 Everybody welcome. I'd like to now call the meeting to order. Can we please start with a roll call? Of course mayor Bagley here councilmember Christiansen Councilmember Dougle fairing Here councilmember Martin Here councilmember Peck here councilmember Rodriguez here councilmember waters here mayor you have a quorum All right Susie would you like to lead us in the pledge, please? Sure Ready Legions to the flag the United States of America For which it stands one nation under God Indivisible Justice for all All right, just a quick reminder to the public anyone wishing to provide public comment during the public invited be heard section must watch the live stream of the meeting and call in only when I open the meeting for public comment and so You can't access the meeting at any other time. That is totally you'll see a toll-free number on the screen right now And so just watch the instructions to be displayed When we get to the public invited be heard You'll call in and then you'll be led into the room according to the last three or four digits in your phone number so All right, do I have a motion to approve the minutes of the October 27th 2020 regular session? So move approval All right, I'll take that as a motion from councilmember Christiansen and it was second by councilmember waters any public in any discussion debate All right, see none all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye opposed say nay All right, the motion to approve the minutes of October 27th 2020 regular session is hereby approved unanimously All right, any agenda revision submission of documents or motions to direct city manager staff to add agenda items dr. Waters Thanks mayor Bagley We're all aware we're about to do the final actions on the 20 21 budget and we're all aware of the fact that in that budget there are no adjustments in compensation for city employees Not to suggest that there might not be what we've heard from Jim and Harold That as we get into 2021 as they get a clear picture of what what revenues might look like They might bring to us a recommendation to make salary adjustments for 2021, but as of now That's not in the budget and we've heard about potential budget adjustments and that would be that would Those salary adjustments would be included in budget adjustments if they were to be proposed So it seems to me that there are a number of ways of compensating staff One of one of those wages with salary adjustments cash compensation a second is with time And we talked about compensatory time a way to compensate people with time And I think it will be a mistake if we don't in anticipation of 2021 Ask Harold and and his HR staff To put together a plan of some kind to use time as a way to compensate staff in 2021 Maybe with salary adjustments if they occur, but certainly if that doesn't occur That the use of time would be one way of compensating staff, which we haven't talked about so I'm going to move That we direct Harold To to put together a plan for the use of time for compensating staff in 2021 in anticipation of what other adjustments might occur During the year and you can bring that plan back to us if that's appropriate in fact That'll be the motion to bring a plan back to us for how to use time to compensate staff second again Thank You Polly the universal sign of I cannot hear you Yes, so there was a motion made to direct staff to proceed with an overall I the suggestion to basically grants city staff an extra work day rather than In the event that there's no money to provide salary compensation for that about it all right Dr. Waters Well, the motion was a little broader than that Workday so a plan it might be more than one work. Okay. Got it. Got it like to use. Yeah Okay, so motion is to direct staff to actually look at providing staff additional time off is part of their compensation package this year That that that the motion. That's the motion. All right. It was seconded by councilmember Christiansen Seeing no further Marsha. Oh, sorry. It was seconded by councilmember Martin and thirded by councilmember Christiansen and so councilmember Christiansen I Think it should say a paid day off. Otherwise a day off, you know All right a paid day off as well as I assume the motion also means any other ideas that would be Really good for staff that wouldn't cut into your budget. So We're willing to hear any and all ideas councilmember Ivalgo Ferring so and yeah, I had a conversation with Dale about this issue as well and And So and it's not off the table then during the course of the year as numbers projections come in To re-evaluate So, you know, they're given the comp time but then to re-evaluate if Adjustments can be made on the salary schedule. That was a premise of the motion so yeah, I want to make sure that it's that that's still in place and Yeah, that's that's consistent with what we talked about in our budget message based on how we see performance As we continue to move forward Okay, so I just wanted to make sure if it's something that needed to be included written Lee in the young in the proposal or in the motion. I Thought it was in there, but I may have misheard it. Okay, you can back a listen to take In addition to potential cash compensation Not knowing what that's going to look like that we authorized the Management team to put together a plan to use time compensate staff With the understanding that that there may be salary adjustments as well in 2021 so basically I'm taking the motion to mean Harold you have the green light to discuss Compensation in terms of time off paid time off salary include creases. You've got our blessing enjoy You are the executive over HR Proceed We'll bring something back to council. All right, and I believe that was a consensus anyone anyone here not in agreement with that motion All right, you've got a consensus vote mandate move forward councilmember Peck I think we should take a vote. Let's all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye Opposed they name All right, it is still consensus unanimous, but now it's official. All right. All right now. It's official official. All right Thanks, dr. Waters. All right anything else guys Councilmember Lago-Ferry So I'd like to direct staff to get an update on And let me on the what's going on what's going to happen or what where the status is on The North Main Street corridor You know, there were a lot of plans in the works for in the comp plan You know, I've since COVID has started I've tried to have been trying to try to keep connected with some of the businesses just often ones that I frequent but You know a lot of people have noticed that things are kind of happening South and Downtown and you know, we have the long lawn downtown authority and that and they they manage they Oversee that and look at those pieces and they're doing a great job, but I want to make sure we don't forget about the north All right. Well actually I Herald can we just I don't see a Herald Stop playing your games eating your Twinkies. I want to like that like I tell my kids How does the teacher know you're paying attention if I can't see you Herald? No, I'm kidding you can go dark anytime you need to Herald. No, but can we please just marriage prerogative? Just put a five minute just a five minute update on the next at the next council meeting or whenever you can Just what's going on with North Main because I do see a lot of there's construction going on Why don't you just let us know what's going on? Yeah, would you do that? Yeah, I work with Joni and Erin and we can do that. All right, cool. Like good enough council member Yeah, any of the parks. I know we you did some updates on car park So that was and that meant a lot to a lot of the folks in the neighborhood walk to that Let's make sure let's let's include the car parks to Herald Let's include the parks that are kind of getting neglected. So let's include it. All right. Cool. All right anybody else All right, let's go ahead then and move on to first COVID update Herald we have a guest, right? Yeah, we have several guests actually tonight on this And and there's gonna be a fair amount of information that we're gonna go through but the first guest I'm gonna ask Scott cook to Come on and Scott has a special guest with him One of the things this is really attributed to is council's motion on the restaurant vouchers and how that's taken off And so Scott's gonna give you all an update and talk about how that's being Expanded based on donation. So Scott take it away Sure, thank you Harold and good evening Mayor Bagley and City Council as Harold said, I'm Scott Cook. I'm the CEO of The Longmont Chamber and I'm joined this evening by Ashley Sherman. She is with the North Main Walmart store So the Chamber has been working with Sandy Cedar and her staff on the strongmont restaurant voucher program This is a program that was put forward by City Council to distribute tokens to families around the community And then those tokens can be used at the local restaurants So this is a unique program that helps those both those in the community, of course, and then our restaurants Of course both of these groups have been heavily impacted by the pandemic. So of course it's a win-win For a lot of people in the first round. We had just over 50 restaurants that participated And in the second round, which we're working on now will have just over 60 participating Restaurants. We've only received positive feedback from the restaurants that Are participating and in turn they've let us know that they've received a lot of positive feedback From those that are using the tokens Many of the tokens have been used for special celebrations for family nights out or family nights in Because it is a pandemic. So many people pick up their food and go home with it And throughout this pandemic, walmart has been a partner to the chamber and in this community So we want to let you know that walmart has assisted our small businesses with their game day marketplace, which they held at the One highway 119 store and then they've also contributed to the chamber unity funds the community fund Which we keep at the community foundation all of those proceeds go to area nonprofits And walmart also loved the idea of the restaurant voucher program and has now donated 4500 to the program. So this will help us reach more residents and more restaurants So I wanted to let you know of the success of the program so far and to let you know that we have one more partner in the program with walmart And so I'd like to if Ashley is still here with us Ashley Sherman like her to be able to say a few words from the north walmart store Ashley I think Scott and Everyone I yeah, so we have I'm really partnered with the chamber to um to donate our, you know our money in our budgeted funds and Being able to provide to the community his is something that is um, really core to me and to my management team and to walmart as a whole. So Um, it's been a really good partnership. Like I said with the chamber last year. It was the unity um, and then this year, uh, you know, like scott said, we um have donated quite a bit to Um, the those the one month strong tokens for trying to support the food and all of the All the families that are in need. So we are here for the city of walmart. Um, and Any other needs that that you guys and everyone has? Great. Thank you, Ashley. And I just wanted to again thank the city of walmart. Thank you city council for putting this program together Um, if there's questions about the program and the chamber's role in that, um, please let me know. We're Like I said, currently working on the second round. Um, and that will go through December 31st. So thank you, Harold. So mayor council, you started with I believe it was 10,000 you all put into this. We put another 10,000 in from the carers funding and then, um, added the, I guess, 4500 so 14,000. So the idea for this program is definitely taken off and we hope that others are interested in, um, continuing to do that. And continue to grow the program. So, um, thanks for the idea. Um, there's a handout. Dr. Waters. Yeah, I just, I want to acknowledge this was councilmember peck's proposal and I, and I don't know that any that idea that you guys put into the program, but I think it's going to be a little bit of a challenge for the city of walmart. So, um, I think it's going to be a little bit of a challenge for the city of walmart. Um, I think it's going to be a little bit of a challenge for the city of walmart. And I, and I don't know that any that I didn't have a sense of what a good idea it was at the time. It obviously was a great idea and I'm sitting here, um, enjoying even as I'm listening to a voice message I received from a constituent. We all get a lot of incoming correspondence voice messages and email seldom do I get messages saying. Thank you for, for what you've done. And I can take no credit in this, but Joe, I ought to forward this to you, uh, because it is a constituent telling me how deeply grateful she is. And, and how honored she felt in the establishment she went to to redeem that token. So, good on you. Councilmember christensen and then councilmember peck. Well, it's like, uh, Looks like Polly has decided that she was going to speak. So, uh, thank you for those kind words, our councilman waters, but this wasn't, this was council's idea. We do nothing other without a majority vote. So, um, They'll thank everybody. And I hope we can Let it be, I'll take that as a point of order and everybody is hereby thanked everyone is thanked. All right. So, um, yeah, it was a great idea. Um, and, and classic team effort with the city, you know, councilmember pet coming up with the idea council members coming in. Sandy and staff working with the chamber also working with tinker mill who made the tokens. And so you're really seeing multiple groups come together to work. And that's how long my roles as we do things as a community and coming together. So again, just another example of our great community. Um, that's good news to start off with. Um, definitely seen a lot of changes in the COVID world. The first thing that I want to do, Susan and I've actually been texting, we're going to start off with the video. So, Eric, I believe you have the video. The governor, before you pull it up, Eric, I want to talk about a couple of things. We received some correspondence from Dola. I also received correspondence from the state and governor's office. The governor's really, um, for the state employees, they've announced that state employees in level orange or level red counties will work remotely for the month of November in those except for those critical government functions who cannot perform job duties remotely. And they're asking other local governments to join in on that. Excuse me, the coffees. I'm talking back to me right now. So we're, we're going through that and evaluating the situation right now. And I wanted council to know that we are working to trim our numbers down as an organization to come into compliance with the, with the state orders and what they're asking local governments to do. But I also wanted to point out that this, this message from the governor to local governments. And so we're going to be working with that over the next few days to see what we can do to achieve that. But that will still keep the facilities open that we're allowed to under the existing orders, um, as we continue to move forward. Part of that is they also are putting together a, a robust, uh, marketing package. And the first thing that they put out is a video from the state epidemiologist. So Erica, will you please play that video? Hi, I'm Dr. Rachel Hurley, Colorado state epidemiologist working on the COVID-19 response. COVID-19 has been spreading rapidly in our state. Cases and hospitalizations are going up, almost as high as what we saw in March and April. The cases have grown so much that in the Denver area, about one in 145 people are currently contagious with COVID. Let me put that into perspective. In a week, if you come across 20 people a day, whether that's at work, on the bus, getting coffee, going to the store, or people in your neighborhood or friends, you will be in contact with someone who is contagious with COVID-19. Ask yourself, how many people do you interact with in a day, and how can you reduce that? I want to ask you to do three things starting today. For the rest of November, only interact with members of your household. Keep your distance at least six feet at all times, and wear a mask. On behalf of the state of Colorado, thank you for stepping up and doing your part as we continue to do ours to protect you and your family. All right, Susan, can you join us? Thank you, Harold. So, I'm Susan Motica. I'm the strategic initiatives and policy director at Boulder County Public Health. I'm happy to be here today. I wanted to give you some background before we go into the slides that I've prepared for you. As Harold indicated, the governor is really exhorting local governments, local public health agencies to do everything in their power at this time. He is really very reluctant to issue blanket stay-at-home orders at this time. We know that the cases are escalating in the state, they're escalating in virtually every region of Colorado. So, what we're being asked to do and what the governor's office really strongly asked Boulder County Public Health to do and the region, the Metro Denver Partnership for Health, is to think about some additional measures that could be put in place in the form of a county order. And he's asking the Metro directors to be doing this. So, on Thursday morning at 8 a.m., the Board of Health will be meeting to consider an order that will have some further restrictions on indoor events, spectators at sporting events, restaurants, a strong, strong recommendation for working at home. I don't want to get ahead of the specifics, which are still being negotiated and worked on. We've received tremendous feedback from the business community. Our hospitals have weighed in with tremendous feedback and all my slides are going to indicate and demonstrate that escalation as well. So, it really is this very careful balancing act. The state is really being clear and clear about two things in terms of guidance. One is the recommendation that anyone who can feasibly should return to working at home and that is a strong recommendation. The other is that even though we are in the orange level, which as you know, allows up to 10 from no more than two households for personal gathering size, it is our strong recommendation, Jeff Zayac and CDPHE as well. I'm sorry, I got to log in again here. Hold on. It is our very strong recommendation that people limit gatherings to their own family. We know this is very difficult as Thanksgiving approaches, but we see this as very, very, very important to limit this surge that we're seeing all over. So, those are two very, very strong recommendations. Why don't we turn to my slides now? That's okay. Next slide, please. So, you can see that our two-week cumulative incidence rate is 458.8 per 100,000 and that definitely puts us in the red level, which was 350. Next slide, please. Our two-week testing positivity rate is now 7.1 percent and I'll have more information on that a little later in the slide deck. Next slide, please. Our hospital status is still in the green, but I will be providing some more information about escalating hospitalizations and impacts there as well. Next slide, please. So, this is our five-day average number of new cases of COVID-19 among Boulder County residents and this is just as of November 9th. Our five-day rolling average is about 146 cases per day through the end of 118, which is higher than any point except our recent CU surge. Next slide, please. Our next graph shows Boulder County residents who've tested positive or considered probable by municipality. So, here you can see that since October 1, Longmont, Longmont has the highest case rate per 100,000. Again, that's since 10.120. In the past seven days, 41 percent of our new cases have resided in Boulder City and 36 percent of our new cases have resided in Longmont. Next slide, please. So, about a month or six weeks ago when Jeff was presenting an RCU surge, you were seeing the highest rate among 18 to 22. They are still the highest rate, although you can now see really clearly those other age groups 23, 24 or 25, 34, 35 to 44 really growing as well. Next slide, please. COVID-19 among children aged zero to 17 years. So, here you can see a tripling of the zero to four-year age group and the five to nine-year-old age group. And I had a specific call preparing for this presentation with the mitigation specialist for early childhood, Sarah Scully. And she wanted me to emphasize to you that health screenings occur before either staff or students are allowed in, that people have to list their symptoms, answer if they've recently been quarantined, no one allowed is allowed in sick and people are isolated if they develop even one COVID symptom. And they, like the K through 12, are on the return to learn protocol. With this age group, as you know, it's extremely difficult to get two-year-olds to wear masks. So, being very rigorous about those protocols is very important. I also spoke to Heather Crate, who is our K to 12 policy expert. And she said that this protocol is still being used in the K to 12 schools and that this is this online form that is submitted through the infinite campus. They are seeing the spread through activities outside sports clubs, family gatherings, not seeing spread in the cohorts. But they, as you know, they have to submit this electronic symptom tracker. The incidence of cases is not surprising given what we know about the community spread. Next slide, please. So, here you can see the trend two-week incidents of new COVID-19 cases. This is a slide that Jeff Sack always presents. It just did our last two weeks. And if you just look at that right-hand side, it just sees that you can just see clearly that very significant escalation in those numbers among all age groups. And I won't give you, like, a statistical lecture here, but I will illustrate a bit. From zero to nine, a 353 percent increase, age 75 plus a 172 percent increase, 18 to 22, a 168 percent increase. Next slide, please. So, this is a slide you have seen before, but this is giving us information about race, Hispanic origin, and how those cases look. We know that Boulder County, 13.8 percent of the population is Latino. We know that 31.8 percent of COVID cases come from that community and 42.7 percent of all hospitalizations. And in the past seven days, 51.8 percent of our cases, or 331 cases, have been among Hispanic, Latinx community. And 47.7 percent of our cases, or 305 cases, have been among white, non-Hispanic. I will just want to add to this data slide that we're embarking on a very comprehensive COVID plan with which Lexi Nolan, our new deputy director, is working on. It will have a significant focus on the Latinx and other priority populations. And we have already been collaborating with Longmont, with Harold, with team on this. We've hired Nick Robles, who is a longtime Longmont resident, to be our bilingual resource coordinator. So, I would just expect a lot of activity and collaboration as we learn from your already very successful efforts, and we collaborate further on this. Next slide, please. So, next we see a summary of COVID testing among Boulder County residents. The number of PCR tests conducted, 117,326, are five-day average percentage of tests that are positive 8 percent. As you know, the metric for being in a safe zone is 5 percent. So, that is significantly higher than the 5 percent number we would like to see. And our five-day average on this is 4.7 percent. Next slide, please. So, you can look at our five-day rolling average of COVID PCR tests. This is very illustrative. As I said, the rolling average is 8 percent. This has been increasing over the past five weeks, and it surpassed the level it was during the height of the young adult surge at CU in September. Next slide, please. Hospitalizations in Boulder County. This graph really starkly illustrates that upward, very, very strong upward trajectory. As of November 9, 86 people are hospitalized in Boulder County for confirmed COVID. Next slide, please. We're asked at times, how does this look compared to Colorado? So, currently we're at 1,174 people hospitalized for confirmed COVID across Colorado, and that's compared to 755 people only a week ago. This is the highest COVID hospitalization number we've ever had in Colorado. I would also point out that there have been 18 deaths from COVID in Boulder County since October 1. Next slide, please. And these are our resources that we always provide in our presentations that provides far more data and far more information. I also have a 59 slide deck, which Harold, I'm happy to send for people that would like much more in depth, happy to send that to you. I wanted to address, Harold, would that be our mayor? Would it be appropriate for me to address some of the questions that came in in advance now, or would you like me to wait on that? What questions came in in advance? From who? Council members? Yes. Yeah, go ahead and address them now. That's fine. Okay. I will do my best on that. So, one question was, what is considered an outbreak? And just to remind you all, it's two or more cases with a common exposure within a 14-day period. Next question, people have seen places where there are two or more cases in a facility or building that are not categorized as an outbreak. Why is that? I spoke to our chief epidemiologist about this tonight, and she says, you know, there are other conditions that can affect us. For example, it didn't happen within a 14-day period that people work in Boulder County but reside elsewhere, were dependent on the other county, that test results can be delayed, that there can be reporting lags. So, as a general rule, that definition I gave you is correct and applied, but there are some variations that she indicated. So, question about, we're going the education route clarifying the expectation of masking and social distancing. Is it masking? Is it social distancing or must it be both? Jeff Zack and I spoke about this yesterday, and he wanted me to urge that in the strongest possible terms, this must be a continued combination. And as Dr. Hurley indicated tonight in what Harold showed the video, we've got to have masking, we've got to have social distancing, and we've got to have hand washing, we've got to have this constant combination in play, and that we are not actually looking at measures like how safe are you if there's only a mask, how safe are you if there's social distancing but not a mask. We do not have data on this, and part of the emphasis, whether it's the CDC or state health department or us, is that integral combination of those factors. So, there's question two about gyms. So, for limiting ourselves right now under orange to 10 people and two households, and gyms seeming to have more latitude here. Gyms are under, and I just, I pulled up the dial in this one. Hang on a minute, please. Gyms and fitness centers are at 25% capacity, 25 indoors or outdoor groups less than 10. So, what Jeff wanted me to emphasize here is that they are, and Trina Ruland, actually our county attorney, gyms are highly regulated. They've got licenses, they're checked on, they have these requirements as opposed to our personal gatherings with which nobody's going to break into our house, so to speak, at Thanksgiving and examine our gatherings. We're on an honor system with our gatherings, but gyms are really subject to that licensure requirement. I wanted to also reference that I asked that this be sent to all of you. It's guidance document from CDPHE called in-person learning in the time of COVID, because another question that came in had to do with, it seems as though schools are allowed other kinds of latitude. Why is that? So, if you take a look at that document that I sent at your convenience, it really talks about CDPHE analyzing K through 12 outbreak case distribution guidance, or not guidance, the actual results, and since March in K through 5, they found 23 outbreaks, 55 cases, 23 students with COVID, and in the middle schools, 10 outbreaks, 32 cases, 20 student cases. So, in balancing, in balancing the need for students to be in school, to benefit from that in a social emotional as well as educational sense, and also lower income students benefiting as well, they really looked into this guidance and literature on that point. So, I would urge you to read that document at your convenience if you haven't already. So, another point that's really key is people who are outdoors have 20 times less chance of getting COVID when they're outside as opposed to when they're indoors. So, bear that in mind as we're going through some tough winter times, right, with gathering size. So, in terms of events and parsing, you know, what kind of events, whether it's a protest, a sports rally, big family gathering, what Jeff has said consistently, we have one in 100 people being infected and that gatherings, you have a First Amendment right, it's not about a right to gather, it's about what's judicious, what's in your health interests, what's in our community's health interests, and that severely restricting to the greatest extent we can gatherings are very, very important. So, another question was, is there a trigger? What's the trigger for Boulder County Public Health to require schools to go remote when rates go up? So, right now, under orange, there is not a trigger, but there is this continued examination of data by the school districts, by us, really looking closely and carefully at data and having a very collaborative and informed process. But there isn't a specific numeric trigger right now. I think we had a question about the orange level and that classrooms cannot do targeted quarantine anymore, and that is true. Districts are well aware of it, Jeff, the local public health directors are well aware of this and we are advocating with the schools, with the CDPHE on that point. I think that was about all the questions I had, Harold. Council Member Peck, and then we'll go with Council Member Ridagoff. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Susan, thank you for that, that was very detailed and interesting. I have a question about post COVID. Is there any data being collected on people who have experienced the virus gone through it, and then tested negative after, but they're still experiencing symptoms, even though they have the antigens now? Are we doing any follow-up on that? Any data collection on are we still having the fog brain? Are we still not being able to eat, taste, smell, and how long does that last? Because I think that is information that needs to be put out with these reports as well, because people seem to think that if they get it, they get it. But we don't know what the long lasting effects of this are, or how long those symptoms can last after you've tested negative. So are we collecting any of that data? I would just say from my office, Council Member Peck, that we are so focused on the surge of cases, the case investigation, the contact tracing, so focused on those core epidemiology functions and the communications aspect and the policy aspects, that we haven't devoted time to that yet. Nor am I aware, but this is an excellent question, nor am I aware of the Colorado School of Public Health doing it or CDPHE. I think that we keep seeing these waves and surges that we have to really try to competently address, but that is a very, very critical question that I will just put to the Metro Director's meeting and to Colorado School of Public Health and CDPHE. I think the CDC is doing some work on that, and so they go most common reported long term symptoms, fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, joint pain, chest pain, other reported symptoms, difficult with thinking and concentration, depression, muscle pain, headache, intermittent fever, fast beating or pounding heart, and then more serious long term is cardiovascular inflammation of the heart muscle, respiratory lung function, anomalies, abnormalities on the renal side, acute kidney injury, dermatologic, rash, hair loss, neurological, smell, taste problems, sleep issues, difficulty with concentration, memory problems, and then on the psychiatric side, depression, anxiety, and changes in mood. So that's what they're hearing, and I think that's really where it's happening is within the CDC in terms of that, and they'll be working with the schools of health to examine that in more detail. Yeah, I would agree. The literature is indicating that, and that's in the topical literature, more popular literature as well, what Harold talked about. We haven't started studying that, but it is a lot of people are going to be studying it because COVID repercussions, whether they're economic or physical impacts, they're going to be with us a long time. All right, anything else, Susan? Um, no, I don't have anything further. All right, Councilmember Riddler-Fernring. Yeah, I have a couple of questions. So one of them would be in regard to the masking and social distancing and washing of the hands. So would it be considered a violation of the workplace to, if not all three, are occurring indoors? There is not a specific order on hand washing. And masking. Yeah, and there are specific rules on what offices can do with masking and that you need to be wearing a mask. When you're in a hallway, you need to be maintaining that six-foot distance. And this is something that the county is really grappled with, and our county attorneys have grappled with because sometimes people have really big offices, and it doesn't seem to make sense to people, but I think because of the very close, the need to have that combination of factors that that has been required, and there is that specific masking order. So we've had to deal with that in our organization, so the governor's masking order requires a mask indoors, generally what the county attorneys and our attorneys, unless you're in an office that has four walls and a door, and you're not in there with someone else. And we've even gotten to the level of cubicles, all cubicle, short cubicles. Do they have doors, those types of issues? Generally the rule of thumb that we're using is if you're in a building, you wear it. If you're with somebody else, based on the order that's been issued, we're a little bit different outside because of Boulder County's masking order, that's why they're both in play. They also require one outside if you can't adequately social distance, and that's not the same in other places. So Harold, then I have a question for you in, so like common spaces like the lounge, the staff lounge, are people able to eat inside? We're having that very conversation right now, and so basically we're also looking at the restaurant guidance in terms of how they can eat in the lounges, but we have that conversation among my team, and we're just actually encouraging people to eat in their offices and where they are next to someone else because it does, when you start having those exposures, it creates staffing issues in our part. I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing now. And so through contact tracing, has anything throughout the county been brought back to these outbreaks occurred in the staff lounge or in common eating spaces like that, not necessarily restaurants but in places of business offices? So maybe Susan and I tag team this. I think what I've been briefed on in our administrator's call is that if you really look at what's generating the bulk of the cases right now, and I think this is an important message for the community, it really is in the social gatherings. When they were doing the contact tracing, and that's another conversation we're having just because of the volume of cases. It's different today than it was a few weeks ago, but what they're finding is it is coming out of the social gatherings more than it is out of restaurants, out of business units. Absolutely. May I just add there? Yeah, it's just that is what we hear consistently through the Metro directors from the Colorado Health Department that social gatherings are absolutely the number one source. And that is why the recommendation about voluntarily limiting our gathering sizes even below what the orange level requires is being strongly recommended now. Okay. And then the other thing was around the outbreaks. So, you know, and I'm going to all full disclosure, I'm a teacher in the school district and the school district is the largest employer of the city of Longmont. So how the operations are handled there affect our community. It impacts our constituents, our ability to function as a city. So, you know, I want to make sure that, you know, as I'm advocating for whatever piece in my union capacity that I'm also not doing anything or supporting anything that's going to damage or hurt the city and our constituents and the health and well-being of our residents. So one of the things going back to the outbreak. So we've had cases where there are two or more in a building, but they're not considered an outbreak. And the message that's being told and, you know, and it kind of changes. And I think that it could be that the individuals who are sharing the information are not fully understanding. So they're putting in their own interpretation or are the guidelines changing throughout? Because early on, I mean, we have this metric where we were looking at and I can't find it anywhere on the website. There's a new metric description that has, you know, the threshold is totally different or higher to move to fully remote than it was here than what we discussed back in September. So the message on outbreaks is that if they did not come from, so if you had two in a building, if one came from one outsource and the other one came from another source, that that's not considered an outbreak. And I want to know if that's true or not. Well, it's that definition of two or more cases with a common exposure. So I guess it's very dependent upon these facts. Like how close were those people? Did they have a common exposure? And as Carol held with that, within a 14-day period, perhaps it didn't happen within a 14-day period. You know, perhaps a person who was exposed worked in Boulder County but lived somewhere else. And I'm not trying to just repeat those things. I think that I would inquire with the people that are making decisions about that what criteria, what specific facts? What specific facts are governing? Because I think that that's what the other thing Carol said is that the state is looking, Councilwoman, at some revised definitions and guidance on these outbreaks. I mean, obviously the questions you're asking are, you know, they're being heard by the state of Colorado, not just from Longmont, and that they're looking at some additional guidance on this. So I think we'll have more information to give to Harold and give to you soon. But that's the best I can say right now is that collecting those specific facts. I'm answering the right, I'm asking the right questions. So, you know, it's, so it is really probing. And I want to make sure that I'm probing the right people too. And that would be good. All right. Well, and to Susan's point, in the last admin call, I had many of those questions were echoed by many other communities putting those same questions in the mix. And so I know Chris, how do you say this is mass check from the interim city manager in Boulder said, yeah, I'm getting the same question. So we're all getting them, and we're all trying to get those same answers. Okay. And then how involved is the county in doing the contact tracing for Boulder Valley for us when we have cases? Well, when there are outbreaks, the epidemiology office of our office is notified, and they're taking their appropriate measures and steps. Okay. I was under the impression that we were having a hard time keeping up with the contact tracing. Yes, yes, yes. That is absolutely correct. Carol Helwig has indicated that there are really hundreds of cases right now. This is just based on those numbers I gave you, that things are really, really escalating. We are doing our best to add staff, to volunteer other staff, to be looking at different ways to do this. Harold, did you want to add? Yeah, so to that point, based on the volume of cases, they are having struggles with the contact tracing. I know in admin calls, several people were talking about what can we do to help hire positions. I've had conversations with my team when we talked about this issue. Give you a sense, I mean, Tuesday, Thursday with my full team, we have calls with other administrators. I have another admin call. We've had conversations internally about how can we repurpose our staff to assist the county in the contact tracing function, at least at a basic level, so we can communicate with people immediately, talk to them quickly about who are you around, what are you doing so we can try to stay on top of this, all within the framework of we're in community spread, but still how do we collectively staff that to support our county partners? And I'll touch on that in terms of conversations I've been having with Lexi once soon, finished. And when Jeff presented his slides, he had a slide on there about individual person-to-person cases, or cases that were because it was individual, and then others that were community-spread. Does that seem familiar to anybody? Was I like imagining it? How come I haven't, I would like to see that slide of that again. Delighted, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, that's no, that would be. I will look through our slide deck of 59. I was really trying to kind of capture a story in a framework for you, because our whole slide deck is really, really big, but I will look for that slide for you. But I think that, and we've done some tinkering, we got some, we got a lot of feedback, and we've done some tinkering and labeling and more in-depth surveillance data work, frankly, with the slides, but I know that what it is indicating is that the community spread one in 100 people are infected with COVID, whether they're asymptomatic or symptomatic. So I think that Jeff may have been making that case, sort of showing a trend that was growing, but it wasn't as strong as it is today. Today it is very strong, that we have community spread, nobody doubts that. And that the person-to-person that we saw in March, April, and May, and I am really remembering that slide right now, that was much more relevant in the early part, COVID-1. Yes, yes. And so, and you had asked, you had asked if anybody was interested in a copy of the slide deck or emailing it? Yeah, I am interested. I like data. I can tell that, no problem. I'll forward that to Harold. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I think that was all, and if not, I'll email Harold or I'll email you. So, thank you. You bet. I guess the, one something I just to throw out, Dr. Waters, go ahead. You first. Your arm's getting tired. Go ahead, Doc. Interesting here. I just- Go ahead. It's that you deferred. Susan, thanks for the information. Could you help me reconcile it on my mind what I think I saw you present, and I'm not certain what slide number it is, for the cohorts of zero to five, six to 12, whatever those age cohorts were, and the numbers that have increased over the two reporting periods, because those numbers, if I recall what I saw, are hard to reconcile with the numbers in the document you sent on teaching in person. And I'm just wondering what I'm not understanding in terms of the discrepancy between what you presented and the rates of infection now versus what I'm seeing in this document. Yeah, and I think that, and I can have our epidemiologists look into the actual math analysis on this, but I would just say, and I should have said this at the beginning, that the actual numbers are still relatively small. For example, in the two-week period of October 12th to October 25th, it's eight. So we're not looking at those vast numbers that we see with CU and other age groups. And in October 26th through November 8th, account of 25. What age group would that be? I'm sorry, that was zero to four. Yep, that was zero to four. So that's something that we have gotten feedback, good feedback on the data, make sure, and forgive me for not doing that. It's like, you can triple and people can think, well, is that 400? Oh my god, it tripled. But when you can see it, it was eight. Go ahead. Give me that. The next cohort is five to what? Five to nine. Give me those numbers. Certainly. So in... It's on the screen now, Susan. Yeah, thanks. October 12th to October 25, 13, and then 52 from October 26th to November 8th. Got it. So Susan, are these infections? These are... So this is COVID, people that have kids that have confirmed COVID. And I think I'm understanding your question about the data that I presented, saying, let's all take a look at that CDPHE report, that that is based on earlier data, certainly, than the October 26th through 11th, that is my guess on that. No, it's not. It's dated November 2020. And the numbers are substantially smaller than what you're showing us right now. That's what I'm trying to reconcile. And it goes back, I think, a little bit to the concerns that Councilmember Hidalgo Ferring was sharing about consistency and clarity and meaning of the data. Because whoever put together the page you sent to us about teaching in person, the data in that report are an approximation of the data that you just shared just in Boulder County. And how do we reconcile that discrepancy is my question. Why is it so different? And it's not because one's in October, one's in November, it's going up in November. These numbers should be higher than what you presented, not lower. Yeah. And I think what I'll do is have our chief epidemiologist work with me on that to get you an answer, because that's quite frankly... And this report from CDPHE literally just came out. And these numbers we've got yesterday from the COVID children case count. I'll have our epidemiologist and CDPHE really reconcile this and have an answer for you. Well, and I'll be quiet, but part of my concern in terms of understanding the reasons for the discrepancy, what it is, the broader concern is the last thing we want to do is trot data out that we can't verify, we can't defend, or we can't explain. Because for those who want to question the data, it just gives them a reason to question the data. And I'm not questioning what we got from you. I'm pretty confident I can rely on those data. It's the document from CDPHE on teaching in person and what those differences are. We'll get to the bottom of it. And our epidemiologists will talk to the epidemiology folks at CDPHE who did this analysis, which I think the general correct, what we've seen in trends across the country in reading about this is that there is less case incidents in that younger population. So we'll square up those numbers though. All right. If the data on teaching in person is as dramatically understated as it looks like it is, that ought to be a concern on the part of a whole bunch of folks, parents, educators, us. So getting that reconciled soon was going to be really helpful. Absolutely. And reconciled may not mean, reconciled means in my mind providing the explanation and the analysis about the sources, comparing them, and those traditional, that traditional sort of epidemiology analysis of where it comes from and how it was calculated. That's what I'm committing to. Yeah, part of what we can tell you, the numbers that she gave you are produced in turn, so the 8 to 25, 13 to 52, that's our local numbers, and that's what's produced five over county health. We can understand that. We will need to reach out to CDPHE to have them reconcile that for us. Harold, it looks to me like in the document that was forwarded to us, this is a statewide take. Correct. That's what I'm saying. The numbers of teachers, numbers of students statewide, and then a number, not a percentage, a number of cases, for example, of K5 reporting 23 students statewide. I mean, it's hard to understand where this came from. So that's the concern. Understand you completely. Harold, can you, I mean, we, I don't want to debate that. I mean, unless people are like, absolutely not, going back to the first thing that was presented tonight was a very, I think, articulate, articulate, articulate and a succinct message conveyed by Colorado's head epidemiologist in the governor's office. Part of the problem we're dealing with here is that you've got left versus right ways of thinking. I do think that everyone could, I mean, I think everyone would agree that we need to do the things that were asked of us. And so I'm almost inclined to ask city staff to write up a resolution basically saying we encourage everyone for the following reasons to do these things and then basically let the city of Longmont, our citizens and constituents know that we endorse what the governor's office just said. Because I don't think anyone's going to watch that video. And I don't think the message is going to get out. And I think that if we pass a law or we threaten, you're going to have half of the people say no way. And you're going to, I just think that I think the message needs to get out to folks that we need to stay six feet apart, wear our masks. And what was the other thing? We're six feet apart, wear our masks. Oh, and to the extent possible. Stay within your family unit. And so I think that that's something that we should convey. So yeah, and to that point, you know, just internally, I'll tell you what we're dealing with. We've had to deal with masking issues. And for me, it's pretty simple equation. But I think if we just ask people and just pass along the message that the governor's asking, I just think that... No, I agree with you. I agree with you because to let you know how it impacts it, I'm just giving you an example as an organization. If I'm next to you, and we had one of these issues where someone tested positive, but guess what? Everyone is socially distanced and everyone is wearing the mask. And so when you look at it, we don't have to quarantine people because they're there. And so we continue providing the services we're providing to our community. Just doing, creating, drafting a resolution. And I think you can, I mean, to avoid the whole constitutional versus just all those arguments and just say, let's do this, please. Correct. And I think I need to update you on some other things too. All right. So Susan, thank you so much. We appreciate you. All right. I'll be back in touch on a range of issues. Thank you so much tonight. Bye-bye. All right, Harold. So some other issues going on. So we are also partnering with Boulder County Health and Susan can stay on during this in case I miss something. So we have opened the testing location at the Fairgrounds. Dan Eamon and our emergency management team, they're working with them to assist in that operation. It's also creating more testing opportunities. Also, as we look at the data and see where the cases are coming in the community, I do have access to see a more focused data set. I can't share that because of any number of privacy issues. And so we're also working with our cultural brokers to have pop up testing sites at different locations in our community based on where we're seeing a number of tests, a number of where we're seeing issues within our community. So we are going to work with Lexi Nolan, believe it's Nolan, and really working those issues on the testing side. But then as we look at the mitigation approach to the mayor's suggestion about a resolution, I think that's really important because how we work within neighborhoods and how we communicate in neighborhoods is going to be incredibly important. And then at the same time, I've talked to my team about working with Jessica and Kimberly and all of our economic development partners about really engaging our business owners here because I want to point something out that Susan said at the beginning, no one wants to go back to stay at home. And notice she said that the governor is not looking at doing this. It's not where anyone wants to go. And to do that, we have to do the things that the mayor just indicated. Wear a mask, social distance, and stay within our family units and really follow those guidelines. And I think those are incredibly important messages because the data is telling us where we're seeing the case growth. And we are seeing the hospitalization starting to increase in our community. And what we know is if we do those things, we can move in the opposite direction. And so we will prepare the resolution and get that message out. And Harold, I think that part of the message I think that needs to be conveyed is it doesn't matter if the governor shuts us down or not. If your entire office staff gets sick, it doesn't matter. So I mean the getting people to, I mean, yeah, just getting people to voluntarily comply I think is the key here. Well, that's the key. We're struggling with that right now in terms of when somebody's kid gets it and whether they need a quarantine and then how does that affect operations? And I was on the phone for an hour before the meeting talking about issues. And it really is about if your entire staff gets sick, what are you going to do? And that's the issue that I think that's a good point, Mayor. And so we will focus on that. All right, cool. Thanks. We'll write it up and we'll deal with it. All right. There you go. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Then let's go ahead and take a five-minute break. And actually, let's shoot for three, but we'll probably take five. And let's wait for public invited to be heard to go ahead and call in. So we're going to go ahead and do first call, public invited to be heard. And we're going to take a five-minute break while everybody calls in and gets in the queue. At the end of that five-minute break, we will stop taking people into the queue once we're all back and make sure that the calls are done. So see you in a little bit. Hi, folks. This is your opportunity to call in for public invited to be heard. When you do call in, please remember to mute the live stream that you're watching and listen for the instructions on your telephone. Once you're admitted into the meeting, we will call on you by the last three digits of your telephone number. At that point, you'll be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address for the record, and then you will have three minutes for public comment. So please go ahead, use the toll-free number, and enter the meeting ID when you're prompted. And we will be back in touch with you in a few minutes. Hi, folks. Thank you for joining us. As we admit folks into the meeting for public comment, please remember to mute your live stream and listen for the instructions on your telephone. When it's time for you to speak, I'll call you by the last three digits of your telephone number, at which time you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record, and then you will have three minutes. I think we have just a couple more minutes to go. All right, Mayor, it looks like we have about eight folks for public invited to be heard whenever you're ready. All right, let's go ahead and start them. All right, for the caller ending in 017, you should be able to unmute yourself, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes. Caller 017. All right, let's try caller 424. Caller 424. Are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address? Any chance that we might be having a problem? It looks like they unmuted, but caller 424, we're not able to hear you. Try hitting star six on your phone, and then star six again to mute and unmute. I heard him hit it. Let's say we'll come back to him, Erica. Sure. Caller 424, we'll come back to you. We're going to move on to 474. Caller 474, are you able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record? Yes, here I am. Can you hear me? We can. Loud and clear. Thank you. Yeah, good evening. My name is Ethan Trepko, 156 11th Avenue. I'm calling in to just comment on the RV ordinance. I was involved with the first update to that code that was passed and discussed at length by this group here three years ago. And at the time, it was a significant issue, what caused us to become involved with the conversation was a series of RVs that parked in front of our residence for over a month, several months in one instance. And the code that was developed was developed, I'm not going to say in haste, but it was definitely developed to address an issue that was very concerning to the public and needed immediate attention. And I remember this group in particular stating that we needed action over complacency while admittedly not knowing the full ramifications of what this code would mean or code adjustment would mean. And so it was admittedly imperfect, but as Harold Dominguez said earlier this evening, that's how Longmont rolls. We're acting as a community, which I appreciate. But I think as time has continued to show us that this code is not completely perfect. It's been effective in giving code enforcement an opportunity to move vehicles along and limit the dwelling time in any one and imposition in any one neighborhood for a certain amount of time. It's not as intended, 48 hours was the intention. After you look at the time it takes to report things and then have code enforcement then come and enforce it, etc., we're looking at more about a week before people are really forced to move along. And I think we're recognizing that it's time for an update and refinement of this code. And here we are. So I appreciate the group, the council looking at this issue. I would just like to say that not taking action on this is not an option. I think the time is now to take action and this isn't really not about keeping up with the Joneses and our neighbors and what other cities and municipalities are doing, but rather this is just about doing right by the citizens and taxpayers of Longmont. And I implore you to, even though I don't have the answers here, that's why you guys get paid the big bucks, right? But figure out some logical next steps and take some action. So I'll leave my comments at that, but I appreciate that. All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Okay. Next caller. Just a sec here. All right. Caller 424. Were you able to unmute yourself? Caller 424. Can you state your name and address for the record? Hi. My name is Dan Olson. Can you hear me? We can hear you now. Thank you, Dan. Thank you. I live at 1674 Brown Court in Longmont. I'm calling about the RV ordinance as well and I emailed you all just a few hours ago and there's some confusion about whether owners like me of a trailer can park out front for 48 hours prior to a trip. I looked through the ordinance. It's not obvious, but I'm not a lawyer. So in any case, I bring my camper trailer home from the storage unit, park it out front, load it and unload it, but part of loading is charging the batteries and cooling your refrigerator and that's more than just a couple of hours. So I'm hoping that in the final ordinance, there is some provision for parking out front for overnight at least, maybe two nights, so that we can cool off the fridge, get the batteries charged, load her up and off we go. Appreciate you guys working on this. I do think an ordinance update is needed for the other reasons, the whole sleeper vehicle part, but I'm hoping you'll protect us owners who don't park out front all of the time just when we're ready to get going. Thanks so much for your help. Appreciate all your work on this. Thanks, Dan. All right, next. All right, caller 488. You should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, my name is Scott Cunningham. I'm calling in on the AMI smart meter issue. I practice integrative internal medicine, as I think that you all probably know, and I've helped many of my patients recover from the adverse health effects of the same radio frequency radiation emitted by the wireless version of the AMI smart meter presently under review. So I'm going to focus my comments this evening on clarifying material covered during the recent study session by Boulder County's air quality coordinator. I understand how daunting the biological literature on radio frequency radiation health effects can be as a practicing clinician. I've wrestled with it myself. However, my goal in the next couple of minutes is to appeal directly to the literature rather than relying on statements from so called experts who may or may not have actually read the current scientific literature about the harms of wireless radiation. I'll start with this particular speaker's statement that non-ionizing radiation, including that used by the wireless AMI smart meters, can't cause tissue damage at the low levels of power used by those devices. The scientific literature, however, paints a much different picture. We have multiple peer reviewed studies, both animal and human, showing tissue damage, including breakage of DNA. In fact, I've sent links to those studies to the council for your review. Careful review of the same literature also debunks the tired theory that only the thermal effects of radio frequency radiation are relevant to biological systems. Let's apply this rich body of scientific literature to the daily life of you and I. The fact that we're, and I quote, every second of every day exposed to radiation from a number of different sources, end quote, does not mean that we shouldn't work to reduce that scientifically proven hazard to our health. Did we use that reasoning with lead paint or with the toxic haze flowing out of factory smokestacks? No, we didn't. Here's another one. Just because many are unknowingly exposed to a man made source of radiation doesn't lessen its negative biological impact. I'll leave you with a question to ponder. Knowing what we now know about wireless radiation, is it even ethical to impose it upon our population? Thank you very much. That was exactly three minutes. That was spot on. Thank you. All right. Next caller. Caller 499. 499, you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Thank you. Hi. This is Doe Kelly of Barbary Drive, and I am one of the self-avowed EMF canaries in the coal mine. You've heard me speak of this living within the local Longmont community. I attended the Longmont City Council AMI and smart meter study session on October the 20th. I realized that one of your experts, a person extremely well versed on wireless smart meters as well as professionally embedded within the AMI industry and therefore perhaps not as trustworthy to my mind anyway as an independent consultant named Rick Schmidt downplayed the dangers of smart meter fires. I would like to counter his suggestion that statistically these fires are insignificantly small by challenging each of you to Google the term smart meter fires and also smart meter fires in Sacramento specifically. And see for yourself what videos and articles pop up. I would like to suggest that according to other knowledgeable experts a reason these fires appear to be statistically insignificant may be that when there is such a fire the utility is called in to dismantle the wireless electronic microwave emitting smart meter from its connection to voltage ASAP. Thus removing the evidence of this type of fire hastily from the building for better or worse with or without intent of hiding such a fire because I don't know. And so I ask you the great and generous people who are publicly elected and accountable representatives in Longmont our city council why on earth would insurance companies refuse to ensure smart meters were it not for this obvious danger and other known hazards. Mechanical analog meters last up to 50 years. Our analog meter is nearly 25 years old and ticking along like the energizer bunny and is not a fire hazard compared with a wireless smart meter. Add this to all the evidence of health harms from ubiquitous radio frequency waves a.k.a. microwaves in our current environment and we have not only a recipe for disaster in terms of fire dangers but also in terms of ours and our children's as well as our elders health as the damage continues to mount up the more ambient and ubiquitous microwave electro smog continues to proliferate. We need wise wired cities not wireless so-called smart infrastructure. I urge you to reconsider the AMI wireless smart meter program in Longmont knowing that wired infrastructure is by far the healthier safer way to move into a healthier future for all. Thank you for your time. Thank you ma'am. All right next caller. Caller 983 983 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. Okay thank you. First of all I'd like to thank you for the $25 circle wooden tokens. For my family we live in an RV and this is Darlene O'Channey again and somebody stopped by and give us four of them. Thank you very much. So I want to finish where I left off last week when I was cut off and that my last sentence was with all the respect now is not the time to make no parking loss because of the COVID and because we're freezing colds out here. So and I just would like to know just for your information do you know that the dump station takes only credit cards, visa or master cards and not everyone has credit cards and also I'd like to tell Mr. Dominguez that your COVID-19 we cannot turn down that road because it says do not enter. So I saw that today and to Jeff Satter I'd like to say of how many of those vehicles that he towed off 900 I think it was he mentioned how many of those are our beats and how many warning tickets were repeats of the same vehicle and to Karen with coordinated entry I'd like to say how many from Longmont did you put in the Boulder shelter and did you know that when they came back to Longmont they were not able to get services from our center because they were now Boulder residents and did I hear someone say mentioned for RVs going to Weldonny well does that mean we can't get any services from Boulder County if you did that what a dilemma huh so anyways and about the parking suppose I do find the place to park outside of the city limits and I come in with my RV and I parked in the city can I park in front of Longmont laundromat without without getting in trouble how about if I came to church can I park to my RV in front of the church and get not getting in trouble you say absolutely no parking whatsoever and what about you need to then you mention sleepers well what about 18 meters there's plenty of 18 leaders that park all over Longmont lots of times so anyways I just wanted to bring some of these things to your attention and I'm looking for a different place to go but who knows yeah so sending my love to all of you thank you very much for being there for us okay thank you bye all right next caller all right caller 418 you should be able to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record you have three minutes caller 418 yes uh this is Stan confirmed that I can be heard you can be heard okay thank you um I'm talking about the the sleeper vehicle ordinance I guess it includes just not anything you can sleep in um I guess you have to start towing every single car in the community now um one of the things is is that we're in the middle of a pandemic and we're doing the zoom thing in less than 10 of the people in the community can actually access know how to access these zoom meetings um and as far as the rv there as part of the open Colorado open um meeting law people that are impacted by the law there's a requirement that you that the city before it can be declared an open meeting electronically has to make arrangements for the people that the law impacts how many people that are being impacted that are living in rvs has a city made arrangements for these people to be involved in these meetings none of them so this meetings are violating open meeting uh requirements in this state and if you violate the open meeting statute any decision that you make in violating the open meeting statutes are void okay that's just the process the actual law that you're trying to enact apparently violates constitutional statutory rights for people that have no other shelter operate options and particularly people with disabilities like myself who found that they cannot afford anything other than living in a vehicle at this time so what happened is like under this martin versus the city of Boise there has to be other options the city has been violating the fair housing act by not allowing rv parking situations for people with disabilities and people with other options to have safe places to park so and also the coordinated entry it's really coordinated entry is is coordinated expulsion because you're declared not a resident of the of the of the city anymore and that's that's kind of a violation of people's rights all right stan that's three it's three minutes but we thank you very much for calling in appreciate it all right next caller we should we have two more i believe this is our last caller caller five one eight caller ending in five one eight you should be able to unmute yourself hi can you hear me we can hear you please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes yes my name is john flower my address is 719 Pendleton avenue i am president of the writer rich homeowner's association and i have lived at this address in long month for over 20 years i have spoken before about this in address the council and writing earlier today the this new ordinance about rv parking goes too far and some of the other callers have mentioned some of the problems with it and i'm going to talk about a different kind of problem this ordinance makes it illegal for me to park my my good condition current licensed small motor home in front of my house just to clean the leaves are snow off my driveway i mean as i read the ordinance that's what it's telling me i can't put it out on the street our street is wide enough so it doesn't block anything and we use this as our second car so we're not going to put it in storage somewhere else now i understand the issues that the ordinance is trying to address one of the big triggers was people sleeping in vehicles in front of private homes that they have no relation with you know one of the early callers mentioned that we don't sleep in our vehicle except when we're traveling somewhere else and i know there's other issues different issues around towns such as narrow streets in the old town area so i have a couple suggestions to make this workable first of all make sure this ordinance is complaint driven make sure it's complaint driven and not just something that the code enforcement supposed to drive around and look for problems because i can tell you if someone is camping in front of my house or blocking half the street on our block i would be the first to call code enforcement i mean i agree that's a problem and and like the last callers suggested i'm going to say the same thing you got to put a little more effort into finding alternatives for people who need to sleep in their vehicle some of these are you know there's some kind of image of them these are all vagrants and people that are homeless you know that's not always okay some of these are traveling nurses or construction workers i mean you know they're showing up for a project so anyway that's my two suggestions make sure this is complaint driven and that way the neighborhood where it's a problem is going to actually get the focus and puts and i remember all the problems that you had in trying to find up places for other people to sleep but you know you got to do something so that's my two suggestions and i thank you for your consideration thank you sir we appreciate it all right that concludes first call public invited to be heard let's move on to the consent agenda don mayor bagley item nine a is ordinance 2020-59 a bill for an administrative ordinance approving the grant of a deed of conservation easement in gross from the city of longmont to the longmont conservation district on the newbie farms open space property public hearing and second reading scheduled for december 1st 2020 9b is ordinance 2020-60 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of longmont to lease the real property known as vance brand municipal airport hangar parcel h14b to craig nelson public hearing and second reading scheduled for december 1st 2020 nine c is ordinance 2020-61 a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of longmont to lease the real property known as vance brand municipal air municipal airport hangar parcel h37 to robert singer public public hearing and second reading scheduled for december 1st 2020 90 is resolution 2020-110 a resolution of the longmont city council authorizing the transfer of a portion of the unencumbered appropriation balance of the employee benefit fund to the employee pension fund 90 is resolution 2020-11 a resolution amending the financial policies of the city of longmont for 2021 nine f is resolution 2020-1 12 a resolution of the longmont city council approving the city of longmont 2021 classification and pay plan for city employees 9g resolution 20 and pardon me 2020-113 a resolution of the longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and boulder county for mediation services 9h is resolution 2020-114 a resolution of the longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of longmont and the state of colorado division of fire prevention and control for emergency facilities and land use of button rock reservoir clover basin reservoir in mccall lake nine i is resolution 2020-1 15 a resolution of the longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the longmont housing authority for support and services and nine j is approved one capital improvement program amendment do we have a motion council member christensen uh i move approval of the consent agenda second all right it's been moved by council member christensen and second by council member peck i saw your lips moved first so we'll count you council member peck all right any further discussion or debate all right all in favor say i i i i oppose say nay the consent agenda is moved and passes unanimously all right let's go on to ordinances on second reading the first is ordinance uh item 10a ordinance 2020-51 a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for the expenses and liabilities the city of longmont for the fiscal year beginning january 1 2020 are there any questions from council all right seeing none staff does not have a presentation i believe all right let's go ahead and open it actually let's go ahead and take a three-minute break and if you are wanting to speak at the public hearing for any of the the issues coming up let's go ahead and just take a three-minute break and call in now okay so back in three all right folks if you would like to call in now for any of the public hearings on the matters on the agenda this evening uh now is your chance to do that please remember to mute the live stream and listen to the instructions on your telephone when you call we'll admit folks into the meeting and call you by the last three digits of your telephone number just a reminder folks that these are public hearing time to call in for any of the ordinances on second reading item 10 on the agenda uh we've got just a couple more minutes here and please remember to mute your live stream when you call and listen to the instructions on your telephone we're back we're waiting for people to come back why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing on item 10a ordinance 2020-51 is there anybody in the queue for for public hearing yes mayor we have uh looks like about five folks in the queue i am assuming that these are all rv related um is there a way to find out uh i think we can do the hand raising with i believe it's star nine if you want to do that all right so we're going to go ahead and proceed um and if you could raise your hand if you are going to be addressing anything other than um the rv ordinance that would be helpful again hit star nine if you want to address anything other than the rv ordinance if you raise your hand we will stop we'll ask you which one you're going to talk on and we'll make sure that we address it but in the meantime we're going to go ahead and proceed and uh if someone doesn't want to we'll reopen we'll redo we'll do a redo for some reason somebody wants to say something about the budget all right so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on ordinance 2020-51 do we have a motion please all right i'm gonna move ordinance 2020-51 second all right it's been moved by myself seconded by dr waters any other debate all right all in favor say aye aye opposed say may all right ordinance 2020-51 passes unanimously item 10 b ordinance 2020-52 bill for an ordinance adopting the budget for the city of lombok for the year 2021 um any questions from council all right um does anyone raise their hand don we'll go ahead and open it to public for public hearing don no one has to raise their hand no all right we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on ordinance 2020-52 do we have a motion i'll move uh ordinance 2020-52 all right it's been moved by dr waters seconded by councilmember idago farang in the further discussion debate dialogue all right all in favor say aye aye opposed say may all right ordinance 2020-52 passes unanimously item ordinance 2020-53 which is item 10c on the agenda bill for an ordinance making appropriations for the expenses and liabilities the city of lombok for the fiscal year beginning january 1 2021 any questions from council comments concerns okay seeing none let's go ahead and open the public hearing is anyone raising their hand don no they are not there all right we'll go ahead and close the public hearing pertaining to ordinance 2020 or ordinance 2020-53 do we have more uh a motion councilmember christensen you put your hand near your ear do you want to make a motion no i'm just moving the hair out of my face somebody make a motion i could move the ordinance 2020-53 second all right it's been moved by dr waters and seconded by councilmember peck um any further additional debate dialogue all right all in favor of ordinance 2020-53 say aye aye opposed say nay all right ordinance 2020-53 passes unanimously all right item 10d ordinance 2020-54 a bill for an ordinance amendment section 3.04.885 the lombok municipal code adopting an amendment to the employee contribution requirement the city of lombok general employees retirement plan um any questions from council all right seeing none let's go ahead and open the public hearing anybody raise their hand i don't see anybody with a hand raised mayor all right we'll go ahead and close the public hearing do we have a motion i move ordinance 2020-54 second it's been moved by councilmember peck seconded by dr waters all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right ordinance 2020-54 passes unanimously all right let's go on to item 10e ordinance 2020-55 a bill for an ordinance authorizing a farmland lease agreement between the city of lombok and joseph m dochiff on the french property the uh are there any questions from council all right anybody let's go ahead and open the public hearing anybody uh anybody hit star nine doesn't look like it mayor as of yet all right well they uh i'm going to go ahead and we'll go ahead and close the public hearing the reason i'm chuckling is a couple years ago i went out and met with larry french to check out the lease to look into this particular farm this this area that we're leasing and uh he got me in his pickup truck who looked at me proceeded to go 30 miles an hour in reverse and just nail my suburbant yes anyway that's why it's chuckling good memories so all in favor say aye aye aye opposed say nay i'm sorry mayor who moved that and second that i do i'll move it dr waters want to second it i'll second all right it's been moved and second by dr waters all in favor to say hi hi opposed say may all right it passes unanimously all right ordinance uh let's see here ordinance 2020-56 which is item 10th the bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of right of way within the villas youth creek subdivision generally located north of 70 avenue west of pay street um any questions from council all right seeing none let's go ahead and open the public hearing anybody hit star nine don no takers on this one either mayor all right no takers we'll go ahead and close the public hearing do we have a motion i'll move forward to 2020-56 all right i'm going to go ahead and take it as moved by dr waters seconded by councilmember christensen all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right ordinance 2020-56 passes unanimously we're going to go ahead and skip 10g for a moment let's go on to 10h ordinance 2020-58 a bill for an administrative ordinance proving the purchase option agreement to convey a parcel of city owned land located at 2000 sunset way to sunset element LLC all right let's go ahead and ask if there's any questions from council all right seeing none let's go ahead and open the public hearing anybody want to talk on ordinance 2020-58 anybody hit star nine no mayor no takers all right i didn't think so we're running a risk there just jumping all over the agenda but trying to keep her moving along all right so we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing do we have a motion to pass ordinance 2020-58 councilmember doggal okay i'll move ordinance 2020-50 second all right it's been moved by councilmember doggal fairing seconded by councilmember christensen all in favor of passing ordinance 2020-58 say aye aye opposed say nay all right item 10h ordinance 2020-58 passes unanimously all right now let's go back to item 10g ordinance 2020-57 a bill for an ordinance emitting chapter 11 of the longmont minnesota vehicles abandoned kept on public property or junked let's go ahead and have the staff report so mayor and council um i know we presented this to you all on a couple of occasions so we don't have a detailed presentation on this at this point i did want to clarify there were some questions about us asking the county in terms of their involvement in in consideration of the fairgrounds i did receive a letter from jana peterson who's the county administrator on this issue i sent that via email to you all but generally what i want to call council's attention to is the last paragraph where it said i want to go before that actually the the hsbc we talked about the recommendation they made during the last council session the county commissioner supported the board's motion and recommendation and agreed with the concerns expressed they also directed staff to work with um us and follow-up on the assessment of impacted rv dwellers to inform whether there's an interest in a need for short term 60 days or less option using the fairgrounds to fill a temporary temporary gap until other options are developed and so we have reached out to robin bohanan um jan and i have talked about this issue and will continue the conversations generally what they want us to look at is and this is going to be part of another survey that we're going to do is really understand where individuals fit and what the need is and and again as we stated before i'm going to ask karen to jump in in case i miss something is really focusing on a the connection to coordinated entry b we also know that there's some additional federal funds that are coming into play that they have talked about enabled it could be in play to assist individuals that are willing to go into the coordinated entry program and move through that process so um wanted to tell council more conversations that we need to have with county staff we're building an operational plan in terms of determining what that need is we are also ever we've reached out to andy at hope we've reached out to sarah arnie david kennedy and other individuals to get a sense of the different demographics and and and where the support is needed and and we can bring we will be bringing more information to you all based on our conversations with karen did i miss anything uh no herald i don't have anything to add unless there are questions all right so let's all right sorry my alarm went off councilmember christensen you're you're on you're on mute poly and my alarm was to go get my wheat fins but i'll wait till break okay okay i would i would like to make a few statements um that my neighbor across the street who has a giant uh contractor's van um who would be affected by this perhaps because it hasn't been clarified in the law nevertheless he um has a he owns a business down on delaware street and as i think we all know various businesses are just as affected in fact more so by this problem as um residential areas everybody's actually affected the situation down on delaware street this morning was that he came to work and people in order to sleep in their van had thrown all the material out of their van onto the street which looked like an explosion of trash so that they could sleep in their van we just we just can't let this go on however and um we have also heard from left-hand brewery that their employees come out at 11 o'clock at night sometimes and are subjected people who are dealing drugs and people who are threatening them or they feel on they feel threatened uh i know that i've talked to the people over on the budget hardware and their people going to the bathroom the bushes their people unloading things and dumping trash and dumping sewage out on the street so i understand we and we all know we have to do something about this but i can i i don't want to create more problems than we already have i want us to be clear about the fact that it should state somewhere here that it is illegal or not permissible to sleep in or live in any vehicle on the public streets of longmont because it creates a public safety and public health danger if we don't say that then we're just taking the wimpy way out why just we're creating an ordinance what is the purpose of the ordinance we need to focus on the problem which is people living in their vehicles it's not every rv in this town there are probably hundreds of contractor vans contractor trailers um and uh rvs like mr flowers who seem to think that we would not let them park in front of their house for 48 hours although i think it's pretty clear in the law that they can do that i think the ordinance as written is a little confusing and i cannot vote for it unless it clarifies that it is illegal to sleep in or live in any vehicle on the public streets of longmont because it creates a public safety and public health danger secondly the term sleeper vehicle which is not a term any other municipality uses and is actually a very strange and vague term and if you look it up if you google it it has nothing to do with rvs i think it needs to be replaced by vehicle or the definition of sleeper vehicle which is slang which should not be used in the ordinance but it's on page four it's on under 4b line 16 page 3 it should be at the top of the ordinance so it explains what a sleeper vehicle is since it is any not a legal term not a term used by i don't know who uses this term but anyway unless we make this law clear i can't vote for it sleeper vehicle needs to be defined at the very beginning as we have done on page three so those are um two things that need to happen as far as i'm concerned to clarify this law and make it focus on the problem instead of affecting every rv owner in town um in addition to which i would like us to list uh places that people can go when we give if we tag a vehicle they need to be told where what their alternatives are their alternatives that they can find they can go to a place that has uh there are some places down in lafayette and various other places that do have openings for rvs they can apply to get into the coordinated entry program we have to we can't just give them a ticket and threaten to tow and crush their vehicle and not give them an alternative and i believe that uh january first may be cutting it a little short to begin to work on this law in short i i don't think this law is um up to snuff for passing it tonight but i agree we have a horrible problem so uh tim is tim hol around can you just curious just curious could you read the definition of sleeper vehicle that's in the ordinance police is it there give me one second hold on it's page three four b line 16 so the definition of sleeper vehicle existed in the current code where we amended it a little bit um but what it says now is sleeper vehicle means any camper coach trailer vehicle motorhome multi-versus purpose trailer or trailer coach we have added recreational vehicle vehicle and clarified that includes any vehicle converted to serve as temporary living or sleeping accommodation so tim can you explain to me why that isn't right at the top of the ordinance because you're using a term that nobody really that is not used by other municipalities without defining it until three pages later so we put it in with the definition section so we're defining the term in the definition section because it's used several times throughout the code yeah that's pretty common place for help yeah generally if you're going to use it more than one place if we have the definition outside of a definition section then it kind of causes people to have to go bouncing around looking for that definition um so if it's used more than once we tend to try to put it in the definition section councilmember peck i'm sorry yeah councilmember peck and then councilmember martin i don't think that councilwoman christensen was finished i'm not sure was she uh so go ahead councilmember christensen if you'd like to continue go ahead and make just one clarification that the rest of that code section appears above the definition sleeper vehicle because it's alphabetical um so that's just in the definition of abandoned or publicly kept so it appears above sleeper just alphabetically right and so to be clear councilmember christian had finished i asked my question then we're going on councilmember peck but i can go back to councilmember christensen if she'd like to follow up you're you're on mute you're muted poly i would like to follow up because editorially what is common throughout all editorial writing and academic writing is the first time you use a term you define it and thereafter you may use the slang version of it or the acronym or whatever but you define it and first use i realize it's different in legal writing but um i you know when most people read this law they have no idea what a sleeper vehicle is particularly if you're encouraging people not to sleep in their vehicle it seems an odd term to use to refer to the thing that you won't don't want them to do in the first place okay anyway right councilmember peck thank you mayor bagley um i i want to make a uh a clarification in my vote last time we have this up on first reading i agreed with the uh sleeper vehicle part of the ordinance and i'm going to bring up once again i i thank jeff satyr for reaching out to me on this issue but i'm going to bring it up again explain and then make a motion if it passes it does if it not doesn't that's the way it is we have the in the definition of abandoned and junk vehicles this statement it says any vehicle any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle um is going to be an abandoned and junked vehicle if it's in a public space for 48 hours or longer think about that any vehicle that is on a public space for 48 hours or longer is in the definition of an abandoned and junked vehicle so when you go down to the abatement section that says that any abandoned or junked vehicle ken is in the abatement section which is basically being towed i totally disagree with that why would we have any vehicle that is parked on a public street thoroughfare park for over two days become an abandoned and junked vehicle by definition and then because it has been labeled that it can be towed impounded in the abatement section so uh that leaves that whole section up to interpretation and and i want to make the caveat that i totally trust our public safety department jeff sadder our detectives and that they would not probably target a vehicle to be impounded but this ordinance does not say anything about ticketing about uh giving a a warning it just says they can be towed so i am going to move that we do one of two things we either take the wording any vehicle out of there and define what we think a really a junked vehicle is or an abandoned vehicle or leave it in there and say that it will be ticketed i understand that when talking to detective sadder that he said that this is by complaint only that these vehicles are even looked at but that isn't mentioned anywhere in this ordinance this is a law when we have turnover in our public safety department when we have people retiring we don't even have a chief of police hired yet when we they look at this law there is no way that a resident can fight this because the public safety department is doing exactly what the law says that they can tow a vehicle that is left for two days on a street by complaint but we don't know that it's by complaint it doesn't say it at all in there so um i move that what section is this section four line one where it says any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle we change we either take that wording out and define exactly what a what a junked vehicle is it's not any vehicle and or or we change the wording to say that it will be ticketed all right tim just quite okay it's been moved in second and tim just a quick question on um your thoughts on where the rv and junked vehicle statutes merge where there's over there's there crossover we're talking about two different issues the same issue two different they're two different issues um they're kind of in they have blend together we this this revision isn't touching the 48 hour provision for other vehicles except for to the reorganization as we've just asked before right so i i see them as different but right so so this so i guess john i guess this would probably i feel this would be more appropriate to raise and if we want to address the junked vehicle 48 hour issue um we can we can do that but i guess my my concern is that that what you're what you just move doesn't necessarily touch on the statute that was that's before council but mayor badly is in the ordinance that we're passing if we are amending this order this ordinance now we i don't even know why it's in this ordinance to be quite honest why that's particular things but if we are if we are going to pass this ordinance then we are passing it with that statement can you can you read the statement to us here i'll be glad to it says any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle left on public property including any portion of a highway street alley or other right of way for 48 hours or longer it's the definition of an abandoned or junked vehicle and is that in this particular i don't have my pack open right now yes it is and is that in this statute tim yes it's on page it's yep and so my question is how does that tim how does that not then take two separate issues and overlap this this this ordinance will move it in the definition in a numbered list but otherwise it doesn't change that so we didn't make any change to the definition of the 48 hours we just moved around so it's the definition that the definition and then what what statute if it's not this one does that definition apply to because it's not so basically what councilmember peck is referring to is a definition but it's not actually the statute that that says that you cannot have a a junk the junk vehicle statute is not this one correct meaning the definition is there because it's the definition section they do merge they do they do merge so either either of those two will both equal an abandoned or junked vehicle that can be taken care of in a later portion in the same manner and right now it's 48 hours yes okay so just a nice like to address councilmember peck your concern i would totally i would totally agree with you however what needs to happen is it is complaint driven not because it's we're taking somebody's word for it it's just that's the way it happens meaning that someone has to call and complain or even in theory if you're driving along and and you just go hey that arbitrary car is parked on a side on the road and i need to we need to make sure that particular car that's parked is going to move within 48 hours they still get out mark it have to give notice they can't just take it and then the the driver will be given notice and they have to move it within 48 hours but parking enforcement's not going to do that because i mean they see the car but they'd have to stay there for 48 hours to watch it so it doesn't it's just not the way enforcement works my problem mayor bagley is that it is in the definition of an abandoned or junked vehicle why would we call somebody's car a junked vehicle allowing it to be towed why would we guess well because you'd go if you go over to i mean like i've i've gotten a call from two different people every quarter since i've been on council and they complain that there are there's a there's a homeowner that owns eight cars and he parks them along the street and other people would like to use the street but he treats it as his own parking spot and we the real question is do we want people to be able to just park their cars and not move them for long periods of time that's really that's really what we're doing and uh do we want public streets being treated like personal property i i think we should encourage people to park their cars in the driveway and not occupy public streets but not everybody has a driveway in this city and that is and i don't know what they do downtown to tell you the truth but councilor martin well i just wanted to clarify a couple of things um the reason that tim has said that that hasn't changed is because the ordinance has always been you had to move a car every 48 hours or it was considered abandoned correct is that correct it is correct and i want to clarify it's abandoned or publicly kept and junked is a different definition okay right but but nevertheless the the statute has always been that if you're going to park on the street you couldn't do it for longer than 48 hours and that's because somebody else needs a chance at the public parking even if it's right in front of their house they don't own the parking in front of their house um anybody can park there um and uh while i have had to tell a number of people that they did not own the parking in front of their house um i have never received a complaint about someone leaving a car for several days without moving it on the public street except occupied sleeper vehicles that complaint of course we get all the time but i i don't understand the reason for revisiting um the part of the ordinance that's working i mean what we're doing right now is revisiting the part of the sleeper vehicle ordinance that's clearly not working because it creates a public health hazard so i i would feel better confining the debate to that all right well it's if nobody else has any but we have a motion on the table unless somebody really wants to say something let's go ahead and vote on the motion um mr. whole um one point of clarification there is a drafting error that i would ask that the council will end well we get the motion on the table right now is not for the we'll come back to that in just a second but right now the motion is to either strike the word in the vehicle or what was that what was the what was can you restate your motion council member back in a minute but to council member martin's comment the reason i'm bringing up is because that is part of the change in this ordinance it has the original wording was struck out this is a change to this ordinance and that is what we are voting on all of the changes to this ordinance um what was the change what was it before because mr. whole just told me that it was it's the same as it was before it says what is struck out is any sleeper vehicle or trailer parked on public property including any portion of they use sleeper vehicle they added any vehicle they changed that to any vehicle or they replaced it with any vehicle that was the elliptical part and that's why i brought it up well i think is it well that was the clarification that i was asking for because i thought that was part of the reordering was mr. whole could you tell us was it was it any vehicle no matter where it physically was in the ordinance was the statute that the 48 hours applied to any vehicle the only change to that section is it is it's ordering so it appears as a as a red line and and a new insertion just because that's how the ordinance has to be drafted but the only change to that section was the ordering okay does not change the language whatsoever thank you um so restating that motion was um either strike any vehicle or um add that it it would be my problem is it's the in the abatement section um that the any vehicle um i don't really know how to state it to be quite honest that any vehicle that other than a sleeper vehicle uh is deemed abandoned or junked per definition be taken out of the abatement part that that it be ticketed rather than hold it hold it one second one second one second jump you remember that in just a second okay because we're going to have to split it into two i'm going to take your motion as two votes all right the first motion is striking any vehicle and then the second will be removing the language that you just said okay so the motion is to strike the wording any vehicle all in favor say i i all right i'll i'll say nay nay hey all right the nays have it the motion fails with councilmember christensen and councilmember peck four the second motion will be taken as a motion to strike the following language john could you read it please any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle left on a public property including any portion of a highway street alley or other right of way for 48 hours or longer um is in abandoned and uh junker definition all right all in favor say i well the motion is to take it out of correct correct the motion is to to strike what councilmember peck just read okay all in favor say i i i actually i have a question all right so if we do that then i'd like to know um how would that impact what would that do in removing that language the ability to um i yeah i'm not thinking more of the lines because i've i've had calls and i've gone out to different areas taken pictures looked at stuff that was i mean it clearly looks like people are just dumping their RVs in the street we can't have that but i can that we need to take care of that um i take care of that piece i'm just wondering if we strike the language what would that do with the city's ability to be able to to address those issues i assume it would make it difficult well let me yeah i'd like to hear kind of falls apart councilmember councilmember let's go let's go with deputy deputy chief satyr for a second deputy chief crow uh thank you for let me speak on this topic tonight um as i stated last time in the last two years we tagged 4200 of these vehicles until 91 but this has a very negative impact on those neighborhoods without garages because if somebody parks in front of your house that has a cascading effect all the way down the street so if we remove that language there would be no way to move those vehicles on and at this point as i stated last week we tagged those cars so there is no cost to the owner for moving their vehicle if we ticketed it there would be a cost to the owner to pay a ticket so right now they just get a warning and ask to move their car thanks but it would have a very negative effect on the neighborhood to my opinion all right i don't want to i don't want to cut off i don't want to cut off debate i can't do that i don't have the authority to we can keep talking but the motion currently is just we still have to talk about the the ordinance this is just the motion by councilmember peck wanting to strike that particular language does anyone want to talk specifically about the motion to strike the language that councilmember peck just read councilmember iridogal faring if you have another question or issue well so i don't have you know i understand where councilmember peck is coming from and and i agree with it but i don't want to be able to create another problem i feel like we need to have a deeper discussion on on individual pieces in the in the ordinance to add specific language that will address some of the concerns that residents have as well as as well as people who maybe live in their vehicle but are also friends or have some kind of connection with the residents that they may be parking in front of i also want to be able to have discussion on what types of problem what how are some of the solutions how are we progressing with coming up with some of the solutions before we move forward with this and then don't have any place to to put folks and i'm i'm i'm also thinking about people who work here but live in their rvs and i know quite a few folks and i don't want to you know so that they they spend money here they they happen to live in their rvs but they spend money here they work here they just happen to live in their rvs i want to be able to make sure that we have solutions in place before we just rush through all this and i know it's probably not rushing because it sounds like a discussion for a long time all right again so as we as we continue we're only talking about the the motion by councilmember peck at this point so we're going to go with councilmember christensen and then councilmember martin so i'm very confused about what we're actually voting on right now but we're we're voting the the the the the motion is to strike the language in the ordinance that reads as follows councilmember peck could you read it again please i am going to pull my motion um it isn't going to pass and i and uh i think this discussion going on too long okay well the the chair will allow you to do that herald it was just pulled do you have anything to say other than that i wanted to say that you all have directed this um motion was made by councilmember christensen seconded by councilmember peck and it passed to bring back this other component of the ordinance at a later date and that's what i was going to say is that's where that conversation probably needs to occur is in that ordinance that we're going to be bringing back to you all all right then that said i'm going to actually move ordinance 2020-57 an or a bill for an ordinance cementing chapter 11 in the long mark municipal code on vehicles abandoned kept on public property or jumped do we need a public hearing no that'd be uh uh yeah do we do need a public hearing so let's go ahead and open the public hearing all right well we do have um caller 518 with their hand up for this uh caller 518 you should be able to unmute yourself state your uh name and address and you have three minutes can you hear me we can hear you oh okay you know who i am i'm john flower i spoke before just a couple quick comments um in our homeowners association we don't want to see uh all junk vehicles vehicles being worked on in the driveways and we have come up with a way of defining that because we've been rewriting our covenants that maybe have helped to you we we simply say that if it's if you have a vehicle um it has to be on the driveway it can't be in your yard and it has to be currently licensed so that's the wording we use is currently licensed so i think in some of the cases you're dealing with vehicles that um are not currently licensed nobody's using them and i think that that's been an effective way for us to look at i also just listening to the comments by council members i absolutely agree with what poly christiansen brought up and also with what john peck brought up um you know those are very good points so that's really all i wanted to say is that i agree with poly christiansen and john peck's comments i'm imploring you please don't pass this ordinance until you had a chance to look at the issues that i brought up plus the issues that some of the other collars earlier brought up their uh their valid concerns that like one of the other council members just mentioned about that there are people living in these vehicles or they're not bad people you know they're working here so you got to deal with that whole thing but anyway think about the wording of currently licensed that could be a solution to some of that discussion about junk vehicles so that's all i have to say thank you all right thank you sir is there anyone else in in the in the hearing q uh yep we have a few more folks call her one three seven how many is a few so one two well three i believe we have left okay great caller one three seven one three seven you should be able to unmute yourself hi uh can you hear me we can hear you go ahead great thank you my name is annie curtz and i'm an attorney and equal justice work fellow at the aclu of colorado which is a 303 17th ad in denver and i'm here to speak in opposition to ordinance 2020-57 which i fear will undermine the health and housing stability of long-longs most honorable residents at a particularly dangerous moment uh this ordinance on the one hand as some have already stated tonight is overly broad by banning all recreational or sleeper vehicles from parking on public property in every part of the city at all hours and for any amount of time the ordinance sleeps within its reach unobjectionable activity this law would mean a family traveling in their rv could not stop for lunch on main street without threat of their vehicle being impounded during their meal on the other hand the reality is that the ordinance's most bitter impact would fall on the city's most marginalized residents for whom the prohibited vehicles are last resort for securing affordable shelter rest safety privacy and access to other basic human needs and long long but punishing people merely for sheltering in their vehicles when they have no other meaningful option raises constitutional concern courts have concluded that it violates the ace amendment to punish someone for sleeping outside on public property with no indoor option is available to them punishing people for sleeping in their vehicles when they lack meaningful alternatives raises the same concern long long safe parking lots closed rvs and the other laws that to my knowledge have been explored by the city would provide temporary accommodation at best at the same time the point in time survey unknown undercount of those experiencing homelessness in boulder county reveals inadequate shelter space for those who might seek it not to mention that during this surging pandemic crowded shelters only jeopardize the health of guests in the larger community such that the cdc warns against clearing encampments of unhoused residents unless individual housing units are available colorado faces an affordable housing crisis a financial crisis and a public health crisis and winter is coming now is not the time to strip a crucial safety net from long months housing and secure his ranks are only predicted to swell when covet 19 related eviction moratoria eventually expire given the enact an inadequacy of housing and shelter in long month the proposed outright ban on rv parking will force people to choose between leaving the city they call home and living on the streets acl of colorado urges the city council not to pass ordinance 2020-57 thank you i thank you next caller all right caller number 418 caller 418 you should be able to unmute yourself again but i i'd like to really put it to you that you're treating people that are living in vehicles as some sort of enemy that are something that we need to expel from the community and i i've listened to peck peckis several times says why can't they go to well county why can't they that you know these are residents of the community that through policies that the city council has been following has made this problem um the town isn't expanded and we have not expanded uh places where people run into problems and there's people who are disabled there's people who are who are working and they're trying to save money so they could maybe get something and so you're rushing this and there's a lot of things like when you put a tag on somebody's vehicle saying you're going to impound it by law you have to give a person a chance to have a hearing before his property is taken now i had the experience of one having a vehicle impounded illegally and when i went to try to impound hearing i was arrested and put in jail and i was prosecuted for trespassing that is blatantly blatantly unconstitutional because if somebody's property is getting taken you are required to provide him with a hearing before the property is taken and after the property is taken within 24 hours he needs to have a hearing when you presented the little card that people have put on their vehicles there is no notice on that that people have a right to a hearing and other communities like Santa Barbara California where my sister lives they simply allow people to park in in the parking rides at night and they have a little party there and then the people leave leave in the morning there are alternatives the thing is is that you guys seem to be of the idea that we have to believe and like i've said with a coordinated entry you know you signed up for that all of a sudden you're not a resident of city of lawnmower yeah that is some sort of expulsion plan now if you have coordinated entry it has to be for the city of lawnmower not to be sent off to canvass or something like that so so what i suggest and it's what i have been saying is that under how do i open meeting laws people are supposed to be allowed to be involved in the legislative process if you are excluding any group from that that that's about three minutes 20 seconds we're gonna have to go on to the next caller but thank you all right next caller uh caller 606 are you able to unmute yourself caller 606 is this the last caller this is the last caller 606 are you able to unmute yourself i think it's star six there we go good evening council my name is monique mayers i actually reside in boulder but i have a business that happens to operate in a small toy hauler which could be considered an rv and it's mostly a question uh i teach sewing classes out of the rv and i would park for say two hours at a time in a neighborhood would my case fall under your regulation thank you hi that concludes the public hearing um let's go ahead and did you get that last question tim i think i got most of it it was a toy hauler that has been converted yeah that's what it sounded like it would be a vehicle that's been converted to sleep in so yes right it depends so uh converted to converted to sleep in i imagine that is an overt conversion so it's sort of like you have a school bus that you have taken all the seats out of and really changed it so i'd have to see it seems like a judgment call all right well i'm going to go ahead and councilman martin you're going to be next but i'm going to move ordinance 2020-57 a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 11 along with municipal code on vehicles abandoned kept on public property were jumped second all right it's been second councilman martin um i would like to say that the last woman who called didn't say anything about using her vehicle to sleep in she said something about using it to teach from so it's like a bookmobile only for crafts and she parks it in a neighborhood for two to four hours which means that she wouldn't come under the violation of the statute at all um and i it may be a problem with organization of this statute because you know i read it and i think it's clear that you know you're not in violation of anything until you leave the vehicle in one place for 48 hours or longer or occupy it while it's parked um like for sleeping and um uh you know if if neither of those things happen then somebody then then you know all these people that are concerned that they're going to get in trouble uh fall afoul of this law are just imagining this that because they're not finding where it says you know they're not associating parking and the duration of time um that has to elapse before they're in violation so i'm not sure i'd like i'd like mr hold to talk about that uh and explain to us um where it says you know that that the vehicle has to stay in one place for 48 hours before it can be tagged so i may have missed i i think i made an assumption that she said she slept in the vehicle um or had modified it for sleeping um the definition that we're changing that this ordinance is really focusing on is a sleeper camper coach a camper trailer motorhome multipurpose trailer trailer coach a recreational vehicle includes converted to serve as temporary living accommodations so something that is really focused on somebody and being accessible for somebody to sleep in her vehicle it sounds like would fall under just in any vehicle category that one would need uh 48 hours as we've discussed earlier and and in fact the the thing that people aren't understanding is is that any vehicle um can park for less than 48 hours in a designated parking place on the street right in in any place that's not marked as no parking and if they don't if they leave it there for less than 48 hours they're fine correct as long as they follow other traffic laws they're impeding the flow of traffic those kinds of things and there's a valid license yeah okay so none of those things are changing is that correct this is only changing what happens with a sleeper vehicle that is correct thank you councilmember christensen um i want to thank councilman martin for bringing up the the subject the fact that both the mayor and the assistant city attorney attorney who both heard the same thing we heard both said it would cover it means that it's confusing to people you know there are lots of people like this woman who have um mobile services that they perform whether it's cutting dog hair or human hair or delivering classes um as this last woman said or um plumbing services uh electrical services i mean these are exactly the people i they're making a living using their vehicles and they're not parked for more than a few hours usually in front of or anywhere i don't want them to feel that they are going to be impacted by this um and uh that's precisely what i think is what people are feeling and as councilman martin said this this woman just teaches classes she's and she said quite clearly i teach i converted this to teach classes i'm parked for a couple of hours in front of a place and i applaud people like that who are you know they're entrepreneurs they may not be wealthy but they're they're making a decent living for themselves and their family i don't want to discourage them i guess uh seeing no hands just i guess again there's there's a difference of fact if that woman meant i'm going to be sleeping in it yes if she's not sleeping in it then no so um the the law is pretty clear and it would depend on the fact so all right there's a motion on the there's a motion on the table but councilman brady dago fairy so you know i want to clarify so that um the state the question or the comment from um miss hurts annie hurts about um a family who maybe have their rv and they park in front of a restaurant so it's not going to be towed or it's not going to be tagged um you know i think you know i'm just as i look through i keep scrolling up and down and trying to see you know some of it's some of the language in there is kind of left to interpretation and when i look at you know it's complaint only but does it stipulate that in here i don't i don't see that unless i'm missing something i've looked at it so many times now i'm it's all blending in um and so you know so i guess looking at specifics in that um the other thing too is you know if somebody's parking their rv in front of their house and as the um the caller had had stated when he's having to let his when they come back and they have to leave it out you know during the fridge and do all whatever they have to do before they can put it away it might be longer than 48 hours what if they don't get along with their neighbor and their neighbor is just calling and complaining where where's that kind of i just feel like there's it's it's left open to interpretation and too much too many variables i they'd have to answer your question they'd have to show up in market and start the clock okay in order in order to be in order to lose in order to win a case in court you'd have to market so that they can say okay now we're starting the 48 hour clock we're starting the 48 hours so it's 48 hours from the time that it is tagged not not yeah we don't we don't take the neighbor's word for it the law enforcement shows up or parking enforcement says i'm gonna count the time so can we have something stipulated in language so it's very clear to residents would that be helpful is that necessary in your opinion mr hole no i think in terms of clarifying that for residents i i i don't know if i have a comment there in terms of how we would that it would actually operate in fact we would still have to prove our case that it's been there for 48 hours just as the mayor has commented um and while i'm speaking mr mayor i did have one um revision that we need to make before any any final say here um the effective date on section seven is 2020 it should be 2021 okay thank you councilor peck uh thank you mayor bagley um for the loading and unloading there is no time stipulation can i read this portion so everybody um understands there is no 48 hour thing according to this it says active loading or unloading means the period of time in which a person or persons are physically engaged in the labor of loading or or unloading from an apartment condominium townhouse home or business there is no 48 hour stipulation that i can see is that correct mr hole the 48 hours applies only to only two vehicles other than sleeper vehicles there's a permit that you can get um and we have the permit section to have seven days right but if they're loading or unloading their uh camper they can take the time they need to load or unload it there's no time stipulated here is that correct as long as they're actively loading and unloading yes okay thank you for clarifying that march morning thanks i just would like to say that i think we're spending way too much time on this because when i read the ordinance i thought that it was clear and i've been giving people advice for the last five or six days um consistent with what mr hole is saying the ordinance says so um yeah i just i think we're making a tempest in a teapot here and we should just vote all right is anyone else opposed to that dr waters i just want to clarify uh even if if somebody was not in the act of actively loading or unloading uh because it's because they need two or three days to load or unload absent a complaint somebody would have the flexibility to load and unload for as long as they need to load and unload is that fair tim my understanding from from staff is that um which the staffing requirements that are that we are going to respond to complaints but that's going to be a question probably for for jeff's for jeff then well let me just anticipate that jeff's response would be yeah it's complaint driven and i did so i want to make a point that the current our current practice under the current ordinance is all complaint driven jeff's on the screen is that true jeff that's correct except for some really extreme examples so unless unless the council thinks that somehow in the current ordinance that are the code enforcement and public safety is operating inconsistently with the current ordinance the current ordinance doesn't make any reference to the requirement for it to be complaint driven i mean to be adding something uh to to the to a new ordinance that has been unnecessary in the current ordinance when it comes to implementation or enforcement and i don't know why we would have to add language that's not in the current code current ordinance to do what we're doing under the current ordinance done all right there's a motion on the table for ordinance 2020-57 all in favor of passage of ordinance 2020-57 on second reading say aye aye opposed say nay nay all right joan were you and i okay susie were you and i okay so the ordinance passes six to one with councilmember christensen opposed all right let's go on so nothing was removed from the consent agenda let's move on to actually should we take a brief three minute break real quick before we move on to general business we got a bunch of resolutions we're going to hammer through shouldn't be too hard but should we take a two minute three minute break all right let's take a two minute three minute break see you in a second one two three four five miss an erin and marsha i'm not missing marsha pop tart people to bed with virtual i'd share all right we're all back all right let's go ahead and um uh i i move that we let's go on to general business i move that we recessed the law month city council and convenians the board of directors the law month general improvement district number one second all right it's been moved and seconded all in favor say aye aye aye all opposed say nay all right motion carries resolution lg id 2020-06 is resolution of the board of directors the law month general improvement district number one adopting the annual budget for the district for the fiscal year 2021 we have a motion i'll move resolution 2020-6 i'll second that all right any discussion all in favor say aye aye aye opposed say nay all right resolution lg id 2020 2020-06 passes unanimously um i move that we adjourn as the law month general improvement district number one board of directors and convenians the law month urban renewal authority second all right that's been moved by myself and seconded by councilmember christensen i believe is that what that hand was for okay um and let's go ahead and vote all in favor of convening is the law month urban renewal authority say aye aye aye opposed say nay all right the motion carries unanimously acting is the law month urban renewal authority resolution l u r a 2020-01 a resolution of the board of commissioners the law month urban renewal authority adopting the annual budget for the authority for the fiscal year 2021 on favors or uh uh we have motion i'll move that i can't see it on my screen right all right so there's a motion for resolution lura dash 2020-01 i'll in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right the motion carries unanimously i move that we adjourn as the board of commissioners law month urban renewal authority and reconvene as the law month city council second all right it's been moved and seconded all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right the motion carries unanimously moving on to item 12c resolutions the law month city council approving an allotment contract an escrow agreement and two allotment transfer agreements for the windy gap birming project do we have a motion for resolution 2020-116 so moved all second that all right it's been moved by councilman martin seconded by dr waters all in favor of resolution 2020-16 a resolution along with city council approving the intergovernmental allotment contract between the city of lawnmant acting by and through its water utility enterprise the windy gap firming project water activity enterprise for capacity the windy gap firming project all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay that motion carries herald unanimously all right do we have a motion for resolution 2020-117 so moved all right i'll second that so um we have a motion for resolution 2020-117 a resolution along with city council approving the intergovernmental escrow agreement between the city of lawnmant acting by and through its water and utility enterprise the windy gap firming project water activity enterprise for the windy gap firming project all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right that motion passes unanimously all right item 12 three resolution 2020-118 a resolution along with city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of lawnmant city of loveland for the sale and purchase of windy gap firming project stored capacity do we have a motion so moved all second that all right any questions or debate on this didn't think so all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right the motion carries unanimously uh resolution 2020-119 a resolution along with city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city of lawnmant and the city of fort lepton for the sale and purchase of windy gap firming project storage capacity do we have a motion so moved all right it's been moved by councilman martin seconded by dr waters all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay all right the motion carries unanimously all right now we've got some resolutions along with city council approving the third amendment the redevelopment and reimbursement agreement partial assignment to 320 granary owner llc for 210 emory street and consent to a development concept plan for 110 emory street taking it one at a time do we have a motion for resolution 2020-120 a resolution along with city council consenting to the development concept plan for 110 emory street so moved is there a second all right it's been moved by councilman martin seconded by councilmember peck any discussion on the matter before we vote all right seeing none all in favor resolution 2020-120 say aye aye opposed say nay all right the motion carries unanimously all right and then next resolution 2020-121 a resolution along with city council approving the third amendment to the redevelopment and reimbursement agreement and partial assignment and assumption to 320 granary owner llc for 210 emory street and 320 second avenue do we have a motion all right it was moved by dr waters and was it seconded by councilmember peck you know martin okay it's the seconded by councilmember martin all right mayor uh tony succone all right redevelopment manager uh-huh if you are interested brian bagley the developer 150 main which is the south main station project prime bear you said brian bagley i am not i'm not developing crap brian bear but yeah i probably appreciate him being here anybody have any questions for the developer can we vote well he he would he has a short presentation to give you an update on the status if you're interested yes well all right well if he wants to risk the nays sure go ahead and talk okay thank you but but lesson is you always be quiet when you got the votes but let's go ahead and hear what he had to say hope it's good i'm happy to let you vote well go ahead all right councilmember christian said who will watch here we have to say yeah no real quick wanted to do three things and i'll move quickly because i know it's getting late but i think these will be valuable for you and and thank you for the giving me the time this evening this is all relevant to the tap agreement but i wanted to do a quick update on south main station for you talk also an update on the granary because these things are kind of all tied together and then finish it with the the uh a few slides for the uh for the site plan for 110 emory which is really the purpose of this presentation so i'm not sure who's driving the presentation but if you could pull up my slides that'd be great and i'll fly through it pretty quick if you get advanced to the next slide as you all know these are the these are the pieces phase one is 150 main where the red star is next slide please quick update on leasing we are actually as of today i think we just hit 70% least so it's been pretty incredible during covid to get that kind of velocity really over the last four months it's been very robust there's some interesting demographic data here that i thought you might find interesting 60% of the tenants are under age 30 15% over age 50 over a third of them are from boulder county 30% are out of the area so probably not what we would have predicted and just very interesting information as you know these new projects come into downtown uh retail is 23% least we've got several lois that we're working through right now which would be new uh new companies to downtown uh in the sort of food and beverage and retail world next slide please uh building five which is the last building if you recall we only built four out of the five buildings we started building five about 90 done with cds we'll be submitting that in january for a building permit and we expect to start that building probably in uh april may of uh 2021 that'll be an additional 61 units and i'll finish the finish the two blocks next slide please uh jumping over to the greenery where the red star is i think you all know that building um we were uh really moving quickly on the rehab of the actual old greenery building then covid hit and really as you all know really slowed down the whole uh food and beverage world not to mention the whole world um we put that on hold but we've actually brought that back next slide please um we've sort of flipped the strategy there we were originally going to do the greenery building which just what you see in blue is now phase two and then we were going to do the multifamily their townhome apartments in in phase two we flipped that and now we're uh moving forward with the our new phase one which will be 20 uh townhome style apartments we've already completed our pre-app and we're anticipating a site plan submittal in january so that'll really start to take that that quarter block and uh get that moving the as far as the greenery uh as soon as the you know things start to restrictions start to lift and and some changes start to happen with covid uh we will start to pursue that again the last piece here is 110 emory which is where the red star is that's the four acre piece that's directly east of phase one next slide please this will happen in two phases as well uh many of you you've been out to the site and i've showed you around there's a an old butterball spice building down at the south end of the build of the property here this is where they store it all the spices it's about a 19 000 square foot uh warehouse building we're going to actually rehab that building into an adaptive reuse i'll show you what that's going to look like that's phase one 19 000 square feet we're hopefully about inside 30 days of final approvals with staff uh on the site plan and the replat we've already submitted for a building permit so we're parallel tracking and we hope to start construction in december and deliver that building in march and what's interesting about that building is it fits in with the steam project and everything else that's going on where we've got some maker space we've got some service retail we've got some office so it'll really help to activate the daytime use in this area just north of that is the phase two property which is roughly about three acres we've got that laid out for 155 to 160 additional units multi-family units these will be smaller apartments um with a lower price point and it's a smaller project so they won't be as amenitized as south main station but our view is this whole neighborhood is becoming an amenity and with everything we're doing uh are in the surrounding blocks we think that this is going to be a another real popular place to live in a in a nice development downtown so that'll be two four-story buildings with tuck under parking and there'll be some site parking there'll be a corner amenity building up on second and emory and we anticipate that to start next year in terms of entitlements and construction for that building will start in 2022 right about when we finish building five of phase one so this site plan here is really the crux of this presentation to show you what we're doing on the 110 emory property so that we can move forward with the approval of the tap credits for this particular property please advance slide a couple of slides here just showing you what the building looks like and how it breaks up next slide some some rendering images we're going to be sort of going in a sort of urban look something from out of sort of the rhino district down in denver next slide please same same things here so we're taking an old metal building sprucing it up putting a lot of storefront and glass and windows in it to make it more transparent make it feel a little more retail a little more active next slide please here's just a snapshot of the phase two with the apartments next slide this is we're starting to elevate those units and bring them up so you can see it's a little more I would say a little more modern looking than phase one and as I said these will be slightly smaller units with a lower price point next slide so in summary 110 emory is property five in the tap credit agreement I'm sure you don't have that agreement in front of you but I wanted to identify that I'm we're seeking concept plan implementation plan approval from council per section nine of that agreement which is a is a process that we agreed to as part of the tap agreement our plan is consistent with the first first and main transit redevelopment plan which was one of the key things that had we had to qualify for and it also meets the downtown longmont master plan so those two things we believe we meet and phase one this building the warehouse building that I showed you rehab will be done in april may of 2021 and then we expect the phase two which would be the 160 apartments to be done sometime in 2023 so that gives you an idea of of an update of where we are with south main station a preview of what we're going to be doing on the granary property and what we're doing right now with 110 emory so thank you very much and I'm happy to answer any questions all right councilmember christensen thank you mr bear you've been uh slogging away at this for a long time tell me about it and I thank you for a lot of thoughtful design and a lot of varied design and a lot of it's working out very very well I think and I also want to thank you for putting in I don't know if these are the the smaller apartments there's a huge need for that in long month that's huge I don't know if these will be single room occupancy like studio apartments or if they'll be slightly larger than that but that's what we really need nobody's been building that for a long time so anyway I just wanted to thank you for that and ask you about what the price point is for those single room units are you talking about for the 110 emory yeah the smaller apartments yeah we we haven't priced them yet but they will be smaller square footage wise than south main station with a larger focus on studios in one bedrooms yeah good so what about what size would those studios be I don't know what the studios would be exactly but we're we're targeting about a 700 square foot average across the whole project oh that's pretty big as far as well that that includes the the any two bedrooms that we might do all the way down to the studio so to put that in in perspective for you at south main station we're at a hundred we're at 862 average those would be quite a bit smaller yeah well thank you because you know when this started everybody's I mean you you know that this was a very difficult project you know better than anybody else and difficult to finance difficult to because of the the mitigation the environmental mitigation you had to do and but the whole idea was this would really be a game changer for lower downtown I hope we can find something that is equally as interesting for north main which sort of got the short end of the stick in many ways in our development things but I want to thank you I do think this will be a really uh enormous addition to our town getting people to live downtown is we'll change everything so thank you for what you're doing I appreciate that all right is there anyone opposed the resolution all right hearing none let's go ahead and vote I believe there was a motion made correct who made that motion don may our councilmember waters made the motion marshes seconded okay all in favor of resolution 2020-121 say aye all right I almost said nay just to just approve a point but aye all right motion carries you now anybody in a all right the motion carries unanimously all right um let's go ahead and move on to e discussion regarding councilmember's rules and responsibilities the city of Longmont advisory board liaisons I put this on because there's some question as to what are our roles as liaisons as we all know that this is a council that I as mayor and each of us is city council people we cannot act individually it requires four of us and so um as a liaison are we taking an action role or is it a communication role or is it a what is our role and so I think all of us have been behaving in different ways with different assumptions and so uh we're gonna talk about it who'd like to start councilmember martin and we'll go dr waters yeah and since this was dr waters suggestion I probably should have let him talk first but I've been very quiet this evening so I'm gonna talk if I have found that uh the role of the councilperson tends to vary a lot from one board to the next so for example the senior advisory board which I have found to be both active and effective uh often has questions for me about um what the council needs to hear in order to make changes um or offer support um they often um are interested in in uh information about what's going on between the city and the state legislature they're often interested in in um oh you know cml type information and um so it's it's it really is a partnership where you know they're they are looking to to um understand policy better so so that they can turn it into actions that serve their special constituency um in in other other boards like art in public places for example I feel much more like an observer you know they have a very set um plan of activity and they do that in a very organized way and they really don't need very much from the city council um so you know there's a continuum I think that uh that we need to attend because I think part of our duties are to the council I think that we should know if an advisory board isn't working isn't functioning right and um and as council members it may be our job um to take action in terms of city policy that might correct that Dr. Waters Dr. Waters then council member peck um personally uh I just had a couple of experiences where it caused me to inquire about do we have do we have any guidance in terms of what our our responsibilities are if I thought I was clear in the role at least how I what I do to fulfill the role in the form of responsibilities and and was surprised to to learn I I should have asked this a long time ago that there's virtually nothing in writing that guides council member activity um which seemed peculiar to me especially since we went to some lengths uh to create greater to raise expectations for applicants to boards and commissions to set some standards for attendance for them at boards and commissions as applicants and as participants for boards and commissions um that we had that we'd never asked for feedback and I see here that the that we would collect feedback for so I have no idea whether or not what I'm doing uh how it varies from what others are doing and what you might be doing that would be more productive from which I can learn I'm interested to range of things and the model for boards and commissions what it is um that we're expecting from them so um I think I think I think it would be helpful to have some guidance uh and this leaves a lot of degrees of freedom um but set some standards for for what they can expect from us just as what we've done is set some standards in terms of what we can expect from them councilmember peck uh thank you mayor bagley um to councilman march's point I agree with her in that uh each board and commission is very different and I have made a remark perhaps it should have been in a in a motion that I think somewhere on this agenda we should hear from a report from other council members as to what has been going on with their boards and commissions and uh because we don't know what each how each one interacts or what it is they need or how we should interact with them I also a couple of years ago made the motion that we have the friday morning session specifically for board and commission reports so each one of us knows what's going on with the other board and commission and we can see and judge how we are acting and is this what we need do we need to act in a different way do we need different things from different commission so I I don't think a resolution is the way to do it mainly because a standard that is an umbrella for all boards and commissions they're all different we all have to have different I would rather have a communication first about what each board and commission that we are liaisons for what is going on with them how we interact what do they need what is working and what is not and then come up with as a council uh a format that can be um changed I don't like the idea that we would communicate with each other by email as to what our board or whatever is doing because there's no interaction there it's just it's just an email but I I firmly believe we need reports I want to know what arts and public places are doing and not just from the minutes but from the liaison I want to know what I I would love to tell you what's going on with dr cog with nata with rtd but there's no format for that um and you know some of the the higher boards that I'm on they have a place in the agenda where the boards that met the week before their liaisons give a report this is what's working this isn't what working this board is not following the work plan of city council do we need to change it is it important that they do um and I would rather have one on one than emails so um I won't vote for this even though I do believe that we need to have interaction and I have brought that up in the past on two different ways to do it but I'm glad that we are going to have the discussion about it finally that's for christensen um yes I um I appreciate what uh councilman martins said I think that we've all observed that every single board is very different and our difference there there is a huge difference in our um responsibility if we are a voting member of something versus whether we are merely a liaison a liaison is really not supposed to be um a liaison has no voting power or any other power they're supposed to just communicate with each other but as councilwoman peck has pointed out she did ask for us to put something on the agenda so that we had an opportunity of at every meeting of city council to um comment on various things going on when I see something that's going on uh that I think is interesting as a city council I try to mention it at the end of the night but of course we're all pretty tired by the end of the night um I do think we can certainly expect that council members will actually go to their meetings and I do think that would be useful to um if they miss more than two meetings without I mean we hold the um members of the advisory boards to the fact that if they have more than two unexcused absences that they can be voted off the board I think certainly think that would be a reasonable thing to expect of our city council members and I I believe that most of us do that we go to the meetings and so I don't really see a reason for this resolution because it it's kind of like babysitting us you know we really ought to know better than any of this anyway I things like um check with the city council the whole of city council to confirm council positions before representing council positions to assigned boards and commissions I um these often come up when you're at the meeting and there's no way that you could consult with all the city council members to see what they think before you voice your opinion or I mean no one thinks that we stand for every single thing uh that as individuals it's obvious to avoid that we're expressing our individual opinion if they ask me what I think that city council will say if they bring something forward I don't speak for instance as a city as whole as being able to give them an opinion of what everybody on city council mean uh might think I try to imagine what city council um some of the questions they might have so they can be thinking about those before they bring something before us um I I don't think it's a good idea to invite anonymous feedback we get in people can give us anonymous people can give us feedback all the time and they do already we don't need to ask for more feedback um so I I I still think it would be useful to have the Friday meeting but what I thought it would be would be as I said patterned after what Rick Fitzgerald does at the senior center everybody gets five minutes that would be seven of us so that would be 35 minutes then we can have a few more comments then we can go home but we could also sorry I'm looking for rice um we could also just have that time we could just have that time um on the agenda where if people have something that they need to say um to the whole city council about something that's either coming up or something that has happened we should take that opportunity because it is the only time we get to find out what people think it's really nice that the city uh portal right now has uh because of long run public media they have filming films of everything and they also have the agenda it's very organized and people can check into this that they want but frankly I would rather have the city liaison say okay I went to the sustainability advisory board and these are the topics they discussed there's nothing that really relates to city council right now or you know just I went nothing much was discussed we have to be very careful too about sometimes an advisory board is always um advising about either department or sometimes it's a private entity that we give money to um we have to be very careful to respect their privacy and to respect the fact that what we say in public can have very bad repercussions on them and so we don't want to I just think we have a very uh we have to be very careful about what we say about our advisory board meetings because sometimes people don't really want us to make things public they want to they feel like they can trust us to not um explain all the difficulties they're having um anyway I I don't think this I'm glad that we brought this forward to discuss it I don't think this resolution hits the mark but um and I disagree with some of the things said here but I do think it's I'm glad we discussed it okay that's all I have to say Mayor Pro Tem thank you Mayor Bagley so just to echo a couple of things I absolutely agree with the sentiment that not all boards and commissions are created equal in the sense that there's definitely somewhere we're actually voting members of and I think that becomes an even larger impetus to make sure that you're attending those meetings otherwise you're forfeiting a vote as as you know a council member representing the council for instance and visit Longmont for instance we are a vote there um uh then you have commissions such as planning and zoning and historic preservation but it's actually probably inappropriate to interact too much with them as oftentimes those things can appeal appeal to council and so it's best sometimes just to simply observe um I don't really have going specifically to the resolution offered by council member waters I don't specifically have any problems with the bulleted points listed uh the only thing that that concerns me is that if we make some of these requirements so standardized and to a certain extent a bit onerous for certain members in the sense that this could become a barrier to folks who would like to run for office for the city of Longmont uh as far as starting to dictate so specifically maybe absences from certain boards or attendance issues or or certain things like that to the point where you know I know for for me for instance sometimes it's difficult to attend certain meetings um and that's just part of being a a younger married person working full time and you know life comes at you in different ways uh throughout your life as as you you know continue on the journey and so my time requirements may not be the same and like I said I just worry about that becoming a barrier for other people wanting to run for office so we make sure that we have the kind of diversity of representation that the city really deserves so that's my only problem with really specifying a lot of things like I said I don't really have problems with the bolded points that were provided in the resolution because I think they were they they provided enough leeway for us as elected representatives of the community to have some sort of you know judgment as to whether we're really missing the mark or not to be unceded because of liaison attendance issues doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for a city council member regardless um outside of that like I said it seems like a pretty straightforward and logical things that we should be considering as liaisons and those are just my two cents on it I I know this is a discussion so I don't think we necessarily need a motion um so I'll be interested to see any any more opinions on this at this time council member peck it wasn't that important no um checking with all of city council before we take a position you know in dr cog we always have positions on different bills that are coming before senate the state senate or um legislature and I I have to abstain on most of them because we don't get those bills maybe a couple weeks to take a council vote on uh after the dr cog meeting so it would be impossible to get councils uh input on that um and there are some things that I work very closely with uh phil greenwald and uh tyler steamy to get input on something that's coming on the agenda at dr cog or nata and they advise me on how we should vote for the city so um some of these just don't work on all of our uh boards and commissions it isn't that I don't think we should um not course uh communicate I don't like the word correspond because that leaves out any uh one-on-one talking or telephone calls uh communicate would be a better word for me in that um I would love to communicate what we're doing on some of those boards we just don't have the agenda to do it we don't have the platform and that's what I would like to to see happen and after we learn what the liaisons are saying about their different boards then perhaps we can at that point come up with uh with some points that that all liaisons should always follow but but I think they're going to be very general I can't see how they can be specific let's go talk to waters yeah I just um for me I run in as I said there were some experiences that provoked me to to wonder about do we have any guidelines um and I and I maybe I'm the only one I suspect I'm not uh on the only member of the council uh who from time to time is in interacting with somebody who's a member of a boarder commission and I'm wondering why are you talking to me and the answer is because the person who's assigned to my my my boarder commission the councilmember doesn't show up and I'd like somebody you know to hear what my concerns are and I'm not you know I'm not trying to pick on anybody but I don't know what to do with that other than to say I you know you go talk to that person I I have had I have had the experience of puzzling um over and I'm this is not uh councilmember peck when you're voting on a on a commission it is when a board member of this council represents to a boarder commission a position of the council that I scratch my head and think where'd that position come from because that's not the position that I think we took it's a it's a it's a surprise to me um because I think it's not an accurate portrayal and it would have been a matter of courtesy of nothing else but that councilmember to have checked with the rest of us to say I just want to confirm this is the position that we're that we're representing to this to the city or to this boarder commissioner or anybody um so I when I run into those things um there's nothing to turn to the in terms of guidance for me or for anybody else and I in in absence anything that we could point people to I guess we could come to these sessions and and then talk about and and then talk about them as one-offs I've had this experience last week um you know and if it if it's me that I'd want to hear about it and if this is the only time to hear about it then I'd want to hear about it but but to ignore them I think is irresponsible um which is what is happening now and for us to set a higher standard for the for members of boards and commissions than we would apply to ourselves I also think is irresponsible so this not may not be the right set of of of of um responsibilities for fulfilling the role but to not want to hear that I the councilmember's christensen about not you know wanting to hear anonymous feedback that's that's how we evaluate that's how we get evaluative feedback from folks is to say you don't have to put your name on it tell us what's working and what's not and to say that we're not interested in that feedback again I think is your response so you know we can walk away from it but um but I'm but if but I don't know what else to do then when I run into this except to bring it to a council meeting and say okay here was the problem that I heard last week how do we go about solving it whether it's me or any other member of council council member martin we'll go with council member christensen yeah I think that to adopt this resolution we would need to um I'm sorry I'm having cat problems here um we would we would need to um uh do something different marsha you disappeared I know I'm back um um the uh a little derailed sorry um I I think that the idea of of communicating individually with with council members to make sure that a potential representation of the council's position is not the right way to go about this in fact that it might be uh construed as making policy outside of the public meeting uh if we did that um in in a couple of my boards I do get asked questions like that and my usual example a usual answer is I don't believe council has taken a position on that I mean obviously you know in many cases the council has taken a position on it and I know what it is but otherwise the answer is the council hasn't taken a position and the role of the advisory board is to offer advice you know it would help us it would help the senior population if council took this position if council funded um uh you know back in the old days uh via services to get people to council meetings for example um was was uh one policy that the senior advisory board offered as advice to the council um so uh I I do have I I do have a disagreement with that um I think we do need in my my complaint about most of the internal advisory boards is that they um don't offer enough advice to the council and I would I would like it if they were more active uh in in that respect some of them um are more discussion groups that never yields anything up to council um and while it's fine to have discussion groups um they're not really fulfilling their their charter um by only doing that but then that comes back around to it's a standard for the board and not for the liaison I'd have to give more thought to what we do about that. We're going to go with councilmember christensen and then I'm going to cut off discussion unless there's a motion go ahead councilmember christensen um yeah I appreciate what councilwoman martin said about this I do think that um you know the original purpose of advisory boards was to give the public at large any member of the public a voice in local government and to help them understand local government um we have now um it is true we have changed um we have preferenced people with higher education and um I don't think that's necessarily a good thing we have made it intimidating for anyone who does not have a college education or who is not upper middle class to be on these boards I also do think that as councilman martin said that people are not they don't understand that they actually aren't advisory board and they should come up with ideas and we'll listen to them I I've observed over my last seven years the people are very intimidated by city council and they feel like I mean the whole their whole job which they volunteered for is to advise us about how well a certain department or sometimes a certain entity is working and what is needed between city council and those entities and yet they feel as as councilman martin said they feel like and they're supposed to just be at discussion group and there's nothing really wrong with that um uh you have to educate yourself anyway I mean with the sustainability advisory board there are lots of different people come in and speak and um it's very educational you learn about a lot of different things very a very broad array of things which is really interesting it the difference between these all these boards and commissions and things is so vast that I don't think we can come up with standards and predictability and um all of us are different and yet all of us on this board are equal we were all elected by the people of long want to represent them um and if people don't trust members of this council then I mean if our own council members call each other irresponsible I don't think that's uh very helpful at all as far as getting seeking anonymous feedback we don't allow people to write us anonymously that's why I think it's a ridiculous idea it it leads anonymous messages and communications lead to people saying things that they would never have the courage uh to say publicly because they know they can get away with it because they're being anonymous so I had to take great um um um bridge at the idea of anonymous feedback because we don't allow that in any communications with staff count with council right now and there's a reason for that um I also think there's a huge difference between when I go to um a typical advisory board is like seven members and me um and I have no I found my liaison I have no um voting power as I said none of us do and there's a difference between that and something like um council councilman uh Rodriguez serves on the planning and zoning board that's very powerful and and he gets a vote but no you don't get a vote oh I thought you did all right Marcia Martin gets a vote on ledp don't you no okay anyway some of these these the the problem is that when you have a vote and you're born of say with Colorado municipal league there are probably 150 people there and you get the um agenda two days beforehand and it's constantly changing until an hour before the meeting I sit down with Sandy Cedar because I'm representing not city council I am representing this municipality and many times the municipality and Sandy and the entirety of staff have already discussed these issues and come to some conclusion along with Harold of course and and that's what they want me to represent the Colorado municipal league represents municipalities against the county against the state it's often against what I would choose as either an individual or as a member of this council but what I'm supposed to be doing there is representing the city of Longmont the staff and administration of the city of Longmont and I'm doing that as a city council member and it puts me in a lot of very difficult positions but it's not something that I am I'm I always vote the way that the staff and and the city administrator want me to vote because that's my job to represent the city of Longmont I do that after spending a couple of hours talking with Sandy and so it's not it is that's a totally different role from when you're sitting down with 150 people or more that's a different situation and I don't as far as having predictability and consistency we all like predictability and consistency but I I don't think that's really something we should have a fetish about with boards and commissions so I won't be voting for a resolution but I think we should keep talking about this and figuring out a venue for us to have some kind of consistent comments some consistent time when we can comment about these because I would like to hear what everybody else is doing I guess I would just I just I just just just pipe in I would just ask that if you're not a voting member of the board I don't care what you do just make sure that when you're expressing an opinion when it pertains to me just make sure that you're actually expressing my true opinion if you don't like it I don't care just get it right and as many times I hear from other boards that oh so-and-so said the mayor and it's just wrong so I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or criticizing me just so long as it's factually correct so anyway Dr. Waters if you want to say something else that's fine but yeah I'm gonna make just one more time and I'll let it go and I won't make a motion it's clear where this would end up but I did hear councilmember Christensen make a reference to this council intimidating members of boards and commissions her words and then not wanting any anonymous feedback from boards and commissions and people who might be intimidated by a board or commission like this the one way we might get some honest candidly helpful feedback would be for them to not have to put their name on it if they're already intimidated that would be the whole purpose of gathering some anonymous feedback for the purpose of us getting better at what we do I've heard councilmember Christensen make reference to we don't get better without data those that see there's a kind of data not the only data but the kind of data that that people like us should be able to use to improve our performance whatever the comments are the concerns a fear of somebody saying something that's offensive it's hard for me to imagine if we structured a way to get feedback we get a lot of offensive comments offensive feedback but we might get some comments that would help us sharpen what we do that adds value to what they do so I'll let it go all right let's go ahead and wrap this up meaning that concludes our session on on lasons how about we all just do the best we can and we'll go nuts all right Mary pretend why don't you say something else thank you I just like to move that the meeting proceed past 11 o'clock if necessary a second anybody opposed all right consensus we're going to go past 11 all right um let's go ahead and just briefly let's fly through this uh discuss and establish 2021 city council meeting schedule I guess my herald I guess in the future I guess it doesn't only matter I won't be around so anyway go ahead let's go ahead and go through the schedule and basically it's we it's always the same every year if it's a week it's election or holiday we take it off make sure we get two regular session meetings in there and fill in the rest of study sessions shoot for four months but um let's do what we always do thank you mayor I think we can work pretty quickly through there's just a couple times um where we do want would like some direction so I'm assuming you all are looking at this draft schedule that I have got so January 2021 would be two regular sessions on the second and fourth Tuesday a study session on the first Tuesday on the fifth the question is would you like us to replace the second study session with an open forum yes and if it's virtual so last time you we postponed yes is the answer I believe everyone's going to say yes to that one okay um and then an overarching question is would you like us to begin again with copies with council in January even if they're virtual yes okay so January's done February is a pretty regular month study regular study regular no questions there so I'll just keep going in March um there is a possible NLC congressional cities conference a lot of councils seem or some council when they go fly out on that Tuesday so the question is um cancel that Tuesday we all cancel Tuesday the ninth by the way I'm just gonna say it and speak up if somebody disagrees I'm just going off the what we've done for the last nine years so yeah cancel the lot nine cancel the night that means we'll make the the 16th the regular session would you like to cancel the meeting the week of spring break st st brain spring break what day is that the 23rd March 23rd it's two in a row guys yes all right yes um can I break in for a minute yeah go ahead John since that is two in a row can we hold off on the NLC in case that is virtual or it will be uh in case we can't fly and then maybe we don't have to uh uh do two and a good idea let's hold off so we will cancel it if it's if it's in person don't cancel if it's virtual okay so um then a regular we'll see what happens with that that conference cancel the week of spring break yeah and then the 30th will depend on how the ninth and 16th pan out uh why um because potentially we'll need a second regular session two weeks apart from the other correct okay April is standard study regular study regular no questions there and we'll just keep copy with counsel on the fourth Saturday as we've done may study regular study regular may the fourth really when I'm taking the may the fourth off may the fourth be with you mayor kidding kidding in June um we would do a study regular uh if we've kept your pattern we'd make an open forum on the 15th instead of a study session June 15th would you like us to do that I also think we should get rid of the 29th if we I mean four four that's counsel I we've canceled the fifth meeting in the past anybody opposed to that the question would be the week of the 22nd is possibly cml and generally you cancel that one for cml and then the 29th June 29th becomes a regular session right so four meetings but a five Tuesday month right July would you like to cancel the study session the day after independence day so July 6th or hold that meeting that's not the day after that's uh the second day after sorry yes but the holiday celebrated is Monday the 5th I I'd like to cancel it but what do you guys think anybody opposed to canceling July 4th all right we'll go ahead and cancel it sorry that's ready the 6th okay and then uh the 13th would be regular the 20th of study the 27th the regular moving to August would be normal study regular study regular cancel the 31st cancel the 31st unless you'd like to also cancel the day after Labor Day in the following month and it maybe we hold that in case budget would like it that will Labor Day is the what sixth the sixth yes I say we do the 7th cancel the 7th what do you guys think cancel the day after Labor Day mm-hmm and then keep the 31st if needed yep okay the 31st what it's okay then the rest of September is uh normal the 14th would be a regular the 21st to study the 28th the regular October is absolutely regular study regular study regular I'm holding these sheets up for you apparently I think you can see these sorry November the first Tuesday is election day and it is a a council election year so I would assume you'd like to cancel that one oh yeah cancel that one you're gonna celebrate mayor regular on the 9th a study on the 16th and then the question is would you like to cancel the 23rd for Thanksgiving week yep and make the 30th a regular yep we're almost done December so December there's a couple I did two options one would be just do your normal schedule study regular study regular cancel the 28th week of Christmas can we just cancel December period actually yeah some of us depending on what we decided to do don't care but let's cancel the 28th so we could um do a regular study regular if you wanted to hold a meeting on the 21st or if you did the same you did this year two regular sessions on the 7th and 14th and then cancel the last two weeks let's count let's let's hold the 22nd in case we need it but can't cancel the last two have a 22nd meeting if we need it 21st I'm sorry the 21st yeah so cancel the 28th for sure okay and you you want to meet on the 21st I guess I'm am I getting my dates wrong December 2021 Tuesdays is 21st maybe my calendar got jacked up but I'm showing the 22nd of Tuesday is it not well I relied on this calendar I downloaded mayor in the wrong year Mr. Mayor I don't think so let me look in I mean January 1st 2021's a Friday and so the December before that no my phone it's the same as well Mayor sorry Google count Google calendar showing me Tuesday December 21st all right well I'm just gonna assume it's the wrong year but yeah the last two weeks cancel so we will go regular regular back to back and then cancel to get your two regular sessions in okay we will I'll throw this back in cleaned up so you can look at it as an information item so that everybody has that clean copy thank you all right great okay let's move on to mayor and council comments any council comments councilor Christensen um well tomorrow is veterans day and we won't get to have a parade and that's really sorry about that but I hope all the veterans out there know how much everyone appreciates their service so thank you all right I don't see anybody else but what I would like to say is just uh I'm an unaffiliated former Republican and as mayor of a small town in in Longmont Colorado I just want to stress how important is that we continue to recognize and and support our democratic process for selecting presidents and other elected leaders and I know I'm just a mayor in Longmont but I'd like to congratulate President elect Biden for his victory and I would encourage our current president to accept the apparent will of the people and I know my comments are going to upset a lot of people a lot of my friends but um it was a close election it was hard fought but in our country when you lose you concede and there is no even if even if there were sporadic instances of voter fraud which there may very well have been you legally cannot overturn an election based on individuals acting alone without evidence you have no case and uh without uh and I would just not only congratulate uh President elect Biden would admonish our current president to concede move on and let what has happened continue to happen a transition of presidential power so that we don't get stuck in a situation where we're confused and hurting so congratulations President elect Biden councilmember peck thank you mayor bagley for those comments I echo them but I also am very proud to be an american to be live in the united states because it is one of the few places where we can turn our government in a peaceful democratic manner without a coup without and have everybody's voices heard and I think that is uh that is a privilege and we should never forget that that we are very fortunate to have the opportunity to voice our opinion so thank you very much anybody else council member martin yes uh I'd also like to commend you mr mayor um for very well chosen words um I concur uh and I think in the coming year um I would like us all to work on having a consensus of fact if not a consensus of opinion because um it it's been frightening to me uh to watch people argue about what the state of the election is based on completely inconsistent premises um if you will separate sets of facts um we have um research and and news outlets such as the associated press in this country that um are nonpartisan and indisputably uh trustworthy and I I hope that all of the american public will remember that all right anyone else all right that concludes mayor and council comments city manager remarks no comments mayor council all right Eugene may the attorney comments here mayor beautiful all right guys do have a motion to adjourn so moved I'll second that all in favor say aye aye all right say may all right that's a name so uh that's a that's a that's not a name that's a big eye we're out of here it's late all right guys I'll see you next week thanks everybody