe that becomes more of a statewide petition to toward HOAs or something like that. Okay, sorry, thanks for bearing with us as we build the plane while we're flying it a little bit here, but I think we're getting there. Okay, so the newspaper article series on any opposed. Approve. What which one is it again I'm sorry. The newspaper article series. Approve with amendments. Michelle and Marcia. Okay, and then so that would be two and then so that's and then I assume nine approved so then let's hear what the oh and sorry and looks like there's a couple there's a lot of discussion. Let's go. And you're muted. This is Peter. I'd be glad to add the suggestion about the Longmont leader. If that's and I don't I'll take a look at it. Yeah, I wouldn't change the nature of right wouldn't change the nature and that's exactly right and my suggestion was going to be right not to name the the platform at all. Okay, don't say the times call don't say the leader we don't know what's going to happen it will probably be a year and a half before we get there. Yeah, okay. Yeah, and I'm, I'm in full agreement with with the recommendation has written. So you don't have any conditions that you're wishing to zero conditions. Okay, so it sounds like the conditions on this one to make unanimous would just be the non specify the outlet. Okay, and Michelle, did that capture it. Yeah, that's what I was going to say that maybe just mentioning something articles online as well as not not just in the physical newspaper but they're online. Yeah, that's a good idea to remove it from the heading. Yeah, it's fun. Yeah. Great. Okay, I'm going to keep us moving. So the Longmont exhibit on anyone opposed. With conditions. Prove is written would be unanimous. Okay. Great. Thank you. Community sustainability. Liaison program. Disapprove. Approve with conditions. Prove as written would be unanimous. Okay, and then resilience and adaptation. Disapprove. Approve with modifications. And then that would be unanimous. Are you talking about the health one specifically? Yes, I'm so sorry. Let me clarify. Just in case that was confusing for anyone. So the public health. To create a climate adaptation and health plan. Coalition. So anyone opposed. Does anyone have a conditional approval? Of this recommendation. And then that would be unanimous. Water conservation. Franci, I believe you said there was a staff comment on this one before voting. Yes. And I'm, this is also partially a comment to Lynette, since it sounds like you have limited capacity at this time. And there were. Significant staff concerns. Specifically around a goal of 50% water reduction in five years for parks and golf courses. So not all it was as written was not all city water, but specifically parks and golf courses. So. So. For that was, it would significantly change what our parks and golf courses look like. So it would also be very expensive. So I just wanted. I just want to make sure that. There's time over the next two days for you to look through all those comments and wanted to see. Put out a request to see. And ask you, do you want someone else? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know about the capacity. Since there were. Significant staff comments on that recommendation. I'm able to look at those that, that would be okay for me to look at them. I just. I just will think that they're going to be cutting this back or that they want to or not. So, you know, it better be. They should start thinking about it because we're going to be out of water. We're going to be out of water at Union reservoir right now with fracking. So we're not going to have water. So they're going to have to think of what are they going to do? You know, they can have a plan. For what they're going to do when there's no water, because there's not going to be water for these things. So I know what they're saying. I know what they're saying. It is going to be, it is going to look very different and probably in five years, but maybe we should either extend it out to 10 years or 10 years. But I'll be happy to look at them. Thank you. And I'd also just ask if you don't mind expanding the financial summary section of that recommendation as well. When you say expanding, what do you mean? I believe as written, it said the cost of doing these programs would be pretty minimal. And. I put some estimate cost of land transitions in there. So I. I'm not. The cost of producing by 50%. If, if you don't, if, if that is the goal, if you don't mind expanding on the, the fine kind of the financial cost section of that recommendation. But I don't, I don't really know. I'm a lay person. I don't really know how much that's going to cost. So. In the comments, I provided a couple. So I provided a example cost of. Transitioning one acre of land to a turf grass that would reduce by 50% 50% as a example for you to build off of. Yeah. So let me, let me try to help out here. It sounds like. That one that there is. That there's some a little bit of work to do. And that when at Francie is, is ready to be there right by your side to help. To help move through that in any way possible. Sure. So I think that, but it sounds like there is, that there are some real sort of modifications and adjustments that need to be considered. So what I would. I would like to. Suggest for this one. Based on the conversation and feel free to disagree with me if you think that's the thing to do. I would like to have just two options for this one, which would be to. Either. I would like to have Francie and Lamette and whomever else is interested or able to work through the comments that were made because it sounds like there's. A fair amount of unresolved. Questions at this point. Okay. So I think, I think an approving vote at this point would be the intention of addressing water, water shortages. And then. I would like to have Francie and Lamette and Francie and Lamette both in doing outdoor. And that that is at the heart of this recommendation. And then looking to come up with an updated recommendation that. That. Lynette and Francie and whomever else wishes to participate in that field. Feel comfortable with. Okay. I'm not quite sure what those conditions. that you were studying are exactly, Josie. There are a couple of things that Lynette stated at foregone conclusions that are in fact only risks in terms of the completion of the Windy Gap firming project and the poisoning of Union Reservoir. We have some pretty, well, I don't know how to put odds on Windy Gap, but in terms of the poisoning of Union Reservoir, we have some pretty serious monitoring going on there. And use of water from Union Reservoir is not in the city's water plan at all. So, I think that a recommendation this dramatic needs to, well, I'm a fan of dramatic conservation recommendations in general, it needs to be some kind of of a contingency plan because in addition to the high costs that Francie was talking about, there's also a significant revenue loss associated with doing some of these things. So it needs a lot more planning if it's gonna be adopted. And I ask a question. I have, just as you were looking at this, Francie, did you look at, there's a cost right now to be using all of the water. And so as we have less water, the cost of water becomes more dear. And so how do we balance that, that yes, it might cost money to replace the turf grass, but we won't be using all of the water, which is a cost, particularly in a drought environment. And so I think that also needs to be considered. And I will just say that the stamp well is leaking by the reservoir right now and we can monitor, but by that time it's already polluted. So just a thought. So is anyone else interested, we're not gonna resolve this tonight, Fran, but is anyone else interested in participating in that understanding that we have a very tight turn and we need to really within the next 48 hours or so. So Karen would like to be engaged in that as well. Anyone else? Okay. So is anyone opposed to this recommendation full sale? Bill and Marsha? Okay. Conditional approval in this case would mean, and I realize this isn't as clear cut as some of the others, but it would mean going through staff comments and task force comments and reconciling them in a way that keeps the intention of the recommendation, which is to address water and resiliency for the city in the face of climate change and to hopefully come up with an amicable recommendation that is a combination between staff and task force to move forward with. So I realize that's not quite as clean as the others where it's like change this and this and we're good, but it's sort of with the belief that the intention is that the task force and staff can work together to find a recommendation that meets the spirit of addressing potential water shortages due to climate change. And I think that, again, I guess it's probably not my place to be there. So a conditional approval show of hands. One, two, three, four, five. I get that all one, yep, okay. And then is there anyone who would like to approve this recommendation as written? Anne and Michelle, Joni, Lynette, where do you stand on this one? Okay, Anne and Michelle, you can put your hands down. Okay, I thought we were only given two options this time. You just gave us three. I did, I keep changing the rules. I'm a terrible, terrible facilitator. I'll go to detention after this. Okay, so I went back on my own word and I said, I can't do that. That's not my call to make. And that didn't seem fair. There are those who believe their recommendation should be adopted as written. So let's start again. Clear this slate one more time. Okay, opposed to the recommendation. Can I clarify something? The water rights don't work the way the assumption is said. Longmont has water rights. They may not turn into water at some point in the future, but until they do, they don't cost us any more than we're already paying. Or we have an agreement that costs us a fixed fee. So it's not like your water meter at home where the more you use, the more you pay. So I'm just saying the math doesn't work on these assumptions before we vote. But water is increasing, it's always increasing. The price of water is always increasing because there's a shortage. No, I mean, if we need to go obtain new water rights, then that is a fairly reasonable assumption. But if this is water rights that we already own, then it's not a reasonable assumption. There are and whether they run dry or not is the only question. It's not how much we have to pay for them. Their price isn't gonna go up. And I think that's part of what this is talking about is right now we're getting water from the Western slope and they're predicted to be in a total drought. So we have junior water rights. And so it's going to be very difficult to continue to get water over here. I think there's a lawsuit about that. Yeah. Can I just jump in? What I'll do is I know a little bit about water rights, but I'm not as knowledgeable as Ken Houston. So I will try to see if he can join us on the call to provide some history and answer some of those questions of where we are with our water rights. But I know we have a PAC scheduled today. So we can talk about that and I'll see if Ken can join us on the call. Karen and Lynette. And I think- Okay, thank you. Sorry to interrupt you Lynette. I think it's fair to say we don't have a quorum on this recommendation in approval of it. So we need, so I think that I would like to propose especially given the time and the remainder of the agenda that this one is going to have some more work and we'll bring it back to the task force and we'll consider that at the last meeting or we'll figure out of another claim. Okay. Thank you Lynette for your openness to the input and feedback from the group. You're welcome. I'll be glad to read through it tomorrow. Great, thank you. And then the last one on our list for tonight is the flooding mitigation and preparedness education. So again, primarily a public awareness campaign around flood risk. Anyone opposed? Any conditional approvals? Belle, would you like to state your conditions? Just that I think we do a lot of this already. This kind of goes back to the zoning issue where we already do a lot of this effort and we already, you know, any builder that comes in is made fully aware of the floodplain issues and where the floodplain is. The only thing I was thinking of just, I don't know if it's worth writing in there but combining it with the recommendation of the like community liaison one. But I don't know if that's just like, doesn't need to be said. That might not make or break your approval of the recommendation. Maybe you'd like to add it as a comment and Bloss already said he'll take the comments that have been given. Maybe you can include that one as well Bloss. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so and then, so that would be one, one kind of additional approval and then 10 approved. Great. Well, I'll take a moment just to thank all of you for the work and effort and for, you know, following up with these. I know this work was challenging to begin with and the new sort of remote environment for everything certainly presented new challenges along with the additional and changing workloads and home lives and all of that. So thank you all for the efforts that you put in to making this happen. So, how do I stop my screen share? All I have is an option to share but not, that's so weird. Ah, here we go. Yes, you think I'd be good at this by now. Given the timing today, I think that we can fairly readily push the presentation conversation until next time. In the interim, we could certainly distribute that. We've already distributed the round one recommendations and there's a sort of template there but I think we'll need a little bit additional conversation about that and you all between now and the next meeting will receive the draft report. So, and have some opportunity to give you back on that. Is there any, it won't go through the dates here at the very end. So we do want to reserve five minutes for that. But I'd like to see if for the next 10 minutes or so we're able to have a conversation about governance because that one does need to go into the report which we are working on sort of compiling all the work that you've done and the work that IBE has done around outreach and the questionnaire and sort of the general overview. So you all will get that here soon. But one of the big outstanding issues there is the governance recommendation. So Lisa, would you like to take a moment to to talk about the context for governance? So before we jump into that conversation so as Josie stated I think toward the beginning we part of what we need to discuss is how do we want to move forward after the report itself goes to council and what this group envisions being kind of the accountability mechanism for that to make sure that there are things happening once the report is done. And I just want to kind of provide some information on things that are already in place that we can tap into and then we'll kind of move into a discussion about what the thoughts of the group as a whole are. So the first thing is that folks are probably pretty familiar with the fact that we have a sustainability advisory board. It's a formal advisory board. People go through an application process. They're appointed by council. They serve three year terms. And their charge of that board is really all things sustainability. The majority of their focus is the implementation of the sustainability plan. But any other big topics like this that come up really falls within their purview. And we do anticipate that whatever recommendations that are approved by council would then be incorporated into the update of the sustainability plan when that happens it was supposed to happen and start happening this year but that's gotten pushed off because of budget constraints. So I do want folks to know that there is that formal entity already in place and more or less serves that function. There are two vacancies right now on that board. So that's definitely something that if folks are interested in applying for that again it's an application process and there are limited seats available. And then the other thing is that we do already a quarterly report to council on generally speaking. It's all been on hold but that's a general update on sustainability as well. So that's something that we could also look. So that was something that was included in the resolution that was passed the climate emergency resolution that included, sorry there's some words I could go on by, that also called for the convening of the climate action task force. So that's something that we can incorporate a climate action update into that existing quarterly report. And then we also have the Longmont Sustainability Coalition which is a much more informal group that has folks from a couple different boards, a lot of residents, folks from the business community, from the AR Center, a couple different community groups that meets on a quarterly basis. We always do a sustainability update to that group too. And then usually we do a presentation or discussion on a specific topic that's timely in that period of time. So I just wanted folks to make sure, make sure folks knew that there was, there were some things already in place before we have that governance conversation. Thank you, Lisa. And let me expound, give me one sec, Marcia, and let me see if I get to what you're getting at or not. So there's really, there's two different questions here. One is, what is the formal ongoing governance for these recommendations? And the second is, what are your opportunities to continue to stay involved? And those two things are somewhat related to each other, but they are not the same. The, so the best we could come up with, there are, there's a choice to either integrate the scope of the task force recommendations into the existing sustainability advisory board and or the coalition. But let's just say that the sustainability advisory board is the most formal governance group that is in existence that already has a purview that this could fit under or the recommendation from this group would be to form a new coalition or working group. But we'd have to figure out what the distinction would be between that group and the existing sustainability advisory board. Since there's already an existing group where this could fit under, you'd have to understand what the difference is. So there's an either or there one second, Marcia. And then there's a third option, which is to and or. So the first one is either or. And then the third option is to and or form a technical advisory team that would be able to plug into specific recommendations with, you know, a little bit of uncertainty about exactly how that would be implemented. But the idea would be that there could be technical advisory team members that might be focused on specific recommendations that would either be supporting the sustainability advisory board or the new working group or coalition. So with that additional thoughts or clarifying questions. I just put this into text. So people who are visual can visually see it. Josie, am I missing anything? I think this is a good starting point. And if you could blow it up a little bit more for folks, I think that would be helpful to you. You can just make it fill your screen more. All right, Marcia, thanks for your patience. You're muted. Marcia, you're muted. You can't get unmuted. Can you, you may need to either type in the chat your thoughts or you may need to try logging out, logging back in. Francie, you could also, oh, I'm unmuted. My space bar would not unmute me. So I don't know why it wouldn't. Okay, I think that we are in a state where we're making assumptions without having definitions of what governance means. So let's walk through this a little bit. This is gonna be presented to the council and the council will accept the whole report or we'll accept it one by recommendation, by recommendation first, which is it? I don't think that that's actually been determined by council when in the resolution or when the climate action task force was established, Marcia. So I don't think we have a specific answer to that. Okay, so then given that, what is the definition of governance? You know, assuming that you're gonna give ownership of these recommendations to some of these boards, in my observation, none of these boards ever actually implement anything. They just make recommendations or get reports and say, yes, the progress is good or the progress is bad. But when something like, oh, I don't know, to get outside the sustainability, you know, Jody's Main Street Corridor land use plan, that work is done by the staff and by contractors and not by any of these volunteer organizations. And so I'm not sure we have a definition of governance and I also believe by the way that because we're gonna have a budget that's cut by 13 to 25% depending on what happens in the next couple of months at the most right now. If we want progress in the upcoming year to happen on any of these things, we are gonna have to change the model for implementation, not just governance. And again, I still don't have a definition of governance, but I wanna get it done. If you follow both the industry literature on climate change and the industry of the just transition to renewable energy and the big broad brush things, all the buzz is around, we have to have shovel ready projects like the day after the election. So we've got something that has to happen in the next eight months in order to win the recovery grants. It's gonna be like 2009 again. And the error program really had problems because not enough people had shovel ready projects. So we need to be looking ahead and not just putting these into a governance mode where somebody makes slow progress on recommendations by what governance boards do, but rather talking about a next phase of the emergency. So at minimum, we need to understand what governance actually does. And second, we need to figure out how to get actual boots on the ground, engineering and planning work done here on these projects. And if we mean this, we need to figure out how to get it done in the city with no money. I just wanna make two quick comments on that. And Mark was right, just to clarify the boards that are in existence other than, well, the boards that are in existence and specifically the sustainability advisory board they are advisory boards. That is, they don't do, every once in a while we have volunteers that help with events and things like that. But I mean, that's kind of the extent that we go in terms of implementation. So I do wanna make sure everybody understands how those boards function. And then with regards to your stimulus comment, that's absolutely right. Those are the conversations that we are hearing as well. And we are having a lot of those conversations already internally and have our eye on when this report comes out from this group to be able to look at how are we prioritizing those recommendations to plug into the stimulus fund. So that those are already conversations that we are having internally with staff. So that because we also see that as our primary opportunity to move any of this work forward given the budget constraints that we're gonna be facing. This is Ann Lutz and I just wanna make a few comments too. I've had my top person in my group looking at grant opportunities and getting us set up at a base level so that we can jump in. We've had a number of projects I think that we're looking at that we feel we're getting, we're moving them into the shovel ready stage. I went through the arrow time frame and we were fortunate here in Longmont we did get some good money out of that. And I certainly intend to be poised for us to move ahead with that. So, and the fact that Lisa's group has also hired a full-time grant person I think will be just, it'll make a lot easier for us. So I think we're looking ahead to this timeframe and sharing three that that's not really what a board would be doing, but something I see Stan doing. Yeah, I wanted clarification on what the, I know that you do Karen, that we need to do what the advisory board's role would be. So if I can try to help on this, I think that would add a couple of comments. I've had my hand raised for a long time. I had a couple of comments and I think it's important before we move beyond with this. When a group of us got together to write this resolution, one of the main things we did and why we said we wanted a task force was that we wanted something that would be rapid, that we would go out and treat this as an emergency that it wouldn't be in a long-term, become part of the city bureaucracy and not be top of, not be something that was focused daily type of thing. We already have, I think it's been almost a year, maybe it has been a year since we did the recommendation. When you're facing an emergency, you're supposed to act rapidly. And so we need something that is going to be, oh, that helps, I can see everybody. We need some way of monitoring this and implementing this so that it's treated as an emergency, not something that gets put off because of the city budget or because this month we're focusing on businesses or whatever, it needs to be something, it needs to be in a place for governance where there's accountability to work on it rapidly because folks, this is coming in a hurry. There's already towns on the coast that are going underwater. The weather, we've possibly got the third- So Karen- making hurricane coming up, something rapid, yes. So with that and kind of the comments that you and Marcia have brought forward, what is it that you would like to recommend to council in terms of, so and sort of around this notion of accountability, implementation and the adaptation of the recommendations over time, right? Because, so that's kind of what we're getting as, what is this group's recommendation around accountability, implementation and adaptation of the recommendations that are put forth? Yeah, I think what I would like to see is these recommendations sort of go over multiple places as does the sustainability report. But the sustainability report, it has the plan, I guess it would be, has so many, so many one, one, A, one, B type of thing, which is very nice and readable and you can see the plan. But how do we have this not part of that plan but a separate plan that we're going to work on and look at and set, we set goals of 2021 or 2022 but we can't wait until 2022 to start working on this. So whoever has that needs to develop the plans for implementation, and I'll give you an example of PRPA. We had a goal of 100% by 2030. Now there's a challenge out there, well let's reach 85%, I can't remember what the dates are, but 85% within the next three years. How are you going to get there? And so we need things like that that say an ability to work across all departments because this is water, this is planning, this is electricity, this is transportation. So somebody that holds this, like Lisa does with the plan, but to be separate and to maybe have more reporting. So sorry, I'm trying to pull out the recommendation out of the thing. Out of my mumbling, yes. I was thinking about, so is it that you, and we are coming up on time here, so I recognize that some people may need to drop off and we will try to wrap this up fairly quickly, but are you suggesting that there is a staff position or person that is or and or again, just trying to get into the structural notions around accountability, implementation and adaptation of these recommendations. What is the people structure that you believe is necessary to make that happen? With the understanding that this may be different in long months, but that forming new formal governance bodies through city processes are fairly time-intensive and rather bureaucratic. What I would like to see is somebody like Lisa who has a position that sort of crosses all of these areas her plan does, but it would not be part of the sustainability plan because then it gets bogged down in a huge plan, but a separate plan that is a climate emergency plan that then has accountability to the city whatever, but also into the city council and to the residents and the boards and the coalition that Lisa mentioned are like informational boards. It goes back to the community sort of a reporting structure or informational reporting, but also to the city council. This was declared an emergency and then therefore the city should hear an update like every quarter on the climate emergency plan. Now isn't that something that could be done through city council? Yes, yes, a report to city council. Yeah. Okay, so I have a question about that because I like getting reports, but I also like there to be work done. And what we have here, I mean, what we've already seen is that we had people who did a lot of work at the beginning and now what we've got a third of the people here participating and it was really hard for us to get that last bit of the work done. We are also most of us, and I realize there are exceptions, but I would say at least half of the exceptions are already on the city staff and already have jobs full time. Most of us are at the end of our ability to do engineering work just when the engineering work begins. So, this team is, if we all stopped and made it our full time job might be able to do a shovel ready plan inside the city context that could then be handed over to a grant team. And the progress on that could be reportable to either some oversight group, but otherwise it either has to go through the city budget or we have to have a novel way of finding qualified labor to put these plans together. So, Marcia, do you have a recommendation regarding accountability, implementation and adaptation of the recommendations over time? Well, since you still haven't defined accountability or governance, I'm not sure I do. I think I could get skilled people at less cost than possibly other places because it is an emergency for some of these projects but not for others. But otherwise, again, that is way out of the box. If it's- So, more of a technical advisory- No, not advisory at all. I'm talking about doing it. I'm talking about doing the work. Who's gonna do the work? Because you either, you get a grant but you have to have a proposal to get a grant and these proposals are gonna have to be good which means that it takes people with the ability to actually do engineering planning in order to win the grants. So, how are we gonna get those people given that the city is gonna be, the city doesn't have money to assign people to doing those? So, it's all very well to talk about governments but governance, but how do you get it? How do we find the skills to actually make progress? You know, I mean- So, times should balance our time which we are over which is with also a fairly complex conversation. What I'm hearing is some concern about folding this into existing structures. So, existing staff responsibilities and existing governance boards. So, an oversight board is what the sustainability advisory board is as I understand it and then chat reports to council. So, that's the accountability there is essentially staff to council but there is a group that is helping along the way. What I think I'm hearing and maybe incorrect me if I didn't quite couch that accurately. What I think I'm hearing is that there's some concern that that existing structure is either overtaxed and or doesn't move quickly enough to address the notion of the urgency that was presented. What's less clear to me is what the proposed alternative recommendation is. So, both, Josie, both of those are true and I guess that's why I'm not sure why we think if we're gonna get governance and accountability we think we get anything because unless you've got somebody to do the work, nothing changes. Okay, I'd like to make a comment from Longmont Power and Communications and just speaking of my particular group. I have staffed up by three people. I've got one person actively full-time engaged in benchmarking or commercial and we're ready to head that way. I think what I'm saying is that we need for city council when they hear these recommendations to say we like commercial benchmarking, go for it. Get it done by the state. Okay, that gives us marching orders. Got another person working on residential home efficiency. Another person working on commercial building energy, audits, retro commissioning. I mean, the things that we have put in at least our building report are things that are actionable and we are working on them still actively with or without COVID, with or without any other direction because we want to be ready to go. We know these are critical. Right, and that's really good. And I think that one way of approaching this in terms of accountability is exactly what Ann said, which is when the city council prioritizes these things, if that's what happens, then how fast can the staff on an emergency basis say I can address this, this and this on a fast track with the resources I have versus here are the priority things that I can't address without something. And then we can go around and say, how do we use our resources to maximize our grant revenue? Right. That would suggest that maybe we don't have to define this. I think that Harold and the council can look at what recommendations are approved and decide, do we want to disseminate this and then I'll be responsible for gathering it back together and accountability. I think that we don't have all the knowledge to know whether or not it should be here or there or everywhere. Well, and I think having Lisa in place as the sustainability coordinator, to me, I'm used to, I meet with her say quarterly or more often and we talk about what we're working on if we're running into problems. Okay, we've got some things to go and it's largely or in large part due to her leadership. I've got, I think we have new leadership within Longmont Power and Communication that has totally changed our direction. Can I try to help us out here, especially given the hour? Yeah, okay, it's okay. No, I appreciate the energy around this. It's a very important conversation. And what seems like might be a path forward would be to have an ad hoc group conversation to work through some of the details around this. I think this may be of more interest and relevance to some than others and then to be able to come back to the group with either an agreed upon path forward or a couple of alternatives for the group to discuss. And Karen, in the worst case, it may be that the group goes to council with some options around governance without a singular path forward and that becomes something for council to decide on. But I think we need an ad hoc offline conversation to move this forward a little bit further. So that would be my recommendation. Is that amicable? Okay, so it seems like that needs to be Marsha and Karen and Lisa at minimum. And we can put that out because there are group who are here off and there are a lot of folks that weren't able to join us tonight. So we can put that call out and schedule that. Okay, does anyone else that's currently on the call we will do this for everyone else but does anyone else want to participate in that bill? I would. Okay, Phil and Anne and Karen and Marsha and Lisa and Francie I'm sure you'll be involved in some form of fashion. Maybe we'll see. Figure it out. Okay, you've got some work to do with the on the water side and the report side. So you've got a pretty full plate right now as well. So maybe not Lisa or not Francie. Okay, so I'm pretty sure that Francie you'll be maybe the one to follow up with that Lisa's initial email or Lisa would that be? It'll be one of us, yeah. Okay, all right, so look for that. I think that should probably be its own distinct email separate from kind of all the rest of the notes. So I'm going to try and get the right size for the bites of information. So let's wrap up tonight with I think three things that hopefully we can go through very quickly. So we'd like to go through the schedule before we go through the schedule for kind of wrapping up this work. Francie wanted to talk to you all at least preliminarily about the just how and if the Just Transitions Committee might be a part of the presentation to council. Francie, can you? Sure, so what you always see when we send out the draft report and Josie will share that date it's later this week is that we will have the very close to final report from the Just Transition Plan Committee. We would like to ask that group if they would like to present to city council and we could either have them present with the climate action task force or we could have them come to city council at a separate time to present. So before going to them to see their interest in presenting I wanted to check with the climate action task force to see if you all would like them to co-present with you. Yes, Marsha. I'm not sure what they are presenting. Are they presenting concerns with the climate action plan or are they presenting a plan of their own about the Just Transition and whenever I hear that I always want to say from what to what. So if it's not the climate action plan what is it? So it is specific recommendations about how to make when implementing the climate action plans how to really factor in equity. They have a list of recommendations that really focus on how you can be as inclusive and equitable as possible when implementing these recommendations. So it's not specifically concerns on the recommendations but more I would say it's kind of direction for staff or whoever is taking this implementation about how they can really make sure it's inclusive for all members of the community when implementing climate action. Above and beyond what has already been in our rubric to make sure that we can consider that at the time. Yeah, I think it might be good to have them as separate presentations. I think the climate action task force has so not that they're more important but it's just we've got a lot of stuff in there that some of the concepts are fairly complex. And I think I guess I don't want to spy on them fighting one team or one committee against the other but I think the just transition plan will want to come in maybe at a following meeting and say just here's our concerns. Yeah, here's our concerns. We've been working with the other team. So we've had some meetings and understand some of the concepts but just want to make sure don't forget some of these important things that we're bringing. So because otherwise I think it's gonna be it'll seem like a battle if we're doing both in the same meeting. I mean, the climate action task force that's gonna take a while to get through. And I do want to mention that we are planning or it's going to city council tomorrow but we're proposing going for two meetings to city council. Right, yeah. Yeah, so who is presenting? Sorry Ann, I didn't mean to jump on you, but I did. We haven't asked the group that yet. We didn't want, we wanted to first see if they might not even be interested in presenting to city council. So I don't know that yet but we wanted to see if at the end of the climate action presentation or wherever you would all like do you want a just transition plan committee presentation to be designed how they would like to design it and maybe like given a timeframe that's appropriate for city council or should their presentation be separate? Yeah, you asked a different answer to different question that I ask who is giving the climate emergency task force presentation tomorrow because. Oh no, it's not. We hadn't heard about it. No, no, no, it's not a presentation tomorrow. It's just an info item that's proposing that we present the climate action task force report over two separate sessions, June 30th and July 7th, then in one session. So it's just an info item going to council to say this, you know, based on the meeting we had a couple of weeks ago with this group where Marcia, you'd brought up, this is a lot of substantive information and recommended that we split that up over two presentations. So no presentation tomorrow. Okay. Yeah. And just to clarify, we are planning to incorporate the recommendations from the Just Transition Plan Committee into an appendix of the climate action task force. Again, we have been talking about equity throughout this entire process and we do wanna make sure that that is prioritized and that does stay part of the conversation in whatever way that it happens moving forward. Yeah. So this joint presentation could be part of that, making sure that as we move forward into the implementation piece, that that piece needs to stay part of the conversation. Seems to me that the task force has been pretty attentive to all those suggestions. They've co-met with them. They've written that the equity dimension into almost every proposal. This seems to me like a diplomatic issue. I would really wanna see a strong endorsement from them, not a public situation where they're saying, gosh, these people didn't even try. We gotta go off and do something else. Yeah, let's clarify that. That's not the nature of their recommendations and that's not the nature of the comments. Really, what they've developed is their own, in their own voice and with their own experience, this is how to be inclusive. This is how to bring equity forward as you move through implementation. It is not a critique of each of the recommendations from an equity perspective, rather it's saying this is how to think about equity as you move through time from their own voice. So I wanna be really clear about the nature of recommendations that they're making. It's not a critique of this group's work. It's their own work in saying this is how to use an equity lens as you address climate change and other city issues. To me, a sign of their terrific work has been the way in which they've pushed the task force to be attentive and I think that's been terrific. I agree with Peter. I think that they're, yeah, so that is valuable and the ways that it's been integrated into this work are valuable. My understanding is that this group also existed prior to and is independent of the climate action resolution. These two things just happened to coincide together. So they have their own work that they are doing to bring forward issues around equity, which I think as the current state of affairs in this country highlight are far from resolved. And this is your community's voice saying this is how we can be a part of your decision making and the evolution of our community and our society as we move forward. And I think what's special about that is that it's in their voice from their lived experience and it's their way of sharing from where I'm sitting in this community, this is how to include us in the work you're doing. And it's a more broad recommendation. It's not about just about climate, but as Karen was saying, these are the communities that tend to be most impacted by climate change, most readily and by COVID, they are by definition the most vulnerable populations within your community. This is their chance to say this is how from our perspective, we can be included. So that's not a critique. I think that hearing that, it makes me think that in order to fully be heard for that team to fully be heard, it would be best if they had their own time rather than an angel to ours that give them as much of a voice. I don't think as if they had their separate time and can describe then based on what the work that we've done, how important it is to their communities to be included and to be heard and to be looked after in some ways, like with air conditioning. Yeah, I agree with Karen that they need their own thing. I also think from the point of view of the council, the council knows exactly how the climate action task force came into being. The council does not have much idea at all where the just transition team came from. So it would be great to have some history on that in their presentation. Okay, so again, doing my best to move us through this and we're dropping off like flies here. But what I think I'm hearing is the desire to, or the recommendation from this group to give to give the just transitions planning committee their own time and space with council to share their work. Should they be so inclined to do that? Okay, very last thing, and this will go in an email, but just so that you all can see that we've talked about it and for those of you who need to hear it too, by the end of this week, we'll be sending the final draft of the report and the presentations to the climate action task force for your review. Final presentations for round one and round two are due on the 11th, which is up a calendar here. So that would be towards the end of next week. Those are pretty straightforward. It's basically that recommendation that's involved off of the smart goals worksheet. So it's basically that summary. But if you would like to make any changes to those or additions to them, we'll have our final meeting on the 11th. We'll talk more about the presentation at that time. That will be again on the same platform. And then the full report will be sent to, oh, so then the final report will be sent to staff on the 14th. And then you all get a chance to look at it and then we'll continue to make revisions and get to staff on the 14th. It'll be submitted to council on the 18th. And then as Lisa was talking about, their recommendations in two parts is what we're currently hoping for our previous conversations. So we'll present the first half on the 30th and the second half on the seven. And just to clarify, as I said a minute ago, that's that proposal is going to council tomorrow night. So there's a, there's a chance that could change. I just want to make sure that's. So the council is supposed to make a reserve, a recommendation based on the contents of essentially the one paragraph of the smart goals. They will get all of it. So they will get the full report that has the summary. It will have the full recommendations as they're written and submitted to us in final form. It will also include the outreach questionnaire, outcomes and reporting, as well as the just transition recommendations and appendices. So it will be a full, it will be a full report that council will receive, not just the summary recommendation. I thought we just decided that we would make the just transition a separate document rather than appendix. It is. So I thought what we just decided was that it'd be a separate presentation, but that the comments around it, particularly because of the connection between climate and equity, that those recommendations would be included. It is a standalone report, but it would be included as an appendix in this report as well. And you'll have a chance to look at that starting on Friday of this week. So for now, could we include it? And then if there's a conversation about a desire to take that out of the appendix of this report, we can have that after you see what the content is and how it relates to the rest of the document. Okay. There's a couple of things that aren't on this list that are follow-up action items. So Karen, I promise to send you the specific document that's for your updating. I'll send it directly to you. Then Francie's going to follow up with Lynette and a couple of others on the water recommendation. And then there's a third follow-up around governance. And so Phil and Marcia and Karen and Lisa self-identified, plus we'll ask the rest of the group if they'd like to participate. It is going to have to be a quick turn as we're hoping to have at least the draft report completed by Friday. So hopefully that we'll be able to be fairly speedy and even if it means presenting them with a couple of options, if the group isn't able to come to full resolution. So anything anything before we close? Thank you for those of you who stuck with us to the bitter end. We'll hope that the other is ever chance to review the recording and the notes. Thank you. Thanks, Josie. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. Good night. Bye everybody. Yeah.