 It is a study session, October 6, 2020. Can we go ahead and start with roll call, please? Mayor Bagley. I'm here. Council Member Christensen. Council Member Adagio Ferring. Here. Council Member Martin. Here. Council Member Peck. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Here. And Council Member Waters. Here. Mayor, you have a quorum. Great. Don't hate me, Dr. Waters, but would you like to lead us in a pledge given you and you probably have the most experience in pledges? Maybe Susie, Council Member Adagio Ferring could give you a run, but let's do her next one. I'm happy to defer if she'd like to lead this. No, no, I'd really insist. You go ahead. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, a nation under God, indivisible, and liberty, and justice for all. All right, great. So how do musicians and stuff do this? I don't know. You can get an entire like basketball stadium to say air ball, air ball like in unison, but Dr. Waters couldn't even get us to do the pledge. I just don't get it. You know, Council Member Martin, very good engineers. Very good engineers. And with music. And with music. Why don't you try singing next time, Tim? I think that might work. All right, let's go ahead and remind everybody that anybody wishing to provide public comment needs to go ahead and watch the live stream of the meeting and call in only when the meeting for public comment is open. All those are not able to access the meeting at any other time. The toll free number there in your screen. Those instructions will be posted again. Oh, my German Shepherd apparently likes to pull wires out of my ears. I apologize. All right, then let's go ahead and move on to motions to direct city manager to add. Council Member Martin. Yes, last week. We directed staff to fund Longmont public media at level two and having having looked at the discretionary budget stuff and sort of assessed the way people feel. And I would like to make a motion on the affirmative prevailing side on that and I would like to first make a motion to reconsider that allocation of funds. There's a second. I'll second. We have a motion second. So motions on the table. Is there further debate before we vote? All right. All in favor of the motion to reconsider. Say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. All right. The motion carries six to one. Council Member Martin. Yes, I would like to then move that we fund Longmont public media at level one. Okay. I'll second. All right. Could we, could I add a friendly amendment? Go ahead. Floor is yours and then we're going to go with Joe. Joe, you're next. I saw your hand go up. I think the term is odd. We ought to be option rather than level one. Well, excuse me. Yes. Option one. Council member back. I can't remember what option one was. Can somebody tell me what that was? It was the highest level of funding, which would allow them to do some expansions of their services in terms of, of public service productions. Do we have some kind of a report from Jim Golden that it would have to come out of one time funding? Am I remembering that correctly? Jim, you want to help us out? Yeah, actually, either level was coming from one time funding level one option one is 117,000. And I think option two is 7076,000. And Jim, how much money do we have in that one time funding? Well, you have, you have more than that. So let's, let's leave it at that. And next week we will be bringing to you. Options, you know, what you have to still direct. So. Councilor Waters found that very amusing. That was a perfect response. Yeah, I would have expected nothing less. Council member Christensen. Well, I would love to fund them with that, but I also would love to give the library some extra money. Give our early childhood education some extra money. You know, I just, I think it's very difficult to favor one organization over others at a time when we were having to cut back so much in other areas. If the council thinks that's fine, then I'm forward to, but I, I just think that at a time when we have so much other material, so many other organizations that we have to cut, it's really difficult for me to say, okay, this one organization, but I, even though I do think they're doing very, very well and I do want them to expand, I just think that this is not the time to give them extra money, but that's my opinion. Maybe I should be more specific with my answer. I'm sorry. Have it in front of me. So I thought it was that simple, but anyhow, so I'll give you a few different sources of one time dollars that we've identified. We, we do have our assessed valuations so the amounts that would be available from that would be about $170,000. There's 50% of the special marijuana tax, which is $205,000. There's the first, the 50% of last year's the first year met marijuana tax, which was undesignated is $137,000. So all of those are available and then we talked about over $1.4 million, I believe we said was going into the stability reserve, and we talked about that potentially being lowered to whatever amount and using that dollar, whatever it is lowered by, if necessary for other one time expenses. So that's what I meant by you have more. Thank you, Jim. And that's why I asked that question. So having that information, I will support this doesn't mind. Yes. The other thing I wanted to say about this is, is that LPM, I think, other than probably some of the other organizations that could benefit from additional funding. So I have a plan for how to actually have this be a one time expense. And that taken together with what I think has been extraordinary service, during, you know, in terms of communication services for the city. And it makes me think that we need to encourage them to be able to stay on plan to the extent that they are able, given that they're not able to open up their facilities and, and build up maker space funding yet. So, you know, that's, that's the reason why I think that we need to make sure that this resource stays intact with the city, and I would have voted for this last time, except that I wasn't sure that there was support for it. All right customer Christianson. Okay, so I don't know that I presume this will pass, but I would suggest that if we do this we take $35,000 out of the Council contingency fund because that'll be only till the end of this year and then it will be, we hope, refurbished. Is that right Jim. And the rest out of the 50% of the marijuana tax because it's now 450,000, as opposed to 250,000 last year so this will not diminish presumably our ability to help fund housing and human services, which helped us provide additional structures for homeless people, and also helped us fund early childhood education to a greater degree. I don't want to impact those funds I also don't think we should be taking out of the reserve fund when we really need to reserve, and we need to continue along the path of building up that reserve which we've been doing for the last eight years, so, or six years. We've got we've got I guess my thoughts are that I just prefer that I mean I agree with the, I mean the point of what Councilman Christianson just said but I just say we leave it up to Harold and Jim, and they'll let us know. We can transfer money to anytime it's left to right and repeat or Paul that stuff. But we've got a motion on the table. Let's go ahead and vote all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed they may. That is unanimously. Is that it, Councilman Martin. Yes, that's all I have. All right, customer pack. Thank you mayor back Lee I do have a couple of things that I wanted to direct staff to do they're pretty easy. Won't take much time. So I would like to direct staff to give us an update on the part 16 lawsuit for FAA, and how that affects mile high Skydiving where we are with that. So, I moved to direct staff to give us an update on the Part 16 lawsuit with FAA. The only reason I'm not seconding that, Joan, is because a lot of times individual council members want information and we all have the ability to talk with staff. And so, this is not just for council. It is for the residents as well. They want to know where we are on this. And we should update people on where we are on our lawsuits, what's going on. This is an issue that the population is interested in. So, it would be a very short update. I can ask Harold about it, but then I'd have to email everybody who's asking me. So let's just have him do it publicly. That's my Christianson. I would second that. Okay. I guess the, I'm going to vote for it. But just so everybody knows, we're going to be talk hearing from Harold tonight during his city manager update and staff has too much to do. And we have too much to deal with on Tuesday nights. So, go ahead, Eugene. Eugene may city attorney. So the update on the part 16 is that the FAA granted themselves another extension on September 8 to October 9. Thank you. We've been waiting for that decision for, I think, over about a year. I knew it would be a short statement. Thank you. Eugene, you just rescued, you rescued me and staff. Thank you. Anything else? No, thank you. All right. All right. See nothing else. Let's move on to Harold. Where is your city manager report. I go after, I go after public invited to be heard on. All right. So no, I see the COVID-19, but we're just going to do all of them with that. So let's go ahead and do public invited to be heard. Let's take a two minute break real quick as we get people in the queue. How are we all doing on getting back? There we go. All right, let's go ahead and start. How many are in the, how many in the queue? It is Heather who's emceeing, but it looks like we have four in the queue right now, Mayor. Perfect. You want to start calling them in? Please. Yes. Thank you. Guess number 499, would you please unmute. Can you hear me? You can. And you'll have three, if you would just state your name and address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes. Okay. My name is Doe Kelly. I live on Barbary Drive in Longmont. Okay. So first, I'd like to applaud the council's decision to hold a study session on the proposed smart meter program for Longmont. I would like to know in the October 20th study session, will you also plan to invite an independent expert in the damaging health effects of wireless electromagnetic radiation. And if you haven't planned to do so, why not? Would you do so? Will you do so? And also, will the public have the opportunity to be interactive in this session other than in public invited to be heard public commentary. I would also like to ask in arriving at a budget for the AMI. As many of you financially considered and incorporated in the AMI proposed budget, the potential liability impacts to the city for adverse health impacts or damage by fire that are sparked by smart meter. As you all know, we are in a severe drought situation at the present moment. California and Colorado burn as we speak. And now through October, the 10th fire prevention week. With this in mind, I urge you to consider the following. It is common knowledge and fully supported by evidence peer reviewed and published research, science and facts. There are smart utility meters, including all advanced metering infrastructure or AMI electronic utility meters, and all utility meters which contain any digital or electronic components whatsoever. Our fire hazards due to a lack of surge protectors in violation of necessary standards for utility meters. They cannot withstand typical grid surges. They cause damage to or destroy homes, lives and structures when damaged by grid surges spark a fire. They emit biologically harmful post EMF radiation continually, whether transmitting data or not. They create and collect personal data of private activities in the home and violation of law. This is for sharing of data of personal living habits with utility personnel and others without authorization of the property owner or its occupants. They're able to fatally disrupt and disable medical devices such as pacemakers. They cause heating and antenna effects within metallic body implants, including metal in the mouth, damaging bodily tissues. They interfere with bodily functions such as sleep and interfere with the general health and well being of biological entities in a household when installed in close proximity. The longevity of smart meters is questionable when compared with their analog counterparts causing for more much more frequent replacements and analog equipment resulting in added financial burdens on customers. Last but not least, there are many, many reports of people receiving greatly increased and highly inaccurate utility bills when smart meters are installed. As an individual with ES or electrosensitivity who stands to be more damaged by the installation of said AMI, I ask you my elected representatives in the city of Longmont to deeply and fully consider the fire safety and health issues before embarking on any full scale rollout of AMI. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for your service. Number 418. I just asked you to a mute. If you would please state your name and address for the record. And then you'll have three minutes to speak. Oh, is this the right person? Stan, you're the right guy. Go ahead, buddy. Okay. The reason I'm calling is that you're considering the ordinance basically to confiscate my home and put myself in jail. And one of the things is that I'm not sure a lot of people in my situation are really aware that this is something that is threatening them right now. And most of them cannot participate in these meetings. So I don't think this meeting can act, you know, is can be considered an open record meeting when the people who are being affected by it for the most part can't access it. Well, myself, it took me a couple of months to figure out how to do this thing. And the other thing I'm saying is that, you know, you're doing something against a certain set of lawnmower residents, and you're not involving them in the process. I myself, you know, being aware of what's happening in the city, have beat my head trying to get some sort of access to have some sort of input in this thing. And there appears to be a lot of not good knowledge amongst a lot of the city council and the people putting this ordinance together, like they're saying, oh, we're going to help you get a place to live. I would like to inform you that I was the one who provided information to the state legislator about the city of lawnmower, having extreme difficulties with Section 8 discrimination, where people who had vouchers like myself could not get places to live because of discrimination. I would think maybe you should just try to get fewer people living on the street by allowing them to actually get housing free from discrimination. And the other thing I don't think you've thought of is that if you're putting more people without shelter out on the streets, we're going to have more people at the memorial for the people who died as being homeless. Is that your intent just to try to kill more people? I don't think so, but that will be the effect of doing something like this. As well as, it's probably, you know, you're going to take somebody like me who's getting back on my feet and confiscate his own only short source of shelter and put them in jail for doing what. Thank you. Thanks Dan. All right, number three. Caller number 518. I just asked you to unmute. Please state your name and record, your name and address for the record. Somebody needs to mute. Your phone is going off. Caller number 518. I just asked you to unmute. Can you. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Can you please state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to see. Yes. My name is John Flower. I live at 719 Pendleton Avenue. That's out in the east side of Longmont near 9th and Pays. I am the president of the Rider Ridge Homeowners Association. The reason I'm calling is I understand you're discussing some changes to the rules about RVs and motor homes parked on the streets. And what I wonder if you're considering is there are several residents in our neighborhood. I am one of them. And we have a small motor home that fits in the driveway and sometimes I put it on the street and sometimes I put it on in my driveway. When we're preparing for a trip, we have to put it on the street so it's level enough that the refrigerator works. I just wonder if you're even considering this kind of thing, because the problem that I think you're trying to solve is people living in the RVs. I don't live in my RV. I live in my house. I live in the RV when I'm traveling places. And so I just want to make sure you're considering that kind of thing so that if, if I want to put my RV out in the street for a few days to get it ready for a trip and make a refrigerator working, don't make that illegal. And, you know, the last rule that you had somebody could make you complain if it was parked on the street. And I checked with the city attorney and he said, well, even though the ticket says they can confiscate it and they can, I have to move it to 600 feet, the city attorney said, yeah, if you put it back in your driveway then you're in compliance. So my answer to that rule is don't bother because I'll just put it back in my driveway. But just remember to think about people who have, I mean, our HOA, the rules in the HOA is that if you have a vehicle in your driveway, it's got to be currently licensed. It just can't be an old junk vehicle. It's got to be in the driveway. And so our HOA doesn't have a problem with it. And the other thing that came up when I was talking to my wife about this is that I think some people when they get tested for COVID and have to isolate from their families, you know, what they, what they can do is leave them their RV if they've got one. The camp placed over by the, by the Humane Society, that's closed. The city has some land where they could allocate for that or make it okay if you got a permit or something like that to sleep in your RV for a week or two on the street, if it was because of COVID isolation. So that's something to think about. What I wanted you to consider is that people like me that have an RV, and it's a good looking fairly new one. I don't live in it. I just want to be able to put it on the street once in a while so that I can set it up for a trip. So, it's all I have. Hope you're thinking of that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. It should be one more right about it. Yes, give me one moment. Caller number 811. I just asked you to unmute. Can you please state your name? Can you please state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to speak. Okay. I live on 17th Avenue in Longmont. I wanted to speak to Mayor Bagley and the council tonight I had been on the first round of comments when you had discussed this before. Again, I'm hoping that the city council will continue to come up with a solution for the RV dollars. I have lived in Longmont for 26 years, worked in the school district for 25. Currently, I found that I am having to find a new apartment. And I had to living off from 17th for about five years now. And unfortunately my roommate is leaving and I have to find a new place. So I have been looking for a new place and have found that I am very much outcry to live here in the city. For a 500 square foot suite, you would need to make $46,000 or $44 here. For one bedroom, $48,708 here. And our two bedroom, $52,524 here. I cannot find a place to live. I do not make that much money. So my point is behind this is I feel like I'm being driven out of the city of Longmont after living near for 26 years. And so my point is with the RV dollars, what are they supposed to do? There was a lady who had posted what's up Longmont about her situation. She's been waiting to get her much income housing. They called her. She went the next day and they had given her about her way. I don't know what that means. And out to that was the thing once was that she, her and her children that were having to live in an RV. It's not just single people or, you know, people that maybe are more undesirable than others or whatever. And my concern was that she was feeling very upset that she can't find a place to live. Again, I do ask that you would consider the situation of COVID affecting the economy here and how availability here. And I just believe now is not the time to be banning the RVs that are on the street, especially with us going into winter. And I just, I just don't understand where the city is expensive as it's getting where the RV people are supposed to come. I'm very frustrated because I can't find a place to live here in the city of Longmont and I've been here for 26 years. And it's very concerning me how there's very few available apartments in town. They can find any and they're very expensive. And I just have that you would come up with a plan or continue to search for a plan on what can be done with the RV dwellers besides just moving them out of the city. I appreciate your time. Thank you. All right, thank you. That's it for public invited to be heard. Harold, let's move on to your reports. Can we do COVID-19 first and then your city manager report. Thank you. So mayor council, can you see the screen with the graph on it? Yes. Okay. So I'm going to give you an overview of the numbers wanted to let you know, had some conversations with Boulder County Public Health next week. We are going to have a representative here. They are moving through some restructuring right now just people working on data. And so next week we'll have Rachel aren't who's working on a lot of the data. Join us. And she's working directly with Jeff and Susan with Tico on this. So no, we are now having meetings in terms of the administrator group again. It's three days a week, primarily focused on this situation that's developing there are the situation that occurred in Boulder, and the actions are taking so that's where we're spending most of our time. But it did let us bring up some information discussions regarding data and that's sort of where you're seeing a move. So today I'll be presenting the information. I did get an update from him this afternoon I haven't had a chance to really dive into it. So I'm going to go with what's on the website. And then as we get as I can look at that information more I could myself will send that to you. But generally what we're seeing the good news is as you can see the peak of over 200 cases. And then where we are today, you can definitely see that the orders that they've put in place. And the actions they've taken it started is is is having a an impact in terms of our numbers. And you can see that downward trend when you look at the breakdown for when you look at the breakdown when you have the number of students that have been included in this. On September 29. We had 37 cases not associated with the university and 16. And you can see that downward trend. And so the numbers at the university are getting smaller. But at the same time you're also seeing the numbers within the community decrease a little decrease as well. What that really does is when you get into the testing piece and you start looking at what the overall percentage on the PCR testing looks like. The overall rate is 4.1 but the current five day average on the percentage is 2.6% which is much different than what we talked about at the last city council meeting. Again, you can see when we have the five day rolling average you can see where it's really just been dropping significantly over the last few days. And I think a lot of people when we go over this and when I talk about it with staff they go well are you doing fewer tests. Well, even when you see what occurred recently in October and you can see the number of positives. What you can really see is they're still exceeding a thousand tests per day. And so this is not a you know they're they've been performing a large number of tests. I mean you can see when that number got higher but you can also now see where it's going down in terms of the percent positive so that's really good news. And as we've had conversations with the county, I think we're all excited to see this trend and we really need to continue to see this trend. You will probably get notes from Rika and Rigo regarding the governor's press conference but one of the things that the governor said today is that really the next couple of weeks are going to be important for us as we head into late fall and winter. And it can really give an indication of what that's going to look like for the entire state and all of our communities and we still need to be diligent in terms of wearing masks, social distancing and good hygiene. You will probably hear me say that three to four times tonight because that's just really important for us. This is another graph if you remember when we showed this to you all last week, I think it what you could start to see the downward trend and we were hoping that we could to continue to see that in this. It's really where you're seeing it 17 to 23 18 to 22 and 18 to 24 that that has been where we've seen the bulk of the cases you can see the increase that where we were seeing in some of the other population groups. Specifically 25 to 34 you can really see that pick up but you're also seeing it go down a little bit 35 to 44 is in this range but this is the positive sign that we were all looking for. And I know that the county is continuing to work with them CDPHE in the state in terms of the mitigation plans and I know there's more conversations to come in terms of how they move forward. Once again, when you you see the age range. Again really just dominated by this category, the 10 to 19 numbers interesting because it's really the 18 and 19 year olds that are increasing that have the bulk of the cases in this as you can see from the previous slide. Again, the five day average of number of new cases is really mimicking what we were seeing in the PCR testing so that again just reinforce reinforces what we see. And then again this is what it looks like by community. 2700 cases in Boulder 960 in Longmont, then you can see Lewisville and Lafayette it's also important to look at this chart when they normalize it on 100,000 population. Where you can see, you know, we're at 1000 but you can now see Lafayette Lewisville when they normalize it on this 100,000 they're at 953 at 901 respectively. Race and ethnicity. If you remember this has historically been above 30% and now it's it's shifted downward to 28.8. So that also gives you a sense of where we're seeing the cases being generated within our county and then long term care facilities again you're not seeing a lot here. But what is interesting and I can't zoom in for you all right now but you can see that kind of show up in these two dates. And then it's sporadic as we saw this increase. So again I know the states continuing in the Boulder County Health Department continuing to really be diligent in terms of how they work with long term care facilities and then our hospital status. Again is pretty consistent with where we've always been. I've had the ability to look at some other data and look at hospitals and, and they all tend to be in really good shape right now in terms of those that are hospitalized. Related to COVID issues. I, Dan was not on our call today so I didn't get a chance to see what we have in our hospital system today but if you remember we had to last week. So if that changes dramatically we will definitely let you know. And then finally what I wanted to do is go over the statewide dial, because I think that's where you're now also seeing this start to come into play. So look at Boulder County if you will remember this the 11 days of declining or stable hospitalization that's really always been here in the green, the two week average positivity rate. I think last time we talked with somewhere in this area, it is now moved back into green, but perhaps the biggest changes if you remember the cumulative incidents we were somewhere in the red right about here and and we're now moving back into the orange area today I think it was somewhere in this area so all of that is really saying that we're moving in the right direction based on what we've seen. That being said, I think the key message that I'm getting from my conversations with the Boulder County Health and in our administrator for calling and really echoing what the governor talked about today was just diligence in terms of what we're doing, you know as a county we've been really good. In terms of, and, you know, prior to our recent case increase, Boulder County was always performing better than a lot of counties in the state. And so we just need to continue to be diligent. Wear a mask. And so there it is again wear a mask and socially distance. I find myself saying that a lot began wash your hands and good hygiene. Thanks Pauli because I found myself saying that a lot because now we've had kids start to go back to school. And what I've told my two teenagers who are in high school is that you're also responsible for other people in this and make sure that you're following the rules and wearing your mask and not taking them off when you're passing in classes because it really is incumbent upon us and one lesson from what happened and see you in the case counts is that if you don't do that that can make a difference in the numbers and again managing our numbers and doing these things is really about protecting our local businesses and protecting the people that work in our local businesses because we know that's how they're going to make the decisions in terms of what level we're in and so we just need to continue to do that. The other thing that I wanted to update you on on related to COVID is there's been a lot of questions regarding Halloween. So what I would do is point everyone to the Colorado Department of Public Health website and and go to the Halloween page because they have a lot of information on Halloween and what people need to do. And you know what they really talk about in this they lay out a lot but the one thing that I wanted to point out is they do focus on Halloween mask because that doesn't have necessarily the same protection that a mask that we're wearing. And so they really encourage you that if you're wearing a Halloween mask you need to wear another mask underneath it because the Halloween mask are designed for what they need to do. So I would give a lot of tips in terms of how to, if you are going to provide candy how to do that safely because just the number of people you impact and in the fact that it is within that six foot distance and so there's a really a lot of good information on this. They also talk about and I think, you know, this was really important is that when when you do go out with groups. You know, try to stay with your family try not to have groups where you have multiple family units interacting with each other, because those are all opportunities for exposure. A lot of information here way too much for me to go over at this time but I wanted to point out that that is available in the Colorado Department of Public Health website. And I would encourage everyone to look at it. Are there any questions for me. Let's go with Council Member Christensen, Council Member Adagio-Ferring and Council Member Waters. Harold thank you for the information about Halloween. I love Halloween, but I don't. I'll have to go to that site because I don't really see a way to be able to safely hand out Halloween County but if there's a way I'll do it. I recently read about the fact that, and I would just like us all to keep this in mind, all of us are fortunate enough to not have to be working in the service industry. Although Councilman Adagio-Ferring has to deal with people every single day so you could say that arguably that is that. And the statistic that I found really startling was that for middle class and upper middle class jobs about 60% of those who either come back or they've been resolved so that people can work at home. But for service industries and a lot of the other industries at the lower end of the pay scale, only 30% of those have come back. I would, and when I look at the statistics on the people who are dying and being hospitalized. It's very alarming that I have seen the Latino population go up and up and up, you know, the non-Hispanic white population is dying at about the same rate that they exist in the population. But the Latino population is going up by 3% more than their presence in the general population. And that is also true for the black population, which has gone up by almost twice their presence in the population. So these are typically people who are working in the service industries. And I would ask us all to be really cognizant of the fact that there are many different worlds here. And if you're lucky enough to live in the one that's not as affected, that's nice. But the rest of the people are not getting very, not getting the same kind of medical care that they ought to get. They're dying at higher rates and we need to be protective of them and cognizant of what's really going on for everybody in this country. So let's all take extra care when we're out there. Don't cough on your grocery guy, etc. You know, thank you. Yeah. Let's go ahead and make comments. Let's go ahead. I actually had a couple of questions, but Harold, did you want to add to what? I'm the mayor. Go ahead. I thought he was in the middle of saying something. Let's continue. Okay, so one of the questions we had the other week, we saw a slide that had the community. It was disaggregated among the community spread individual person to person spread and travel. I did not see a slide on that on the website. I was wondering if there, do we have data on those pieces and I've been getting a lot of questions on the difference between community spread and individual person to person. And so really I wanted to kind of make public what the differences between the two. Yeah, so that slide is not on their website now. And so I'll have to follow up and see what happened with that. Because that has been on there for some time. Yes, generally speaking, the differences is that community spread is where you can't identify whether or not you were connected to someone who has been positive, who is COVID positive versus person to person is when they go through the social tracing component, they can connect you to someone who is COVID positive. And so if you remember last week, most of those were person to person. And that's exactly what they were doing when they were looking at the boulder numbers and why they were able to say, not in the classroom, but here's where it was occurring because they could identify that via the tracing. Okay. Okay. And then the other one is so in conversations that I've had with Boulder County and with you and the district is, you know, we were really looking at that airborne transmission so the purpose of having the mask to begin with. So I read an article in the Washington Post that CDC is now saying that airborne transmission plays a role. You know they've updated their website. I feel like a lot of the conversations that we've had at the city level the county level and the district have all been with the idea that it is airborne that you do have these, you know, the particles that are airborne. So that's the purpose of wearing the mask to begin with. Yeah, so when you get into the scientific definition of airborne versus the spread of droplets, the purpose of the mask is actually to restrict the droplets so when we all talk, we're pushing stuff out. Okay. And so that's the purpose of the mask. So when we talk about airborne, if you remember when they were when we talked earlier about people exercising. Yes. And when and where to wear it so when you exercise in your breathing harder, you tend to aerosolize whatever it is that's in your system. And then it hangs there longer so I haven't read that article, but I'll try to read it to see what exactly are they meaning. Yeah, because it really gets into the nuances in the details but it's aerosolized and so when you saw what happened in New York a lot of times they were performing procedures that aerosolized it versus it's still being in droplet form. Okay, that's why you saw more medical professionals get ill. Okay. And they've adjusted their protocols. So as we did early in terms of what we do and where we do it in terms of our paramedics was based on some of that and so that's when we then look at our data. Again, the number of people that we've had test positive within our organization is lower. It's, I mean, I think now we're probably above 10 but below 15 unless it's changed recently. And that's really including those folks that provide that service and so it is about the precautions and protective equipment that you wear when you're doing those things. Okay. Okay. So that's just again, another thing to think about is we're moving as we're in hybrid now. And Susie I wasn't snapping at you saying I'm the mayor I just trying to push us along. That's it. No, you're fine. That way. The questions about masking kind of lead to my question. LPM is produced for video public service announcements, having viewed them. Personally, I think they're really well done. I'm just curious, what are what are we what's the city doing with those PSAs and how are we working with the business community or others to amplify both the message and the visibility of an access or profile of the video of the PSAs themselves. Hey, are you on Sandy's really in Marica are working on the public information piece. Sandy and Marica are you on right now to talk about where we are with those PSAs. Hi Harold, Sandy City Assistant City Manager. We are planning to run those those were those are so great and we appreciate the partnership with the businesses and everybody playing those together so we're going to run them, sort of at a time phased manner out in social media and some other areas, along with all of our partners will be doing the same. Yeah, there is. Go ahead. I know there's been communication with the partners but a council will remember. I think this was part of an update that I gave a few months or so ago was a conversation that we had with the Longmont Economic Development Partnership. And really those businesses saying we need to be behind this because we need this to remain open. And so that really was something that was born out of that conversation where they were saying they need to be more proactive in terms of sending this message. Yeah, I just don't want to reiterate. That was a conversation that started in June. Now in October. Yeah, it's taken us that long to get for there is Sandy said they're really well done. And, and whatever we can do to amplify the message and increase the profile. I think that's a time well spent. And I hope if any of our business community or membership organizations are tuned into this meeting. They'll work with their members to get them on their own social media websites personal Facebook personal social media platforms, and, and get the message up. What would be my recommendation is that each of you have your own personal social media accounts and of course we'll be sharing those in all of the city accounts as well. Thanks. Great Harold anything else regarding coven 19 nothing regarding coven I didn't need to go over some agenda stuff. So go ahead, let's talk about the genders. Mayor counsel so as we talk about this and as we were looking at the agendas in the future we have an agenda coming up that is really crowded. Many of these items or items that you all have the recent discussions have directed staff to work on. In addition to this. So it's also coming into play. And one of the things that's not on this list is you will see a call for an executive session for next Tuesday, where we'll need to Karen Kathy and Eugene and I need to talk to you all about the housing authority. Again, from a, and this one is time sensitive on October 20. We would really like to have a joint meeting with the housing authority board and the city council to talk about what we need to do operationally. When you take that, and then you look at what's on this agenda. And then the direction on and direction on accessory dwelling units that was something that council asked us to bring back. Longmont way services program review that is something that you all had wanted us to follow up on the land development codes code amendments associated with properties adjacent to city own property. And then the inclusionary housing update. I think that one was made by was affordable housing as requested and voted on on the 30th of July, when staff was ready. And then we have the AMI project review and discussion, which was, which is connected to the budget discussions we've recently had. And so the challenge is if each one of those. You know, conservatively 30 minutes and then we need the joint session. We can't get through all of this on the 20th and so wanted to talk to council about what you all would like to potentially delay on this list. And then I'll stop sharing the screen so the mayor can I don't know who went up first, but let's go the opposite way this time so Dr waters customer pack customer Christianson. For what it's worth for my purpose is you can take B and D off of that list and schedule a minute different time. For me the AMI discussion and we're going to vote. The next Tuesday on a budget that includes $13 million for smart meeting system. I'd like to vote confidently on that evening and I think the study session is critical to me being able to cast a vote with the kind of knowledge I need to be confident in my vote. And I think the lang code updates and the ad us we've got, we got a number of people in the community who are waiting to see what we're going to do with those and have keen interest in them. And I think the other two, I'm not certain I recall the reason for the review of the inclusionary zoning ordinance, I'll be happy to engage I just think those things to come back, they're less time sensitive than the other three. Council member back. Thank you. So ad use that is not including s trs right that's just a that that's short term Reynolds is coming on the next meeting in general business I believe it's the next meeting. Then I agree that I would say you could take off ad use and inclusionary housing ad use or the way services. I can't see the screen. Let me bring it back up. Dr waters and said B and D referring the long, long way, long way services and changes to the inclusionary housing that correct Dr waters. Yeah, that was correct. Those are a B and D with the two or just me, I think the B and D. All right, can we can we pop them back up. I would do a me. All right, can we go ahead and go ahead and there we go. All right. Councilman waters and councilman peck that we could put off the way services and I think the, the affordable housing ordinance is going to be a longer discussion so I would like to put that off to be and it's not as time sensitive as the other things as I said they are things we're going to be voting for coming up and people are waiting on our decisions so we need to put those keep those in the forefront. Councilman. Thank you Mayor bagley. I have a question about the way services is that report just on here because the staff's been working on it and it got ready or is there some sort of special direction from the council about it. So that is I think a combination of both that is a report where you all wanted to I think before wanted to see where we are. Talk about that and then where do we go from here in the future fail. They'll go ahead. Yeah, there you go. Councilmember Martin and mayor back. Dale you're frozen. Dale's pulling a cartman pretend he's here. Dale if you kill your video and your your audio should come in clear. So I don't know did the council hear anything I just know that it was all garbled. So, a councilmember Martin and Mayor bagley. He's still garbled. Basically, was to give the count. Yeah, we lost him. It can be delayed. It can be. What he said they'll say. Yeah, Dale said it could be delayed. I know there were people in the community that were anxious for this report. But in terms of, I wanted to hear from you all where you wanted to be and what you wanted to see in this. Alright, so who is the customer on your next. That was my question. Alright, so yeah, basically my understanding is the waste services presentation has to do with composting and recycling. So, I mean, I imagine some of you have friends who follow council quite closely that might be a little upset that if we pull the, just my thoughts. But the, so, Councillor Christensen. The person who brought composting forth in the first place I think composting takes a while and you know, we can, we can put that off for a few weeks. Especially in light of the fact that the city, the counter is thinking about starting a composting facility. So it might be beneficial to let that go a little further and find out what's going on with that. But it is a conversation we need to have but once again that could be put off I think a little bit longer. So that we can have a fruitful meeting that's not too jam packed full of stuff that we don't have time to discuss properly. I mean, I guess, so what I was going to say is that the reason and customer pack I didn't mean to be disrespectful or pure disrespectful to the beginning of the meeting when you were talking about the update on the lawsuit. I talked to Harold and staff, it's not just this this question isn't just about agendas. In order to talk on a Tuesday night and get the information necessary to have a conversation our staff has to do a lot of work for each of these issues. And so, if it's a problem to fit it into a Tuesday night, it's especially hard to fit it into an eight to 10 or 12 hour work day. I know that our staff, in many cases, is working more than 12 hours a day. They don't get over time, and they're, they're doing a great job. And so we just need to be careful that as we continue, I mean, we will be giving them these huge huge tasks, and they're all important, but we have to just realize that they only have so much time in a day. And my personal opinion is that, I mean, the ADUs currently the variances that we have downtown, there's no homeowners association. And, and we get, I, the calls I get are not about, you know, the larger national climate changing events people want to know, well why is my certificate of occupancy being held up or why is my neighbor building a ad by feet off my fence line or why is my hole in front of my house or why in the world is my trash late or why aren't you cutting the weeds. Those are the kind of calls I get all day. And so, and so the ADUs are I think are pressing, because we have a downtown district without homeowners that are facing and people are applying for permits and I personally don't want to change the characteristics of our characteristic of our, of our downtown neighborhoods it's a long lot I'd like to preserve it. But then Harold city staff, they need are, they, they, they're the ones who wanted to bring up the waste services but it sounds like we're going to go ahead and pull B if nobody cares. And then the other three were all items that council brought forward. Let's go ahead. And if you guys don't mind inclusionary housing is important. But what we're waiting on as an update as far I mean it's still going forward, but we could probably push off the update on how it's working. And so Harold why don't I go ahead and keep one, three, and five or AC and, and E for that meeting. Anyone object to that. Cool. And then and then I, and then I will need us that the other spot and this is time sensitive is the joint meeting on the housing authority. That's fine we'll have an executive session on Tuesday. So, right but then on the 20th joint meeting. That's fine. Okay. That's fine. So everybody okay with an executive session on Tuesday. All right, cool. Let's do it. How much time you're going to need Harold. I'll probably start at. I need an hour but because we have to log on and get early so I probably safe start at 530 that way we can get you a little break. Yeah, it's fine. Okay, great. Okay. Thanks Harold. Thank you. Let's move on Jim to our 2021 budget presentation. I promise I will not try to cut you off more than five times before you're done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. I don't think I'll be doing that much that you could get you five times, but we'll see. So, I'm Jim golden chief financial officer, Theresa Malloy is also with me tonight, the budget manager. I'm going to talk about the budget. I'm going to talk potentially over what was specifically being asked for. So what we did put into the council communication though. Is the programs within the city budget. For 2021. Entire city budget, not just new dollars that were put into the budget. But we also did provide for the priority based budgeting that may have some influence and advancing the cause of equity or provide for folks that were not otherwise have been provided for. And we gave you all an attachment in the communication of all of those quartile three and four programs. I wanted to go real quickly. I have just a couple of slides here. I want to show you some more information. I think we might have overlooked something else that was being asked for. So if you get the next slide, please. This is showing the 2021 proposed budget versus the 20 adopted budget for all funds on the top there. That's the slide that we did show to you last week. Before below it though is a 2021 general fund ongoing requests that were funded. And what we're we've got there is there's there's split out between a level one and level two. So that you can see. Well, this is actually totaling level one and level two, and it shows you how much from each quartile we did fund in the 2021 budget so those are new new dollars in the budget. And then just breaking that out a little further in the next slide. As we decided, I wanted to separate this out so you could see the difference between level one requests and level two requests and again, level one requests are our expenses that we're going to incur whether we fund them or not the contractual of a large amount of these are from the Platte River power authority operating expenses for operating our utility billing costs and those are falling in the third quartile there. So there are other items in here that that we would incur whether we, we cover these in the budget or not level two, we had a little bit more choice we had a number of level two requests. Because we did, we did tell our staff that they need to limited the amount of requests in the budget process this year because we knew we simply would not have unlimited resources or even, even a lot, much resources to deal with new requests. So, we did we were able to fund some of those requests and those are showing here. So this is where there were more choices being made though. So that's it you can remove that slide and any questions on that information in response to that request for information. No, let's move on next. We've got just kidding. It's one. Okay. All right, I will move on though. So the second item was about funding the Longmont Public Library. And what we've done is given you some information in your council communication on the amount of dollars in the actually the 2020 budget as well as the 2021 budget for the library from multiple funding sources. The general fund obviously is the largest source of $3.7 million in each of those years. The library services fund is about $69,000 in each year. Those are from donations and grants. And then we also have public improvement fund. And in the public improvement fund. We have a couple of uses of the PIF for the library. As you know, part of the bond issue that we voted on a couple years ago was to provide for rehabilitation of the library building. That was $2.12 million. And I believe that project. I know it was slated to begin in 2021 and I think that might still be the case. And then, and that was, that's actually been budgeted already was budgeted when we issued the bonds but it's within CIP to be used in 21. And then finally, we also have in the public improvement fund. We are funding and I don't have the exact dollar amount because we're doing multiple facilities, but we'll be replacing flooring in the West Main entry to the library and the hallway and the meeting rooms. So that's also included in the public improvement fund. We have information on certain endowments that we've received in the past for the library. We use the interest on those endowments are able to be utilized and the library board designate what the use of that amount of monies are and you have that information that can take you through that detail. And the only other thing I want to point out is that we only did have again we asked them to look we asked the whole general fund to limit their their budget requests. There was only one budget request as a result from the library. It was an ongoing level two request for $50,000 of digital and print resources augmentation. We were not able to fund that on an ongoing basis. So City Manager did allocate $22,000 of one time funding for that purpose for 2021. And then the only other thing I was going to point out, I actually pointed out a little earlier in the meeting which is what type of one time resources you do have available for you for these needs or other one time needs in this budget so I gave it actually the three sources being the property tax and the marijuana tax and then the stability reserve. I want to point out that the property tax and the marijuana money from 2019 and 2021 gave you a bunch of numbers that I'm at earlier tonight. The total of those numbers is $512,000. So I would recommend, obviously that you allocate those first before you consider going beyond that to the general fund stability reserve where we did allocate $1.4 million toward that purpose. That's all I have I can answer any questions you might have. So thank you Jim for that update but I do want to point out that the bond issue for the library was capital improvement project it wasn't really operating dollars or to buy anything to improve the services that the library can give. So, and I do want to ask why we did not fund the full 50,000 that's really not that much money that the library asked for. Why don't we give them the full amount instead of the 22. So let's say for ongoing purposes, we really did not have any more ongoing monies to allocate but the city manager did consider a lot of requests for for one time resources, and I think overall he wanted to limit how much dollars. We were using on one time expenses in the 2021 budget. And so that's why he wasn't funding. He only funded 22,000 for that purpose but I hope you might want to add to that. I think there were there were a couple of components in this one. It was a, there were two components to the request and and talking to them in term and Karen I may have to have you help me jump in to remember, help me remember what the conversation was on that but the 22,000 was really directly related to materials and online resources and then the remaining portion Karen well. Are you on to remember what that was allocated for. So, hi, Karen's on. So, it. It really. So it really was to, and I think as Nancy presented to the, to the Mayor and Council about the preliminary results from the feasibility study. So it really was a combination of online and resources for children and for adults, and to continue to build the adult collection. So those are really and I don't, Harold I'm sorry I don't remember the exact breakout for that so. So that was the 22,000 I can't remember what the remaining. I think we did a combination. So, yeah, so I think what what certainly has come to light during coven was just the demand for the online resources from both children and adults, and, and so there were, there was a request for both resources for both children and adults and increasing I think the adult collection so. Regardless of the outcome of the feasibility study those were demands that they certainly were experiencing, you know, the first part of the year. And I think that with what is to being demanded of our students be they higher education or elementary. I'm talking about FRCC as well that during this time even if we have to put one time funding we don't know what next 2023 is going to look like, or 2022 that even those issues will be brought up at those budget. At those budget hearings is what I, or when we look at those different budgets for those years so I, I would trust that it would be the library director, knowing what requests come in that would actually know what they need so that's what they need I, I suggest we fund it even if it's only one time. I'm always going to be a huge advocate for the library. That's what they need. So, I guess I'm going to make a motion and that we fund that that $50,000 that they requested whether we take the difference out of one time funding or not, and then revisit it if they bring it up again next year during the budget process. And that's to advance the discussion, because, because I'd like to add to the thinking just a bit. Alright, I've been moved in seconded Dr waters. Add to the thinking. You're muted doc. Thank you. I know everybody's worked hard to try to stretch dollars as far as they can be stretched. And anything we do will be viewed, likely by departments like well why, why, why in the depth of my department. But I do think the library's been perennially perennially under resourced. So anything we could do is in one time funding I think makes sense, or is worthy. I would add to this. I wouldn't want to just limit there because I have this question I don't know what the dollar figure would be. But there was the work that's been done on the feasibility study. None of us have seen the results as the library, the board liaison I haven't seen the results. We're going to see those results. I think at our next library board advisory. I guess it's a question. Do we are are we budgeted I suspect we're not maybe we are just through our planning department to do the kind of planning that is necessary once we have a feasibility study to translate the feasibility study into a study planning documents that that give us enough specificity to know what to do and, and over what kind of timeframe and what it's going to cost. There's a parallel question here, Harold, and that is, I think we did pretty good work. A collective we both inside and outside the city staff members of the community on the steam work a year ago, we budgeted this year to do some follow on we we that money didn't get spent. And I think we've got the steam area falls right into the first and main project. And, and both of both the feasibility study and the steam work need to be translated I think into planning documents to make that work really useful. Okay, thinking about that right because if the answer is yes then my question is, how much more would we budget for the library, not just for the to get to the 50 but beyond that, to flesh out from a planner's perspective, or using planning expertise to planning documents necessary to actually make feasibility study use. Harold, do you want to I mean, go ahead and. That was a question that was Harold, go ahead. Yeah. So, um, so we, you know, so when we went into the COVID world, some of them, the money for first and main. I'm going to answer a couple of questions in this so some of the money for first and main, and some of the money for the steam project we held because we said we may need that and then as Jim has given you the updates. And in the chart that he indicated those are our monies that are now less likely to be needed and so we will have those to be utilized and I'm looking at Jim to to utilize in that project and then we. How much did we put in the in the budget for those Jim this year, our next year. For the first and main transit station. Yeah, the for this year, it was two and a half million. So it's two and a half million in the contract and then for the steam. I want to say we had like, we had 100 150. Yeah, we have 150 that we can use for next year to do the work in terms of what the dollar amount would be I would need to get with Nancy and Karen to understand. What would we need to then move into the next step of where we go from here in terms of the library now. From a facilities perspective in terms of what do we need to do with the existing facility that is the money that Jim's talking about in terms of what's going on with the building, because. You know, what we can do to the building and how we understand that can also impact operations. In terms of how can we be the structure become more efficient and effective and provide services that we do at a different level. But, you know, I don't know I'd be guessing right now in terms of what it would take but that's a question that we can ask Karen and Nancy we can have that available in the 13th when we ask for final direction. It just seems to me that the work. The follow on the feasibility study and the planning to translate the work that was done on steam into something that's actionable. If somebody can make decisions us or somebody else about investment opportunities and land aggregate aggregation that kind of thing. There's work that has to be done it likely could be one time money for the work on both projects that's. That's what the way that seems to me and, and I'd like to know what that would require on the part of the library that we could add to council member pex motion. Digital materials or whatever that's going to buy and finish. Put us in a position to take advantage of the feasibility study with putting together set of planning. The other thing in terms of digital materials that I think came into play I'm trying to remember back a few months. They also we also got the grant from the National Endowment. The first that was a joint grant between the library and the museum. And so there was a large digital divide component in that grant funding that's in play and then also on the digital divide access and library programs that you are talking about. We also did put 110,000 via the cares funding into that arena as well. I needed to cover those two pieces. Karen, do you have an idea of what it would take for the next phase. Mayor and council and and her list correct so Teresa remind me that the other 15,000 of that 50,000 requests was for the hotspots for the library and we were able to get hotspots funded through the National Endowment for Humanities grant so thank you Teresa for reminding me of that so you know I would say in terms of the feasibility study and and councilmember waters what you'll hear at the library board is that we we will what you're going to hear is what is what are the needs, you know what are the gaps, how does Longmont funding compared to peer libraries, you know around the nation in terms of size of facilities in terms of size of budget, those kinds of things so that is all going to be presented to the library board and certainly we'll bring that back to the council. So what will not be completed yet is is the next step is so how might we fund that so we should have a figure around what's you know what is a what is a gap and some of that's going to be about facility. And, and so the work that is yet to be completed and some of that is really linked to coven to unstable finances right now I mean, you know across the across the nation. So, we'll probably have a better idea of a gap, but we will not have the work completed yet about what are the various ways that we might be able to address that various sources of funding. Can I make one more comment. So, Karen, I get it the end, you know, there's a lot of unknowns. I just, I just would not want to get into 2021. And, and when we raise the question about. So now what we have the result of the feasibility study or G we did pretty good work on the steam area, and I wouldn't want to the response to be well we didn't budget for that. So those things have to be sidelined until 2022 to if it seems to me that we've got some one time money, we got a earmark, whatever we think the amount would be to do what needs to be done to translate to set the feasibility put it in a place where it could be actionable and do the planning translate the work on steam and a set of planning documents so whatever those numbers are Harold seems to be the earmark of the 512,000 in addition to the whatever 38,000 would that be the number. Yeah, that, or 28,000. The council member packers is proposing. Yeah, and so I do need to go back and answer that question so of the 50,000 request 22 that we funded with one time that the remaining 18,000 was actually covered via the grant in terms of what they requested. And so that I just couldn't. That was a pretty deep dive into the numbers and I just couldn't remember exactly why you know if I would be $10,000 and to get it up to the 50. Maybe wasn't it the 15,000 that was funded through the grant. Yeah, it was. You're trying to go from 22 to 35 then right. Yeah, no so that was a 35 because we were going to find the 35. But then the grant covered that and so whatever that remaining pieces we can look at it and then in terms of putting a marker in. I mean just as I look at it so we put 150,000 in for first in Maine, which is a much broader area. If I had more work, my gut would tell me between 50 and 75 for the next phase. But what we will do is we will work with Nancy and Karen to have a number for the next council meeting for you all to consider. Right John do you want to repeat your motion. Yes, but I just want to clarify so we're talking about just 15,000 to bring them up to the 50 that they asked for is that correct. Okay, so I'm going to amend the motion that we direct staff to find the $15,000 in their budget somewhere to bring to bring the request from the library up to the 50 grand that they that they requested. I second the motion. I think it's I think it's a great, great, great amended motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you council member back. All right. And I asked for clarification now. So, did I not just hear to tell us to go find it somewhere else in the budget. Basically, what we what what you would take that as is we're going to go ahead and asking you please take 15,000 from somewhere. Right. Could be could be one time council can you just come back and let us know what's easiest for you. Okay. Okay. All right. So Jim, you're done. You're done. Wow. Okay, cool. Thank you very much. Let's move on then to follow up and discussion about our bees. Harold, you around still or Karen you're going to take this one I don't think this is yours. Or is it your this this is Karen. All right, go ahead. Great mayor and city council so there are a couple of items associated with our conversation that we had back in August about our bees and the increasing number of individuals who are using our bees for for their living and the conditions of those are bees and the impact on the on the neighborhood. So, so I'm going to start with the, the first couple of items that council asked us to come back and have a discussion. And that had to do with basically the while there are three, three directions that we got from council one was to consider an RV ordinance that would prohibit our bees are sleeping super vehicles from being parked on public property including parks and trailheads. And then there was a direction that says okay so if we do pass such an ordinance, we want to look at some options for providing assistance or helping folks who are using those sleeper vehicles for their housing temporarily, because of circumstances and what might we do for those individuals before who are impacted by an ordinance should council pass it. So the third direction that we received had to do with an inquiry about the county owned land along Alaska Avenue. And could we have a conversation with Boulder County officials around potential uses for that property that the county owns in Longmont for potentially for an RV lot. Again, for folks who are living in the RVs, due to, due to circumstances and not by choice. So, so, after this conversation. Shannon Sadler from Code Enforcement and Jeff Satter from Longmont police will be talking about the RV ordinance. And we thought that it might be helpful to have a conversation about the other two items. And then we'll have a conversation about the RV ordinance. So, so I will, I will, I will hit it fast mayor, and I appreciate it but but can we start maybe with the last one first that might be easiest. You don't have to do it you're gonna do Karen. The last one first meeting the ordinance. No, no, the, you gave a list of things. Yeah, well, I'll just do it. One, I'll start with the, the request to have a conversation with Boulder County about using the, the property at 1288 Alaska Avenue as a, as a, as a RV safe lot so we included and in your, your council packet and I believe the city manager also forwarded a letter from Jenna Peterson who's the administrator for Boulder County and basically indicated that that land is is in use. So, there are three departments in the county so it's a sheriff's department public works as well as the county housing authority that are using that that property has an active use and it is not available for any kind of community use, including parking RVs and in that lot. So, that's, that's the answer to that question. So I guess mayor that's the, that's the easy one right or at least that's where we have a clear direction from from county officials, we did not pursue any further conversation with them at that, at that point in time about that particular property. So the second thing that we did some follow up on, you know, really had to do with the, what else might we be able to do how might we be able to assist folks who are living in their RVs by circumstances to to basically help them in the way that that council would provide would pass an enormous banning recreational vehicles or sleeper vehicles from public property. So there were a couple of things, and so Eleberto Mendoza, who also works in community services is on the line. So some research, as far as what is available as far as RV parking parking in close proximity to to the city of Longmont that information is in your council packet. So he researched the country would in that is that's here in Longmont as well as the mobile home, the, an RV park that's along Highway 52, as well as the Johnson RV park which is in Johnstown that just further away from here so. So, so in essence, you'll see that information in your packet but there wasn't a lot of room in a lot of space available in those three areas for, you know, for basically parking RVs in there there's a waitlist and they're in pretty high high demand. The other thing that we did talk about initially was a conversation with Boulder County about the use of the fairgrounds and RV camping and parking that's there. And, and, and what we certainly discovered in that initial conversation, and I believe Johnny Marsh had the had the conversation with county staff around that is that the RV RV campground is closed right now. And the, so the only thing that's really functional in the are in the campgrounds the fairgrounds is that is that RVs can access the dumping station for disposing of basically wastewater and so that is that is is operational. So if you're interested in providing any kind of vouchers or assistance for RVs to be able to dump their wastewater and the dumping station that would be that is certainly something we can pursue the. So as a follow up discussion I believe Harold had a follow up discussion with, you know, with Jenna Peterson about, you know, is there any, could there be any possibility that on a short term temporary basis, three months, maybe up to six months, could the fairgrounds RV be the possibility for some temporary location of, again, folks that are living in the RV by circumstance not by choice that we might be able to work out something and provide some assistance and really helping to get folks linked into services or some kind of housing options. Given that we might be that council might be passing an ordinance that prohibits RV parking on public property. So it appears that that that window is not totally closed that there can their, I think the county is open to having some conversation about that. The recommendation from from the county administrator is that we don't want that particular option to be vetted by the folks that are involved in homeless solutions for Boulder County, so that any recommendation that that the county might come up with would be informed by what is happening with with homeless solutions for Boulder County as far as folks coming into and being assessed to the coordinated entry system that they would truly be engaged in those services with the intent of moving toward permanent stable housing. So, so, so anyhow that was that that window is open and and I would say that if council wanted us to pursue that conversation with Boulder County and homeless solutions for Boulder County. So that that could indeed that could indeed be possible. The other caveat that the county administrator reminded us is that the the Boulder County fairgrounds is when they're in, in, in case of a fire disaster which again there are a lot of things happening throughout the area is that that's the location for evacuating animals so that if indeed there were some evacuation orders in Boulder County that the fairground campground would be off limits for any other use other than for evacuation purposes and for evacuating animals in case of a wildfire so. So that is the, the quick overview and and. So Karen, I want to jump in. Yeah, I'm going to jump in on a couple of. So one of the things that Jana and I also talked about, and it's really about the B and B question in terms of the county regulations. And, and so she did look and to see if anything had come through their system. It actually hasn't and so we've got to figure out what's going on there because they're actually on the east side of county line road one, which I'm not sure if that's a well county issue that they're referring to, versus a Boulder County issue so we've got to relook at that too because it does look like they're in well county. If it's the right location that I'm looking at so we've got to figure that one out. I think just to wrap this up, and then obviously we are available for the questions is that the recommendations that we put in the council communication is that if indeed the council chose to move forward with some kind of a ordinance that prohibited parking on public property that it is possible to delay the effective date of that ordinance and we will be suggesting that that that that there would be a delay between when it passes and when it's effective to really give the opportunity to do outreach to work with folks in the community in the situation that are living in their RVs and to do outreach and really did get them connected with coordinated entry and work to get folks into housing to diversion, or certainly informing them about what the, what the ordinance is going to be and we need to be making they need to be making some other plans. We certainly can move forward if council would like us to do that to have a conversation about the fairgrounds as some temporary option, and what those circumstances would be. And that again we would continue to work with our partners with hope, both a shelter that does outreach in in the community and, and to really work with folks to do that outreach to help get folks in a more stable situation then living in there, in their, in their RV. So, council member mine, and then council member. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Harold. First of all, you lost me there when you said, you know, I was focused on the fairgrounds and, and the, and the mid reach property that we were asking about leasing from Boulder County, and then you switched over to the be and be land east of, I had no idea what you were talking about and I think that's what you were talking about. So when Ellie Berto, it's under trying, I need to make sure I get the right page number. It's on page two of the council com where it says staff researched RV parks in and around Longmont, they mentioned BNB mobile home park. Oh, it was the name of a park okay. It was the name of the park and they were saying that they could do you get it said due to county regulations it's hard for him to expand. So I kind of broached that topic with Janet ago is, is this you all, and she went in and looked and couldn't find anything in the system, which is then when you look at where it's set it's on the northeast corner of the intersection of 52 and east County line road one, which means that it's probably a well county issue so that's a different conversation as to the county regs in this and I just think there's more. You know, it's a different conversation that we have to go through on that issue. Okay, I would like to make a motion. But should I, I should make the motion and we can discuss in the context. Yeah, I'd like to move that the staff go ahead and pursue the option of, of providing a 90 day roughly 90 days until the first of January rental arrangement with the Boulder County fairgrounds. That seems pretty safe, because it's not fire season during that period of time. And then we could put out dumping vouchers as well for people who have RVs, and we could do a achieve a pretty significant improvement in the public health situation by doing that. So that's my motion that we proceed with that, whatever else. I jumped in too fast, but I seconded. All right, we have a motion on the floor to have further further discussion on this. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Thank you Mayor Bagley. I believe folks remember from the previous conversation that I was worried that we go ahead and move forward with this. This ordinance or prohibition without fully exploring options for folks, and that if we did pass an ordinance without exploring these options that they would go by the wayside and we largely just think that problem solved and move on. And that was one thing I was worried about and I still think that we're probably missing it. What is likely a small subsection of the population, because for one, Boulder County seems fairly inflexible with expanding the scope of HSBC and the coordinated entry program to accommodate people that aren't necessarily looking for traditional housing, or to to deal with them in one way or another. I don't understand that that is the, you know, prerogative of Boulder County and housing, sir, HSBC. And seeing that we do have at least some temporary options, and I will still as I supported last time, the motion as far as the January 1, I guess delay, as opposed to believe it was a 90 day or three month. That was the motion previously at the last discussion. I'll still support that nice. You know I still would prefer that. And obviously it does not seem market market feasible as nobody does this, but finding some location which would not be free. Maybe partially subsidized for those who are showing financial need but another location is as we've seen all the locations that were provided in the the staff report are generally full, or have a waiting list and there's not a lot of options for folks that aren't already in those those spots. So that that worries me somewhat but I'll be supporting the motion. And I hope that we do continue further explorations and dialogue in finding places for people that aren't looking for necessarily traditional housing. But with that I'll be supporting this motion. Thank you. I'm pretty sure I don't see anybody else. So I guess I'm pretty I'm just from Martin you can go ahead and have your say before I am I saying. Thank you. I just like to say that I really emphatically confer with the mayor concur with the mayor pro tem. I think it's pretty paternalistic of us or of HSBC to to only provide services to people who want to be like everybody else. It seems like we should find a way to accommodate that. At the same time, you know, the current arrangement just is not fair to people who do want to be like everybody else. And so we can't, we can't twist ourselves into a pretzel. So we need to accommodate what appears to be according according to code enforcement, a really small number of very responsible RV dwellers. Holly Councilwoman Martin's initiative I think that's only one of the options we need to discuss tonight. I agree with Mayor pro tem Rodriguez that we need to. We have a long approach. We need to give people some time to adjust to this so I'm all for the what was suggested in the packet that it not take effect until I think it was either I thought it was January 30, but you know, we certainly can't have people in the area with no place to live. So I would want to discuss also the actual ordinance itself and the way it's phrased and the way we're approaching this whole issue but we'll do that after we vote for this part of it. All right, so I guess let me let me try and understand so customer Martin the motion is that between now and the first of January, in order to prepare assuming we pass the ordinance. The city would take action in order to make space at Boulder County fairgrounds. Yeah, it was strictly to proceed with the line of attack. And I think that director Roney described, which is make some space during that interim period of time, available by leasing it from Boulder County fairgrounds, and obtain or create vouchers because I guess they didn't, they didn't close the opening facility which was really prudent of them. But I think a lot of people have thought that it was closed because the park was closed. Right. I'm not asking you to give your reasoning I got it I'm asking to restate the motion so that so that and that's the whole thing proceed with with what Ms Roney said, in terms of finalizing that arrangement. In order to not leave people flat footed when the ordinance takes effect on January one is that exactly. Okay, all right. Dr waters. I just to clarify that motion specifically because of what I've read in the council communication. I think if we were to successfully negotiate a deal with an agreement with the county. Those who would be eligible to use that that facility would be those that would register with our our coordinate entry program and be pursuing or seeking transitional or permanent housing. Is that correct. I can, if I can jump in on that so couple I want to make sure everybody understands a few points. Say one more thing here. Okay, come back to clarify, because I want to add this point for because I've heard a couple of reference of people who don't want to be like everybody else. And I don't, you know, nobody. There's nothing in this ordinance that signals that people who choose to live in RVs ought to be like everybody else. In my perspective if somebody's in an RV by choice. Somebody should have asked a question where am I going to park my RV before I chose to live in an RV. I don't feel like the city's obligated to create a facility for people who chose to live in an RV not by choice, or not by circumstance, but by choice. We all make choices and we have to live with the consequences of our choices. Everybody who rents the place buys a home pays a mortgage pays their lease. We all make those choices. If I make a choice to buy an RV. I'm going to ask somebody ahead of time. Where can I park it. Because I don't think we ought to allow parking in parks, greenways and on streets for people who are there by choice. And if we're going to put a dollar into creating a facility for my purposes. Any dollar we spend in this area ought to be to get people into transitional and permanent housing. So the explanation about the negotiation and the fairgrounds will be appreciated. So, again, it's a short duration potentially three to six months. Really, the potential for that transition or transition point as we move through this. They do want it vetted through HSBC for consider and recommendations. And here and so those those here's where it gets pretty solid must engage to participate in the coordinated entry screening. And to attain more permanent housing solutions. They must stay engaged with the coordinated entry because if you remember when we've talked to you people will sign up and then they will disengage and so they must be continue to be engaged in that process. And then they may have additional requirements that come into play. And so we know that it's it's work that we have to continue to do but what was very clear to me in talking with Jana. And I think what Karen's heard from her counterparts is, we can't move away from coordinated entry as we're as we're moving into this world this is merely a short term bridge and I want to be very clear on that. We've got a lot of spots as we look at this in terms of those conversations, part of the other component with this that I am, I would like Karen to talk a little bit about is the bridge housing component. Because we do, we are seeing more resources come to bear in terms of the potential for bridge housing but I wanted to reiterate those points on the fairgrounds because I didn't want people to think that it was a longer period of time and then what we're hearing. Just hold on one second so Mike just clarification you said three to six months the motions for January one. Two different issues that the duration clarified the two issues then please. So, the, what I understand is one of the options on the ordinance was Council could pass it. And it would become effective on January one. What we're talking about is a three to six month period from when we start in terms of if they're willing to do this. It would be for a period of three to six months. In order or three to six months is the max they're willing to let us use if they're willing to go there. Understood. And I guess the, let's go ahead and go with Karen. And then, and then Marsha. Go ahead Karen. Okay or so. So I think when you get to the next item about the ordinance I think that you certainly can talk then about the effective date. So, you know we just put that in this communication is that, you know delay the effective date so to give us some time to really work with the rules who are living in the community living on public property in in sleeper vehicles to try to try to work to try to explore other options and so I think you know the direction is that we will have that we will have that engagement with the Boulder County about the use of the fairgrounds and and we'll and we'll do our best to see where that leads us and. And I think the other comment that that I want to make is, I certainly understand what council members have talked about in terms of the paternalistic perspective of homeless solutions for Boulder County, and, and, and, and I guess what I would just want to reiterate is that we explore with folks that we are working with all different kinds of housing exits. So, our interest is really have making sure that we have more stable and more sanitary options for for folks to live. There could be a variety of a variety of options. But we're looking for legal options and, and, and options that provide some stability to folks so that they can, you know, they can, they can thrive. So, just wanted to point that out. Hold on one second, sorry. The, just, just something before I call on, we're going to actually go with Paul or Council Member Christensen then Council Member Martin just because you've already said a few comments on this matter and it's your motion, Marsha. Okay, I received two phone calls from upset citizens this week, who both did not want us to pass the ordinance, wanting to know why in the world, we would impede on their ability to, you know, live in RVs. Both bought their RVs this week knowing this council was going to be talking about this issue. I found it very interesting. Council Member Christensen, you're muted probably. Sorry. I would like to call the question we've been discussing everything but what Councilman Martin was talking about I would like to move on so we can actually discuss the ordinance and a few other things I have some motions that I would like to make to. All right, so once the questions has been called. I think it needs a second. It's not debatable, and we need a majority vote. Does anybody care if we just vote. Second. No, I'm just saying does anyone cares can we do it by consensus can we just go ahead and vote, or does somebody really really really want to say something. Let's just go ahead and vote. All in favor of Council Member Martian's motion which basically was we're directing staff to negotiate with Boulder County and and the use of Boulder County fairgrounds in order to create a space for people to own RVs and are sleeping and using RVs as their home in order to help them prepare for this ordinance when it is enacted or should it be enacted later on this evening. Hi. Hi. Hi. Opposed say may. All right, it passes unanimously. Thank you Council Member. All right, I'm actually and then does somebody want to make a motion for the actual ordinance itself at this point. So we don't have Council Member Christensen. We need to present on that. Okay, let's go ahead and take a you might if we make it to take a two minute break real quick. Anyone anyone mind I've got something in my eye and I need to go wash it out. Anybody care. All right, cool. Thanks. Back into Council chambers is cold. So is mine. You know, can someone please turn up the heat Sandy turn up the heat. The laptops heat the little corner that I that I sit in for these meetings to an almost unbearable level. If that's true, you need a new laptop. They're very new except the city one. Use my city one. And Council Member Christensen and Council Member Peck, I mean, you don't need to raise your hand. We're not in session yet. We're still waiting on Mayor pro town. You want to say something. I'm going to screenshot that moment that what she just did Polly, I'm going to screen shot. So let's go ahead and continue Council Member Christensen. Let's go with you and then Council Member Peck you go next. I go first. Okay, Council Member Peck, why don't you go first. Oh, how kind. Thank you. So, um, I'm glad you made that motion Marsha or Council woman. But if in fact, the, the county says no, we cannot use the fairgrounds we're back to square one. So to Alberto and Karen, Alberto, I guess, and Karen, um, is there a regulation through the county that no more permits for RVs are going to be allowed. So therefore, or, or expanding of RV lots that are right there better there already. And the reason I'm answering asking this question is that we, we don't have any place for people who want to live in their RVs to park. If in fact there are no spaces in these lots. Alberto, in your research, did you find that there is a policy with the county that they are not allowing any new RV parks or expansions of existing ones. I did not, I did not look into that. Back to Carol's point about that place in what seems to be well county heat. The owner didn't indicate to me which county he was in he was just saying he was having issues with a county. He didn't want to expand, but he can't because of some county issues but I didn't delve into which county he was in. In my understanding and I think was that it was actually the city of Longmont that did not allow more RV parks. I think that came up during a conversation around safe lot but I think Johnny knows more about that as far as the code is concerned. Oh, so it would be the, the, the LBC the land development code or is it just a specific regulation for RVs. Could you, there she is. Hi. Hi, Mayor Bagley, Council Member Peck so Eleberto is correct so the land development code has not allowed new RV parks in the city I want to say since the early 90s. So, that is not an allowed land use. I have not checked Boulder County's land use code I can certainly do that and check in with Dale Case there and see what their current regulations do or don't allow. Okay, so thank you, Johnny. So I'm thinking that we don't want to go back to square one and have to revisit this we should have some kind of a vision. I'm very concerned about climate migration which other middle states are already seeing. And we, I want us to have a plan so that we're not caught off guard. If in fact, I am thinking can we have a temporary moratorium on that land development code not allowing RV parks so that if the county does say no, they will not allow us to use the fairgrounds, then we can, we can direct the staff to look within the city for that temporary space. So I am just going to make a motion so that going forward we don't, we have a plan. So, I move that we direct staff, if we cannot find space for a safe lot within the county that we temporarily have a moratorium on the LBC code code, prohibiting RV parks within the city. RV lots. I'm not even going to call it a park. All right, so I guess, I guess my thoughts are, can we, Councilmember Christensen. Second. All right, there's a motion I guess I was going to say, it'd be nice to have emotion on the actual ordinance. But I guess what I'm saying is that right. So that's my point. So Councilman Martin. And to reconsider your original ordinance or your original motion that I was acting on the assumption that we were going to move forward with staff's recommendations to prohibit RV parking on our streets. As much as I feel for people, these are people that don't pay property taxes, they could literally start their car and move to another town tomorrow. They could drive into our town yesterday. And they are, they are, I understand that some people might have been in Longmont and some people choose or don't choose to live in them, but our city streets were not made to accommodate our RVs. So, until we actually I'd like a motion. If not, I move that we direct staff to actually proceed with the ordinance of prohibiting RVs from utilizing city streets at all, as presented in our packet. Were you addressing me Mayor Bagley. No, no, I was just basically making a motion. I mean, I've been asking for some of there's already a motion. No, no, I know, but you're right. You're true. That's out of order then I'll do it after. But my point is that we need that. You know, I don't I don't want to have a, I'm not going to vote for the motion that's currently on the table. I would, if we had, if we address the original motion but I don't want, if we don't address the original intent of this agenda item, all we're doing is approving safe lots. If that makes sense. So, well, actually, what what I was the way I thought we would proceed is, is to go ahead and recommend moving forward with the ordinance now. We have a three month period and we can't come to an arrangement to cover that period. We can repeal the ordinance again. So what I'm saying is there's no motion, the ordinance is not has not been we've not said it directed staff all we've done is said, you know, go ahead and make sure that through January one, we are, we are talking with both accounting to use the fairgrounds. That's my only point. So let's go ahead and start with council member Christianson this time and council member pack. Actually, let's go with Karen, then we'll go with Polly, Joan, Susie. Thank you mayor and so I did I think Harold talked a little bit about this but I did want to follow up on the concept of a bridge housing, and this mayor may not address council member packs concerns so we are also pursuing at the same time that will pursue these other options. A couple of things one is, we are partnering with Boulder County to write and submit a grant for really would be for funding for temporary bridge housing. And that would be basically a hoteling for for temporary part part part in time point in time that really is related to coven. So we are that we are are pursuing that and should that funding be granted. So my understanding is that funding would be available starting in November 1. So, again, that there's a lot of things that have to happen but I do want to let you know that we are are pursuing that as a resource to help with this situation that we're talking about here, and so, yeah, I think we put this in the in the council comm is that we also are looking at a couple of different options in terms of master leasing was the funding that we did receive from city council and 2020 to help with housing exits. And so, so part of that's been working with the Lamont Housing Authority. And, and so we're pursuing master leasing options that then also gives us some flexibility for some temporary housing as we help people get into more stable, permanent stable situations. So, we are working on a plan, a B and C, or how do we help people that are in really unstable house situations to move toward toward more stable from the housing. So I just want to let you know that. As I said earlier, I have several motions, one of which is a prohibited use which is, but I can't give it until we vote on Councilman Peck's proposal. I believe what we're trying to do is proceed along with what Councilwoman Martin said, with what Councilwoman Council, I mean, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez is concerns were Councilman Hedelgo Furring and Councilman Peck and I, trying to set the stage for not just a discussion of the ordinance, but a discussion of the, the effects of this ordinance and getting those in place before we discuss an outright ban on living in your vehicle, not banning RVs from the streets of Longmont, which punishes anyone in the city who has an RV or any kind of work vehicle, but simply living and sleeping in a vehicle on the streets of Longmont, which needs to be prohibited, because we can't have people living on the streets in their vehicles and dumping their sewage and dumping the garbage and doing their laundry and doing, you know, we can't, we can't afford that. However, I, we need to vote on the issue that we have at hand right now, and then I will be happy to make a motion to prohibit the use of any trailer coach, mobile home, self-propelled motor home trailer or recreational vehicle or any recreational equipment of any kind cannot be used for living, sleeping or residing on any street or public right away within the city. But first we have to vote on Councilman Peck's motion. Yes, Councilmember Beck. Absolutely. I don't agree with your assessment that all of all RVs should not be allowed on the streets because it's punitive. Well, that's not what I stopped the conversation. So I'm saying what I'm saying is in the packet. I was generalizing what I'm saying is there's a packet item that we have not yet voted on. And that that's it. I'm not arguing that we ban all RVs. That's not the point. My point was, there's an item in our agenda that was suggested. That's what I was referring to. I mean, just to cut everybody off, but keep going. Okay. The point and the discussion about the bridge loans I think is important because to their pro Tim's point of view that people do want to live in their RVs and there is no place to park they can't they don't want or can't afford rent. Then possibly we can bring in that bridge loan conversation to help them move off of our streets. I don't know if that's possible, but it is a discussion that we need to have. So if we are going to help residents who are affected by COVID, for some reason or other, have to live in an RV until they can find housing. I don't want to kick them out of our town and say too bad. That is the point that I wanted. That's the point of my motion is that we don't stop looking just because the county says no to us. Can we have a temporary solution by just putting a halt on our LDC code. That was the point of that until we can get these people into housing first through the coordinated entry system. It is pat compassionate. It is empathetic. It is what we should do for our residents. So I call the question. All right. Let's go ahead and vote on favor of having the ceasing all debate at present say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Nay. Nay. All right, eyes have it six to one. All debate is over. Sorry, Paulie debate is over. Can you go ahead, Council Member Peck and restate your motion. Yes, I'll understand. So if all conversations with the county fail in letting us temporarily use a space regardless of where it is for people living in RVs who would like to be part of the coordinated entry system. If those fail, I would like to put a temporary halt on our LDC code prohibiting RV lots in Longmont so that our staff can look for a place in Longmont for these these small group of people to parks until we find them housing. That makes sense. Yeah. All right. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. All right, raise your hand if you're an aye. All right, passes four to three with council members Christensen, Peck, you don't go faring and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez for and myself and Councilman Martin and Dr. Waters against. All right. Councilor Christensen in mind that I have discussed something else first but I okay. I've, I have looked at the packet as we all have. It strikes me as a bizarre and overly lengthy way of trying to solve the problem. The focus is that we do not want people sleeping and living in RVs on our streets. Those are the only people that we are concerned with. And we don't. I don't want the rest of the people in the city who own construction vans. Construction vehicles. RVs that they use as recreational vehicles once or twice a year. I don't want all of those people to have to worry about anything because they haven't done anything wrong. There's nothing wrong with parking your construction vehicle full of tools across the street or on the street in front of your house. If you want to, if your neighbors don't care, why should the city care? Nobody is living in those vehicles. So I looked up Boulder and Louisville because they're in the county and because they're towns like us. And I think Louisville has a very simple and decent focused law that says, quote, no bus trailer coach or mobile home self-propelled. I sent you all this this afternoon. A trailer coach or mobile home self-propelled motor home trailer or recreational vehicle shall be or any recreational equipment of any kind shall be used for living, sleeping or residing on any street or public right of way within the city. I would also add public park. The foregoing prohibition shall not. Well, the second part of this is something that I don't agree with it says the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to sleeping within a recreational vehicle for no more than 14 nights with any six month period on a public street in front of a residence with that permission. We already have that resolved with a seven day permit that people can get for their guests and then they can extend that once. And frankly, who wants their relatives living in front of their house for more than seven days. I think it's, you know, they can always use it as an excuse like, well, the city won't let you live there. So, you know, you'll have to leave. You can only stay for seven days. I think this law focuses solely on the problem, which is people living in their vehicles and sleeping in their vehicles. That's the only problem that we have with RVs. We don't need to, as Mr flowers said, we don't need to make exception to create a very complicated system which we have in the laws presented to us, whereby we make a very complicated bunch of laws and then we give exceptions to this. We just have one law that states that people cannot sleep, live or reside in their vehicle on the public streets of lawnmower. Do I have a second. I'll second it. All right. The, I guess what I'd ask is, is commander sad deputy commander sadder here didn't have a presentation for us tonight. Yeah, can we have that presentation before we vote on this please. I'm here with Tim whole. I'm here just with the city attorney's office Shannon Stadler and Nathan Schultz. And we were part of the committee that worked on this issue around the RV ordinance. And I just turned the recommendations, but I think it's a little more complicated to that because if it just prohibits sleeping, then we got to catch them in their sleeping and that's one of the reasons why we both ordinance the way we did. A lot of thought has gone into this ordinance, because there there are consequences with words and situations, and, and Tim maybe I'll answer some of this too. But it, we spent a lot of time really looking at the words to make sure it's legal constitutionally fair and correct. And, and, and there are consequences for officers and our staff. If it's just sleeping in a vehicle or something like that it just causes consequences that how do you prove that. How do so. That's why we wrote the ordinance the way we did, but Shannon has a nice presentation already to go. And so, I'd like to hand it off to her to go through it really quick. I would just like to add a lot of work has gone into trying to get our wording into a spot that's enforceable and clear for everybody involved. And we're not trying to eliminate the homeowner that has an RV from parking in front of this house loaded. That's not the intent and our ordinance makes that clear. Same with the cargo trailers and things like that. I'll hand it off to Shannon, if that's all right. Mayor council members Shannon Stadler could enforcement manager with the city. Heather if you don't mind going to slide to thank you. So the proposed amendments as deputy chief setter said we have worked on these for probably close to a year. To get everything vetted legally and also to make it to make sure that you know it's not a burdensome ordinance for staff to enforce either. I'd like to interject here that just since the 1st of September code enforcement in my office has received 45 complaints on sleeper vehicles on public streets and parks locations and this is in addition to any of the complaints that were made directly to the police department. My staff, you know, council represents the residents of the city but I feel my staff represents the residents who call in looking for resolution to their concerns, and that we've worked long and hard to come up with an amendments to our code that are legally enforceable. Heather's next slide please. So the goals of the proposed code amendments are to facilitate better use of limited staff resources when dealing with repeat violations. We get calls a lot of times on the same recreational vehicles that just move around and we found that the current iteration of the code where they only have to move 600 feet. It's responding to the same RVs just 600 feet away. Secondly, it's to improve the public health and safety on public rights of way and public property. As we've discussed before, the leaking of sewage, the trash that is left behind when people are living on streets can present quite a problem environmentally. We have to call out public works on many occasions to clean up the sewage that's left behind in the streets. And thirdly, to allow for the judicious use of public rights of way in the manner for which they were intended. Public right of ways were never designed and are not appropriate as permanent places for people to live. Heather, next slide please. First amendment, legal, further defined a sleeper vehicle to include the term as recreational vehicle on any vehicle that's been converted to serve as temporary living or sleeping accommodations. So like if school buses, old Greyhound buses, things like that that have been converted for sleeping accommodations. A sleeper vehicle with no longer have 48 hour allowance to be on the public street or public property unless a permit is issued, or if the sleeper vehicle is actively being loaded or unloaded. A sleeper vehicle would no longer have the ability to move from one public location, 600 feet away. Once it's been notified that they're in violation. So they would need to get a notification from code enforcement or the police department that they cannot be on the street. So that would give them time to make arrangements to move to private property or to move somewhere else out of the city. Next slide please. Any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle would still have a 48 hour allowance when left on public rights of way, or public property without moving before it would be considered an abandoned or publicly kept vehicle. And then you're in the council com I did include standard operating procedures that both the police department code enforcement and parking enforcement follow. When we're notifying someone that they're in violation of any code really that particularly in this case, the abandoned vehicle code. We have red tags that we put on vehicles. You know notifications that people get that give them plenty of time to figure out how to come into compliance. And then also bonafide contractor trailers would be exempt from the 48 hour allowance wallet and active job site up to a period not to exceed 180 days. Next slide please. State or city vehicles or contractors are exempt from provisions of the code wall in the performance of official duties under state or city authorization. And then we further defined active loading or unloading to prohibit unloading to a right of way, a greenway or a park. Next slide please. Another amendment to the code would be that the sleeper vehicle permit fee is reduced from $40 to $25. Next, the sleeper vehicle permit issuance is restricted to four seven day permits per specific vehicle per specific applicant anywhere in the city in a given year. Next slide please. Sleeper vehicle permit code language was amended to prevent multiple persons from taking turns applying for a permit on the same sleeper vehicle, as well as for one person applying for multiple permits on different sleeper vehicles. Next slide please. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to chapter 1112 with the goal of creating safer streets and neighborhoods by reducing toxic waste and minimizing the negative effects of sleeper vehicles and sleeper trailers parking on public streets and public property, which in turn helps protect our valuable water resources. Next slide. Thank you. Council Member Peck. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. After listening to the presentation, I like this ordinance in the wording in it. So I'm going to retract my second. Okay. Council Member Christensen. Every person who has an RV in this city has to go get a permit to have an RV that they can occasionally park on the street to clean it out. And any contractor cannot have their vehicle on the street, even though their garage probably is four feet too short to fit it in their garage. And I, you know, there are many, many people in this town who are contractors who have vehicles that they keep their tools in. This does not address them at all. They are not sleeping in it. They're not doing anything. They're parking it in front of their house because it doesn't fit in their driveway and it doesn't fit in their garage. There are a lot of people who have gigantic RVs who don't fit in their driveway either. So what is, what, how does this address those? I believe we have some answers to that. So hold on one second. Miss Stadler. So Council Member Christensen. So in the first part of your question about the contractor vehicles, this ordinance does not address contractor vehicles. It only talks to contractor trailers. So the regular vehicle like a painter van or anything like that is treated exactly the same as any other passenger vehicle that's left on the street for too long. So in all of these provisions in the code are mostly dependent on complaints. We have no, we do not even have close to the amount of staff that would be able to address just driving around the city and looking for, you know, or even noticing that something had been on the street too long. It's not dependent on complaints that we would get. So a contractor vehicle would just be treated like a car that got left on the street for too long. They would get a notification. And they would be advised that they needed to move it to a slightly different location. They don't, they're not required, they're not required to remove it completely. So it is part of their, I mean, what if this is a permanent thing that they use every day, and they park it in front of their house every day. So if the block complains, then they have to move it, or they have to get rid of it. So the law. Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead. So the vehicle's not abandoned if it moves. So it would have to sit unmoving for 48 hours to be considered abandoned if they drive it every day. It's not a violation. Mayor. Go ahead, Harold. I'm going to ask Tim to jump in on this one. So if you. And I can't see the page numbers online. If you look at, if you go to the draft ordinance on page two. Tim, help me clarify this. So the, the language you struck in red is already in the existing ordinance. Correct. Yes, you'll, you'll see. Mayor and members of council Tim Hall assistant to the attorney. You'll see that section. There was some rearranging that took place that looks like a bunch of red lining. And so it's not necessary. I'm sure that if it's read, it's out. So the contractors vehicle provisions, the contractor trailer provisions were in the existing ordinance. Those are unchanged to just move. So, so that was I think one of the points I wanted to make in the ordinance is the 48 hours it is in the existing ordinance today. For for contractors in terms of their vehicles and how we deal with it. It's not a new piece of the ordinance that's being added in this. And like Shannon said, is when they're moving their cars, this is not anything that gets police attention or code enforcement attention. It's left somewhere for multiple days at a row that people start complaining, but a contractor that's working daily is moving his car daily and that that's not going to get any attention from from a neighbor. So what I'm hearing councilman Christensen is that I think everybody agrees with your concerns, but the ordinance addresses them. Well, so I do, I do have a question about that 48 hours when you say it's left there for 48 hours and hasn't moved. What is what does the do the police do, for example, you know, we had a situation where we had cars that didn't move for weeks, because my husband was ill. Do you just ticket that, or do you go to the home and ask for an explanation. If someone's if someone's on vacation and the car sits there. I have a problem. And this probably goes to to the police department basically and what what you inform police to do. Are there individual police that would automatically ticket or tow an automobile that has sat there without, without contacting the person I think that that is really kind of what we're getting to. How detailed is this ordinance it doesn't really say it just says if it hasn't moved in 48 hours. So, as you know, there's 340 miles of roadway in this city. Thousands and thousands of cars, a police are not aware of every car that's parked in a home. So we would not. We don't just drive down the street and run a license plate to see where the car belongs. It's usually based on a neighbor calling and saying hey there's a car with parked on my street hasn't moved for a couple weeks. An officer would go over there run the plate. If the plate came back to the home, they would inform the complaint and hey the car belongs to the home, and they may even attempt contact with the homeowner, but they would they likely would do nothing with that because they would do nothing with that home. Now if the car registered to boulder and they would make contact at the home and ask hey do you know whose car this is, they would put a sticker on the car that says the car needs to be moved within 48 hours, and then check at a later date. And often it's not within 48 hours just because of volume of calls for service to check if the car is there. If the car wasn't there at that point they could potentially tow the car but if the car belongs to a homeowner. We're not towing those cars off the street, unless it's some junk kind of car, but if it's a registered car we're going to make an attempt to talk to the homeowner and at least put some sort of notice but we don't just drag cars off the street in front of the homeowner's houses. That would be that would be a very rude and impolite. I'm not very social for our police department. Okay thank you for that clarification. Yes. So let's go ahead and go to Council Member Vidalgo-Farring because her fingers are moving fastest, and then we're going to go with Dr. Waters. Okay, thank you. So I actually I have a couple of questions. So one, so I had heard that Stadler, Shannon Stadler had stated that 48 complaints that your office has received 48, 45 complaints sorry about approximately how many does the public safety. I think the last time we yeah. Yeah, I think the last time we we talked I counted if we were right around 150, and that was when we talked about this the last time we presented this as you know you sent me a complaint today. I also got a complaint from that same neighborhood from Paulie Christian a couple weeks ago. So our that vehicle moved on for whatever reason I don't know if it got tagged, but now it's back in the same neighborhood and we're going to go back and get that car again so many of our cars like Shannon said get tagged over and over over again, we just chase them around town. And so it's it's one car gets tagged multiple times, and nothing happens with those cars. So that leads to those numbers of vehicles that likes that we were in 150 range. When we talked about this that in September I believe it was. So it's kind of staying hovering at that over 100 complaints. Yeah, yeah, by the end of the year it's significant. Okay, okay and then the other question so in response to the public invited to be heard comment. Mr Fowler who has the RV in his home so he parked that in front of his house. That's those aren't kind of the vehicles that you're receiving complaints about is that that's correct and and and neighbors know their neighbors and if somebody called, let's say somebody called in Mr Fowler's RV and an officer a code enforcement officer would go there. We'd run to play and see that it belongs to that house, and we'd have a conversation and you know, those aren't the ones that were were we get complaints about it's the one that has the lawnmower that is left in the yard all the trash that you've sent me pictures of their parked on some side street they're parked in a neighborhood and they're dumping all their trash in that neighborhood. They we don't get calls from a homeowner that that is unloading their car or they have it parked in the street overnight because they're letting their refrigerator. Those are very uncommon and when we do get them the car list of that residents and that's where the permits also help if you have a guest that wants to come into town and stay at your home for a week, you can do that under this ordinance. And again, we would know there's a permit and officer would have a conversation and even if we threw a tag on it. The person would say hey I have a permit and it's like oh sorry about that. A lot of this too is also educating the public to know who's going to be affected by this ordinance, who isn't who's in the, you know who's pretty safe with this ordinance, and if the RV is tied to that house that those aren't the vehicles we're looking at. Yeah. I get a fair amount of calls in in my code enforcement office from people asking that particular question grandma and grandpa are coming in what should I do you know, and the first thing I tell them is go let your neighbors know that you're going to have visitors. They know that they that RV is tied to your house and they're you they're your visitors. Nobody's going to call about it. So they've already alleviated the need for a permit. Right. And your neighbors know who's there they they know how long they're going to be there. Also good. Like Jeff, there's no there's no reason for us to even respond to anything like that. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. I move that we accept the changes proposed in the, in the packet we receive for tonight's meeting. We direct staff to bring them back to us in the form of an ordinance or first reading at a subsequent council meeting. Second. Alright, is there additional debate on the matter Council member. Sorry, Mayor pro tem Rodriguez. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. So basically my reading of everything so far and listening to the explanations provided to us by staff. Is that there aren't the kind of loopholes or oversights that council member Christiansons is concerned with. I think she has a different reading of it which is fair. And until we actually see without red lines and some of those things, seeing the actual first reading draft ordinance. It'll be harder for maybe some of us to to read it in a way that doesn't show kind of some of these these loopholes or unintended consequences that could happen. But I don't think that at this time, word smithing it when legal and staff are saying that all items are essentially covered both for the sleeper vehicles as well as for non sleeper vehicles and the contingencies there up. So if we do see the unread non redlined version or the first for first reading, and then if we do still see these holes that we can make those decisions at that time, instead of trying to over word smith at this time. So I would agree with council member waters as far as moving forward this also as as a explanation to the public, as far as my vote is this on this is concerned. It's been a long time to folks that I've met with on the subject that I would support basically this concept of this ordinance that we're moving forward. As long as we were finding that kind of support for those folks that need it who are in RVs. And while it wasn't everything I wanted out of it. I think it's perfect as the enemy of the good. And I think that we got a lot of good things in here, and that we're also doing a good thing for the folks by finally addressing this because it has been a long time coming. Because I remember when the original ordinance was passed, which was prior to my election over nearly three years ago. So, with that I'll support the motion moving forward and I don't, I don't expect anything else from my colleagues here on council that will look at that ordinance when it comes through and try to see if there are any holes in it at that time as well. Well, I'm going to call on council member christensen but does anyone oppose to voting after council member christensen speaks. Okay, council member christensen. Okay, my other objection to this is it. It includes a section on an unregistered vehicles, or it includes a section on junked vehicles. And that includes unregistered vehicles unregistered vehicles are not junked vehicles. And for someone to have their car towed, as has happened to me, when they are merely a couple of months out of haven't have failed to renew their registration which I know the mayor also failed to renew his registration a few years ago this is easy for all of us to do the postcard slides under all the other bills that don't get paid. And instead of dealing with it right away which is what you should do you forget and then you, you're out of compliance you don't remember at all. I would like to change this law so that unregistered vehicles are a separate category, which is just something that you get a ticket for not have your car towed for which is something that the ordinance as it stands now allows people to have their own officer at their own discretion to tow this Tim whole, or someone wrote us back about this a while ago and said yes under that law you, you can tow a vehicle for being out of registration. I believe that's theft, frankly, and I, I don't think that you should be allowed to tow a vehicle under any circumstances because it is a couple of months beyond its registration date. I think that should be a separate category called unregistered vehicles, and they should be given a ticket. And I sent you the information that Louisville has on unregistered vehicles. And I believe that should be taken out. I don't know what you're going to say but Miss Stadler, can you go ahead and say what you're going to say. Um, so Mayor and Council Member Christensen. I've worked for the city for 23 years, this code 1112050 has been on the books, at least that long. It is not changed we are not changing it we just included it I believe Tim could address why it was included. But that's because this whole chapter 1112 is being amended so we had to include 1112050. But that's that's not a new code that's been on the books for at least probably longer. And we what we the SOP that I included in the council comm for junked vehicles on public streets includes the fact and Jeff can concur with this. We typically write a parking ticket to them first. They get a parking ticket. And if they're still there on the street a couple days later with the parking ticket on it then they may get towed. That the first course of action is usually a parking ticket for expired plates. But the code does not say that there must be a ticket issued. And that's because there are there's discretionary use of the code depending on the circumstances every circumstances different one junk vehicle maybe a hazard in the street and would you not want it towed if it was a hazard. So, in front of your house, and it is towed with no warning on a Friday afternoon and you have to pay the fees for Friday, Saturday and Sunday and Monday. It's very expensive. Well, I think that's not warning particular situation that happened to just. I mean, I'm going to actually cut us off things that that's a that's a different issue than the ordinance that's currently on the agenda. If somebody wants to bring it up on some future. I'll bring it up another time. All right, Dr waters. Do you have something to say on this. I was going to ask but I there's a motion on the floor I understand that. Yeah, that was that's why I cut it off. And so I mean, is anyone, I'm not going to call the question that we vote. All right, there's a motion on the forward floor that was eloquently stated basically saying, let's direct staff to move forward and prepare an ordinance based on the presentation recommendation by the, the staff, all in favor say hi. Hi, hi. Say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Very complicated topic, but all in all, it was fairly painless. So thanks. Thank you everyone. All right, now we're going to go on to a counselor Christensen thing. The reason be and be. Park was brought up is because a friend of mine went down there to see if he could park and RV there. The man who owns the park told him who seems to think that he lives in Boulder County told him that Boulder County has a pilot he's been trying for several years to expand his park, which could be double the size. Boulder County will not issue him a permit to do that and he went to and that's where he thinks he lives. So we need what I would move is that staff consult with Boulder County and Weld County to be sure that they are not banning the issuing of permits for RV parks. Trying to get one within the city limits of Longmont is problematic because we don't have a lot of space. But there is a lot of County land and Boulder County needs to take some responsibility for the fact that we are getting a heavy load of recreational vehicles because they've been banned in Louisville they've been banned in Boulder they've been banned all over. So we're getting them and they need to take some responsibility for issuing new permits to RV parks. So hold on one second. So I guess I would question the one second that I heard me out before somebody throws his second. Harold, can you just choose an email on on what the Weld and Boulder County's policy is on issuing new RV parks and facilities. Can somebody on staff do that fairly quick. Yeah, we can do that. And as I stated earlier, to the point that's one of the things I want to look at, because it doesn't make sense and I think we need to talk to this individual and help facilitate that conversation. All right, so now we are now going to move on to see but let's take a two minute break and talk specifically about post changes to low and behold impounded banded puddle clap and junk vehicles. You've already done that. That's it. Yeah, I thought that. Oh, sorry. You're right. Great. Thanks, Dr. Waters. I was gonna say that's the motion we just know. Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. Hey, it's kind of clock. I'm way like an hour ahead. All right, so anything else Harold from you on that particular issue we done. Now we're starting from Mayor Cal's comments. All right, anybody. All right, great. I guess the only thing I would say is that 22 years ago today Matthew Shepherd was beaten to death. And unfortunately, we continue to deal with the types of discrimination that he suffered. Man, it's going to be I don't want to be mayor on November 5 and I just hope that as we continue this election season, the with COVID and with our politics. I just hope we all remember that we're saying we're all we're all part of the same human family. And I hope that, you know, things just somehow get better because the world, at least I think is just really ugly lately. So, love all you guys and respect you all. So, even though occasionally, we don't agree on politics or, or specific ordinances. So, Councilmember Redago-Pairing. You reminded me also be nice to your public school teachers. No, not that. Yeah, I spent a four hour and 50 minute conversation with the teacher, helping her talk off talking her off the ledge. It's a tough time. And it is an unreal year. What a year to be on Council. So yeah, but thanks for your words. I appreciate it. Anybody else. Great city manager. Harold, you got anything else? Got two things you reminded me of one mayor. I know we're getting questions about how we're being how we're preparing for the election and what potentially could happen. And so Rob is working on that with the other chiefs in Boulder County. He's going to provide you all with a general outline. We obviously aren't going to talk about specifics. And then we will talk about reaching out to you all with more, you know, as more details come together, but I did want to confirm that he is working on that issue with the other chiefs. The other thing I wanted to say in case you all see this, I just saw it on CNN. The theaters actually just announced that they are closing all of their facilities. It's not a permanent closure. It's a temporary closure. Based on the other moving the openings of movies. So if you see that here locally that is a corporate wide decision and it's on it based on the articles and interim basis until they start releasing some of the new films. I just know how people sometimes can get that information. I just want to let you all know. And speaking of which, they've got two good movies new mutants was good if you like superhero movies, Marsha, and then tenant. You can have to see twice to truly enjoy it. It's good. So you're one day you've got you've got to go you've only got so many, so many hours left people counselor Christensen. Okay, it's very sad. God for Netflix, but with that said, we also have alfalfa is opening up within a couple of weeks. So that's terrific. I'm very grateful that they have faith in us and that they're have the guts to do something like that. And at a time like this. So that's something good for this town. All right, great Eugene. No comments Mayor. Well, we appreciate that. All right, we have a motion to adjourn. So move. Can't. All right, all in favor we have motion to adjourn all in favor say hi. Hi. Hi. Opposed say nay. It passes unanimously. We'll see you all at least next Tuesday. Thanks guys and deputy chief thank you so much. All right, bye.