 All right, I'd like to call to August 4th, 2020, Longmont City Council study session order. Let me start with the roll. I want to clarify, and I don't need, I don't want to debate it. I just to clarify with Council Member Peck, the intent of that motion and just be clear, what I don't want to do is have staff working on something that comes back and I'm going to vote in a way then that might be different than I wanted to vote at the other night because of some confusion, my confusion about what the intent of that motion was. I heard Council Member Martin raise a concern about a very unique circumstance where you've got residents in a property owned by a Boulder County, not a Longmont, but a Boulder County resident in which they place their parents that are living there full-time and want to use rooms in that home as a short-term rental which doesn't comply with the ordinance. But I want to say that that's a circumstance that seems to me that we ought to figure out and make an exception for that in such a unique circumstance. Yeah, sorry, here's the motion. Council Member Peck moves seconded by Council Member Waters to take away the ability to permit a second short-term rental that is not owner occupied and clarified that a property owner could have a second investment as a long-term rental. Yeah, so essentially what we did, so what we're gonna have to come back on the first and second reading is we are prohibiting anyone from having a short-term rental or an Airbnb if that is there a second home or a second residence in Longmont. Mayor Bagley, members of Council. So we are currently reviewing drafts of ordinances from some other communities that have recently changed their regulations to assist us in bringing back something that addresses some of the enforcement issues we talked about. And so I do not have a date certain at this point. However, we'd like to try to get that on the agenda in September, if possible. There are several parts of that code that I would like to bring back for discussion. Well, before- I would move that we bring it back for, I would direct staff to bring it back in the next six months so we can discuss other aspects of that vehicle ordinance. I'll second that. All right, it's been moved and seconded. I guess the, seeing nobody else, I'm gonna go against it only because my understanding is that the law already does what I think that you're trying to do. You cannot have a 40, and unless they tag it, they can't prove the 48 hours at which point they don't have a legal case. So it's already happening just naturally. I think by public policy, we should continue to require people to register their vehicles. So anyway, let's go ahead and vote. All right, all in favor of the motion say aye. So aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Nay. Nay. All right. Okay, the motion passes four to three. Please bring it back for the next six months, Harold, and if you can shoot us an email to save us time, that'd be awesome. I ask the city council to consider and even show mercy to those of us who aren't causing the problems with the RVs. And when the city does decide on what to do, I ask that you please don't punish me for the actions of a few. I'm calling this evening to voice my concern and frustration over the decision to make South Coughlin Street a collector street from being a local residential street without allowing the residents of our street, South Coughlin, any public comment. I was wondering if the city council was aware of all the exceptions and judgments the department of public works had to make in order to place the traffic signal at the intersection of South Coughlin Street and Pike Road. The traffic signal goes against city standard ordinances and the Envision Longmont plan as well as NUTCD and FHWA guidelines, making the decision to place it at this location based on engineering judgment and department of public works modification or exception. I want to begin by thanking this council for contracting with Dr. Helmick to conduct air monitoring at Union Reservoir and at Longmont Airport. The city wants to ban all recreation vehicles from public streets. Where can these people go? Are the RV dwellers going to feel an opportunity to thrive and feel like they belong? So I ask, is this a good time to ban VRVs? Is this showing compassion? People are living in what they can't afford. Do we want to cause more homeless people? See if we can find a solution for all the homeless and RV dwellers instead of a complete ban. Let's go on to special reports and presentations. Harold, an update on COVID-19. So this is the same chart that I've been showing you before in terms of the counts that we've seen in Colorado and you can again see the shape of the curve. A bit of a peak here. We're not sure exactly what that is, but generally over the last week or so, it's been trending in the right direction, but for that day, been trying it out. Again, you're seeing the chart, this one on the number of deaths. It has been a lot lower than we've seen early on in this. You can see some spikes, but you're also seeing some days where there hasn't been a death reported. The big number here is really looking at this chart with the positivity data. So you can see that it was at 3.53% on August 2nd. August 3rd, 4.34%. So the state number is still down below 5%, which is really good. They wanted to see that continuing trend moving downward percent. I've actually had some questions that say, why are you focusing on the current five day average percent and positivity rate? It's because that's what really tells us what's happening now with the cases versus the 5% is really bringing in the positivity rate that you see on this chart. And so what we're really looking at is what's happening today based on that positivity rate. And when you look at what's happening in the community, we haven't had some growth. I think the last time I talked to council, we were at around 630 cases, 638 cases in long lot. We've moved up to 666, 747 in Boulder. And so we have had some growth in cases in the last week in our community. But that's really what's happening with the cases in our community. Obviously, we see a lot on the news in terms of what's happening. The good news for us is we're not seeing the same impact within our long-term care facilities. And people go, obviously it's good news for any number of reasons, but it's really also the strain that it places on the medical system. And again, I think it's just really important to focus on social distancing, wearing the mask and then just good hygiene practices in general. There's been some recent studies have come out that really said, if we can just do those things, it will help us really get a hold of the numbers. We're still... Many of the conversations that came up that I heard earlier about childcare, that is a major, or that is a focus for us as we're looking at what the world's going to be for us moving forward. And childcare is a big component of that. So there's a lot of issues we're trying to wrap our hands around at the moment. And as we look at the CARES funding that we received, hopefully within a week or so, we'll be able to have a sense of what that's gonna look like and how we're gonna at least make recommendations to council in terms of applying that to our community and our operations to make really educated guesses in terms of what do we think next year's gonna look like as we're putting this budget together? Again, this is that follow-up and really what we, as long as other natural resource agencies are seeing around the front range in the country as we're trying to manage our parks and natural areas during this pandemic. Kids were in school. How do we get out and do things? So from Dickens Park to Left Hand Creek to McIntosh and the bridge down at Dickens as well, Button Rock is included in that as areas that were really impacted pretty significantly. And we had to respond pretty quickly on how we wanted to engage in making sure people are acting in a safe way, following our rules and regulations as well as trying to keep them safe following the governor's guidelines. What we were really seeing out there that were probably some of our biggest concerns, and again, this is a place I'm hoping of council to see things out here that they are not seeing things out here that they want us to make sure that we hear about. Please let me know. But swimming, especially out at McIntosh, we're seeing single chamber inflatable inner tubes that don't really have safety features on them. We're seeing increased number of watercraft at McIntosh, launching from undesignated launch areas which causes impacts. Dogs at McIntosh, we really have no lifeguards on duty. We don't have water rescue. We don't have any way to water, monitor the quality of the water. So we don't know what E. Coli is for instance where we do that at Union Reservoir. So in a typical time, what we'd be doing is saying we have tools in our toolbox that can help us get through this. And we've kind of put this together, it kind of spokes on a wheel, how these things work together to help us keep our park system rolling along smoothly. So we have really tapped into our park rangers. We have three of them out at Union Reservoir full time. And as you can imagine, Union has become very busy. They have done a great job out there of limiting the number of visitors. Open the swim beach now to 75 people. Open the dog beach. All those activities require rangers to be there to make sure they're doing that. But we can do it ourselves. And that's just a piece that we've had to really reach out and ask for help. And again, as Harold's already talked about it, it's a time that some of these things we'll be going back and going to Harold and Council say we need some additional funds to deal with this additional use. But we've had code enforcement out there. They call me, ask me what the change are as far as are we allowing people in skate parks? Are we not allowing people in the parks if there's RVs in the parks? So code enforcement stepped up dispatch is trying to answer all of these ongoing questions. So they don't come back to staff that has to with them try to give public good information. The other piece is the community support. And it's something that some of the council members had brought up at the last meeting and why can't we use volunteers? And I share some of my concerns right now. People are willing to ask for help, but I think when you start telling people what they can't do right now, we were definitely getting pushed back. But after that meeting, I had members of our community calling saying, you know what? You guys are doing a great job. We understand this is challenging. What can we do to help? So knowing we have people there, knowing what our challenges are, we've been starting to put together a training program to do some work in our parks. Boulder County has done a program called Park Ambassadors. We're also looking at using them just to collect data. So that council has a better idea how many people are seeing, how big groups are, what's parking's like. So they can balance what we're getting from staff from the community and from the neighbors with what we're seeing from some data that we're collecting. So it really does take all these pieces working together, knowing that we don't have, you know, just a deep well to go to to do this. I think we are gonna continue to work collaboratively to strengthen all those folks so we can continue by this experience for our community. And now let's go back to, I think all the groups I get on the phone with, our Zoom calls, it's just this profession. I think we recognize how important keeping these spaces open to the public is for their mental and physical help. So help so that we're really doing everything we can to make sure we provide a space that is safest possible while protecting our natural resources so they're not impacted for next season or next generations. But I really wanna make sure that what you're hearing from your constituents is lining up with what we're hearing. And also if there's things that we're doing that you're unaware of or have questions about, please let me know. And as we look at kind of social equity piece where people that don't have backyards, they don't have a green space, they don't have anything other than our parts. I really think that these are important spaces for our whole community. I know it can be a challenge for the neighbor who lived there and wasn't used to this. I think it's an opportunity to try to engage in that, but that conversation, but you're right. I think having these parts out there for the whole community is something we all have to understand. All right, let's go ahead and welcome you and hear your presentation, please. So just to remind you that our contract with you as well as our work plan is aligned with the focus areas of Advanced 1.2.0 of Talent Connectivity, Place, Impact, and Industry. So our work plan at Longmont EDP is really focused on three areas of Advanced 1.2.0 as is our contract with the city of Longmont. And those are talent, industry, and impact. So starting with talent at the Advanced 1.2.0 goal around talent is to successfully recruit and retain new needed talent while building an industry and a future responsive pipeline. I'm gonna focus mostly on the first part of that, which is our efforts to recruit and retain new needed talent. One of our metrics in the contract with the city is to develop KPIs around that campaign. And so I shared with you in the report what those KPIs are. Even though this is technically third quarter stuff, I wanted to share with you some of the early results that we're reporting against those KPIs. All right, and in this quick industry update, again, the goal, primary, local, and startup companies in Longmont Thrive with a collaborative business environment and easy access to financing real estate and mentorship. Just provided some more detailed information about our prospect pipeline. We still have a very active pipeline with 29 total primary industry prospects that we've worked with year to date. 17 of those having come in new in 2020, some of those even in June and early July. And then for entrepreneurial development, just wanted to break on the Innovate Longmont program. That's the accelerator program that spun out of Longmont EDP earlier this year, founded in Longmont EDP in 2018. Seven startups have now completed the first Innovate Accelerator cohort. One of those startups was awarded recently a $250,000 Colorado Advanced Industries Accelerator grant. And then Winter Wins Robotics, another one of those startups, Aerospace Robotics Company has expanded into about 1,000 square feet of our space because we wanted to make sure we could continue to accommodate them here in Longmont. So we gave up some of our space to do so. They now have been awarded a phase one SBIR, are pursuing a phase two SBIR and have been awarded a NASA contract to get their robotic arm onto spacecraft that will actually be part of future launch. So we're excited about them. And they're now actually employing 15 people having launched out of our Innovate Longmont Accelerator in November of last year. And I believe profitable, not certain on that, but definitely generating revenue already, significant revenue already. All right, I don't see any questions, but Jessica, thank you very much for your presentation and we appreciate the work you do. All right, let's go on to study session item number one, 6A, Resilient State Brain Project Update. Mayor Bagley and members of council, couple of things I want council to take away from this presentation. One is that we're gonna provide some information on the upcoming Army Corps project. And most importantly, we are going to have, we have the contract ready for your consideration at your August 11th meeting. And so tonight is really good opportunity to ask questions about that particular aspect of the project and that we wanted to give you an update as well on the additional federal dollars that we are trying to bring into the community, in particular for the unfunded reach of the project that is upstream of sunset. And so with that, I'll turn it over to Josh Sherman to take us through the presentation. Thank you for that introduction, Dale. So as Dale mentioned, the Resilient State Brain Project was initiated after the September 2013 flood event. It's the city's multi-year multi-phase project to fully restore the St. Brain Greenway Trail and prove the St. Brain Creek Channel to protect people, property and infrastructure from future flood risks. So the agenda that we wanna get through tonight is to provide a status update on the project. The presentation will follow the phasing of the project improvements by starting on the downstream side and work upstream. This graphic just provides an illustration of the reaches that we're gonna speak to tonight. It's amazing how much progress we've made. Dale, thanks to you and your staff for everything you've done. We would be a much different city if we didn't have your dedication, passion, love and experience and knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Thank you. I just felt fortunate tonight that I didn't have to talk after watching that video. I think I would have got a little choked up. I was gonna be positive that we're all grateful we didn't hear from you either, but you still did a good job. All right, let's go ahead and move on to when to get firming project allotment contract review, please. Council, Mayor and Council, Ken Houston, Water Resources Manager with Public Works, Natural Resources Department. Thank you for your time tonight. Tonight we'd like to give you a summary of the Windy Gap firming project, the history and status of it, review the allotment contract and escrow agreements. That's two agreements we'll be bringing back in September for Council's action. I would like to first briefly, especially for the public to let them understand Longmont's raw water source. There's really two raw water sources Longmont uses first water. The first is the native basin water, which is the St. Rain Creek. This map shows the area west of Longmont up to the continental divide. Primarily the North St. Rain, but also South St. Rainwater is what we utilize. It's about two thirds of our water supply. And then about one third of our water supply is from the West Slope, two sources, the Windy Gap project and the Colorado Big Thompson project. Wanted to give you a little bit of project history on both the Windy Gap parent project, the diversion project, and also the history of the Windy Gap firming project. This is, next slide is a rendering of what the reservoir will look like when it's completed on the left side. You can see Carter Lake. I think most people are familiar with Carter Lake. There's a Timney Hollows on the middle of the picture there, the shinier reservoir. That's what the reservoir will look like when it's constructed. It'll really be almost a twin of Carter Lake. We'd like to go through real quickly then on the allotment contract and the escrow agreements and finding the one to talk a little bit about and most importantly, focus in on the financial considerations for this project. We are currently subscribed in the project at 8,000 acre feet. That was a previous city council direction. We've been in there for about three or four years now at that level. The total cost for that is about $60 million, just a little bit less at least. At this point, we've looked at that with both Water Board and I do have a recommendation. Kind of the areas we're looking at right now is the 8,000 acre feet that we're currently at. At 7,500 acre feet, we're able to balance keeping our system running as well as being able to fund it. Thank you, Ken, and thank you, Mayor Bagley. I have a question about the pooled funding option that it's been understood from the beginning Longmont would not participate in. Can you explain why that decision was from the beginning that Longmont would go the funding on its own and not participate in the pooled funding? Yes, Mayor, Council Member Martin, be happy to. The pooled financing is a great tool. In fact, we use that in the original Windy Gap parent project funding. Unfortunately, one of the aspects of pooled financing is that to be able to help sell the bonds in a pooled financing scheme, the investors are gonna wanna see what's called a step up provision. In essence, if any one of the one or more of the participants in a pooled financing were to not make their payments, the other participants would step up and make the payments for them. They would get their Allotment Capacity if they did that, but they would still be on the hook. And what is unique about the Longmont City Charter that makes it count on against our bonding capacity? Mayor and Council, I'm happy to answer that. I'm Becky Doyle, Assistant Director of Business Services in Public Works and Natural Resources. The Longmont Charter has a requirement that we go to the voters for all issuance of debt. Enterprises under Tabor do not, and I see D's in here now, so he can jump in right and wrong, but Tabor Enterprises generally do not have that requirement, so that's something that's unique to Longmont. And we would need to get voter approval to increase our bond authority to cover that step up provision if we wanted to participate in the pooled finance. Dr. Waters. Thanks, Mayor Begley. Ken and Ordale, the $36 million authorized by the voters through the sale of bonds, what percentage of the total cost of this project was that originally intended? Council Member Waters, I believe when we went to the bond election, the price per acre foot of the project was such that we believed that the $36 million would be sufficient for up to 10,000 acre feet. We need to be very careful to participate at a level that we can afford. And one that does not put the balance of the utility and jeopardy, and one that does not further increase the rates on our customers. Mayor and Council Member Waters, the cost for 6,300 acre foot at the current per acre foot cost is approximately $47 million. So 55 million at 8,051 million at 7,540, you say 48 million, 47 million at 6,300. Yeah. What is the assumption on the amount of water conservation or the rate of water conservation that is done by the water users of the city in that build out requirements estimate? I mean, is that? Mayor and Council Member Martin, the current projections anticipate 10% water conservation savings at time of build out. That's both savings of where we are with our water now as well as future water use, new growth will consume 10% less water. It anticipates that, yes. All right, Council Member Beck. So I move that we direct staff to accept the water board's recommendation of a 7,500 acre feet participation level. Second. Anyway, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. All right, the motion passes six to one with Mayor Bagley dissenting. And get on to discussion, discussing the options regarding sleeper vehicles parked on public property. Good evening, Mayor Bagley and Council Members. I will be leading us through a presentation that was put together by our SWAPS Team Safe and Welcoming Places team in that team tonight presenting, representing that team tonight is myself, Adibara Domendosa, Project Coordinator for Community Services, Jeff Satter, Deputy Public Safety Chief, Nathan Schultz from Code Enforcement, Tim Hull, Assistant City Attorney. We've also invited Joseph Zanovich from Hope for Longmont to provide any answers to any questions around safe lots as well. And of course Karen Roney, Community Services Director. So the SWAPS Team is really a cross-divisional, cross-department team that is looking at how we ensure safety and make sure that our public faces are welcoming. This is just, you know, as mentioned in the Council communication, we've seen continued growth of RVs and campers on public streets. And these are also cases that public safety has received in 2019 and 2020. Now, this is some data that came from our safe lot task force, our data team, when we instituted the Survey 123 data that I showed to you in February. We did, so here's some more examples of trash and inoperable RVs that are in our, some are in their open spaces, parking lots. Next slide. And of course, some of the issues of leaking fluids into the city storm drains that happen and where they're parked. Next slide. And here's an example of, again, more trash, but example of creating a makeshift living room on the city streets. Here's some of the costs. These are not, I got total, but just want to share. So the RV cleaning costs, this is not the towing from the street or storage, this is just what it costs to clean out. And currently we still have six that need to be cleaned and that is at the storage lot and eight remaining in storage, which were towed between April of 2017 and October 2018 and four more that still need to be towed to salvage. So next slide. And so this is what we're, what the swap team is recommending staff or staff is asking council for direction around the recommendations to eliminate the allowance to move sleeper vehicles parked on public street every 48 hours and relocate to different areas defined in the current ordinance. Instead, swaps is recommended all sleeper vehicles be prohibited from parking on public property, including any portion of highway street alley or the other right away with some exceptions. So for example, active loading and unloading and finding to modify the current code sections that allows individual apply for a permit for time limited parking on public property. If the motion was to figure out how to either acquire or utilize through some arrangement that property or some property for people who are living in RVs because they don't have an option, they're registered with coordinated entry and want to get into more permanent housing, I would support that motion. If that motion was generally a place for people to just get off the street, I'm not gonna support that motion. So it would be helpful to have that clarified. Do you wanna make an amendment to that motion? I would accept that. Well, then I would, the offer this amendment that if in giving that direction, a site would be utilized to provide an option for Longmont residents living in RVs, not by choice, but by circumstance, registered with coordinated entry aspiring to get into more affordable housing or more permanent housing. I accept that. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. As far as the specific motion on the table, I am in disagreement and will not be supporting the motion as I think that there should be a generalized facility provided as far as the city should be involved in the sense that if there's assistance needed for people that are looking to get into housing or they cannot quite afford, say, a full cost of staying at the RV park on Main Street, for instance, that there might be some assistance there as well as similar that we provide to folks in our community who are in permanent housing, but still need assistance for living costs. So I am happy to support making the ordinance more strict once we have an alternative for folks or once we have exhausted all of our possibilities of having such alternative. So I can't support the making the ordinance more strict until we have something tangible on our plate to provide that alternative for folks. All right, well, the motion currently on the table is are we gonna make a safe lot down there on Alaska Avenue? One favor taking a vote, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. All right, motion carries unanimously. We're gonna go ahead and vote. Let's go ahead and restate this. Sounds like the motion then is form a committee made up of staff to go ahead and look into the possibility specifically the costs, the timeframe, process, et cetera in order to create a safe lot down on county owned land located on or about this particular area on Alaska Avenue. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, opposed, say nay. Aye. Nay. Nay. So the motion carries four to three with myself, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and Councilman Martin opposed. So you have your direction, Harold. Yeah, I'm ready to. I'm gonna move that we also direct staff to bring back changes in the ordinance reflecting staff recommendations. There are some exceptions they presented to us tonight. Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. Loading and unloading and whatnot. Correct. Council Member Peck, let's just go Council Member Peck, Council Member Redaugher-Ferring, Council Member Christensen. I would like to add an amendment to that that in the part, and I can't bring it up but it is basically saying that they can't park on public streets. I would like to add any public property, for example, trailheads, city parks, that they cannot use those spaces for places. So it would be any public property, not just streets. So I mean, I won't be supporting moving forward with this. I mean, I'm okay with hearing what the recommendations are, I guess, or going more in-depth, but I wanna know what other options there are for individuals, what kinds of. So the current motion on the table is to adopt, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance following through on staff's recommendation this evening that was in the slides, that basically is prohibiting sleeper vehicles with the exceptions provided by staff. I don't see any hands up. I guess I'd say that, I don't view these issues. I mean, they're like cousins, but they're not, I think, going hand in hand. Right now, we've got a real issue with people on the streets. Even Deputy Commander Satter, you see him just subconsciously nodding his head. We've got a real issue here and those people who are living in their RVs on our streets, by definition, are not residents of Longmont. They don't pay property taxes. They're not living in homes. We don't know their, it's a problem. And I think, thank you Mayor Bagley. I think we need to include in the no parking ordinance some kind of an interim solution where for four months, six months, something like that, we come up with an arrangement where you can put the housing, use the housing choice vouchers on the place in North Main where you can have dumping tokens or something that you can use at the fairground. Councilor Becker. I agree with you Councilwoman Martin and that could be a separate motion. That the initiation date of this ordinance is and in the meantime, there are some ways we can educate using the police. But right now there's a motion on the table that we're going to go ahead and adopt staff's recommendations and I'm sorry, direct staff, that they go ahead and prepare an ordinance based on tonight's presentation. But again, raise your hand if you're an aye. All right, raise your hand if you're an aye. Okay, the motion carries four to three with Councilmembers Waters, Martin, Peck and myself four and the three other Councilmembers against. And so I'm going to vote against the motion because I would like to, A, see our B's off our streets and B, see what staff comes up with our safe lots. And I think that is the solution that the motion would naturally lend itself to which is once we have safe lots, you say, by the way, you can't be on the street, here's safe lots and if there's no room, move on. Oh yeah, but some people are against having a safe lot because it's more expensive than interim housing. So, I think we're kind of losing track of what the solution is and maybe when the staff comes back we will un-lose track of it, but. All right, let's go ahead and vote on favor. The motion is to, if you want to repeat the motion, the motion is to create some type of interim solution before we kick them out of town or ticket them that we tell our police, which we don't want to defund to do things like this. But we're going to have them take on one more responsibility to become the RV enforcement agency. Am I getting that motion correct? Yeah, if you want to put it that way you can but that's not the way I put it, Mr. Mayor. I'm just pointing out what's inherent in the motion. All right, and it was seconded. Let's go ahead and vote again. Raise your hand if you're for the motion. Raise your hand if you're against the motion. All right, the motion carries five to two with myself and Council Member Waters against. All right, thank you very much. Well, I just want to commend the council because what I have noticed about this debate that has not been true for a long time is that people have been taking positions based on their personal convictions, not on which imaginary side they belong on or who campaigned for their election or any of that stuff. We've been debating based on what we think is right and wrong and what the best way to get to something is and it was just really wonderful to see and hear that. So thanks everybody. I move we adjourn. I'll second that. All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, have a good week, guys.