 Oh, there they are, sorry. Six. Raise your hand if you can hear me. All right, so hold on, I'm just gonna scream it down to start this. So Longmont Public Media knows that we're done. Hold on. Longmont Public Media, we are ready. Awesome, great. And let's go ahead. I would now like to call the March 31st, 2020, Longmont City Council regular session order. Tonight's meeting is different because the novel COVID-19 virus, thus we're holding the meeting remotely. Let's go ahead and start with the roll call. Mayor Bagley. Here. Council members, Christensen. Here. Hidalgo-Fairing. Here. Martin. You need Marcia. You just needed. Peck. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Waters. Here. Mayor, you have a full form. All right, let's start with the pledge. You can stand. We're gonna say the pledge. Pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, under God, the regime. All right, in order to provide public comment during the stay-at-home order, residents provided public comments prior to the meeting by submitting them and writing or via video or phone message. I hear we have some very interesting comments. Comments are limited to three minutes per person and those submitted prior to 5 p.m. will be read into the record by staff. So we have those. Also, item nine regarding wastewater revenue refunding bonds also has unique instructions for how to publicly comment on this item during the public hearing. For federal requirements, real-time public comment will be allowed for this item only. Residents wishing to speak during the public hearing on ordinance 2020-12 should watch the live stream of the city's YouTube channel at, no repeat this twice, HTTPS colon forward slash forward slash www.youtube.com forward slash c forward slash city of Longmont forward slash live then call 303-651-8647. Again, www.youtube.com forward slash c forward slash city of Longmont forward slash live at 303-651-8647. So at this time, I introduced this item and I opened the public hearing. This is gonna be available for this item only due to system limitations. So we're gonna go ahead and wait 60 seconds and see if anybody calls in for the public hearing on this matter. Mayor, if I may, when we will use that process when we get to nine and long, yeah, we'll help us put that number on the screen if anybody wants to. Perfect, okay. All right, let's go ahead and we have a motion for approving of the minutes of February 25th, 2020, the regular session. Council Member Peck, you're muted. No moved. All right, do we have a second? Is that Council Member Christensen that I saw raise her hand? Yeah, second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. 3B, approval of minutes to the March 17th, 2020, regular session. We have a motion. So moved. All right. Second. All right, so it's been moved and seconded. Let's vote. I think I'm gonna assume there's no further I've seen your hands. So all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Animously. All right, let's move on to agendas and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to agendas. I know that Council Member, do you have something you'd like to bring up Council Member Peck? Yes, I do actually. It's gonna be a statement and then maybe a motion, but we'll see. Hold on one second. We're gonna go you, Dr. Waters and then Council Member Hidalgo-Fairing. This is to our residents and our small businesses. As you know that we had a $2 trillion coronavirus aid package that went out Monday, actually yesterday. And of the $377 billion are for small businesses under 500 employees. I am debating this so that our small businesses know that our Council is on top of this and our city is as well. $50 billion are for individuals or rent and mortgage help. $339.8 billion is for state and local businesses. And my message to our residents and small businesses is that you need to start your applications for these dollars now. The applications have not been accepted yet because that window has not been opened. But when it does, it's a very short window and it's gonna be first come, first served. And those dollars are gonna go out pretty darn fast. Hold on. Oh, the city staff and I think that our city managers actually gonna address this as well is trying to figure out how in long run we're gonna do that. LEDP will be a part of that as well as the chambers might be involved in our city staff. The Longmont come through the Small Business Association but along with some of the obvious businesses that can apply, we have hotels and contractors self-employed who filed their taxes on a 1099 form. Restaurant owners having more than one location, they're going to need to submit an application for each site, not putting all their restaurants under one application. These are just some of the things that I've learned about this so that we can get a real fast move on it. There isn't a component in this act about lost revenue from businesses. So if that's what I am asking our small businesses to do is go out and read this bill for yourself. And to, here's where you can read, you can find it. Hopefully everybody can see this. It's congress.gov and you search for S.3548 CARES Act. And if you wanna know what's inside the Senate's $2 trillion coronavirus eight package, go to npr.org. They do a really nice breakdown for it. So there are a couple of things I would like to direct staff to do if they're already not doing it. And one of them is to have on the website, hopefully under Engage Longmont, a list of the banks in Longmont that actually deal with SBA loans because not all of them do. The other thing is if we could work with hopefully with somebody from SBA, from one of these banks, if they could do a very short tutorial to walk small business owners through this process, that would be greatly, I think it would be needed in order to help people fill these applications out correctly. So I'm going to move to direct staff to on our website, put a list of the banks in Longmont that actually work with SBA loans. Is anyone? Okay. And Harold, if you wanna chime in, are we already doing this? Have we addressed it here for businesses? Well, I don't hear from Harold. So Harold, can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Yeah, Joan asked if there's a motion on the table to basically instruct staff to put the business banks on the city website that are working with the SBA as well as other information to facilitate small business applications too. I lost your audio. Again, so there's a motion on the table that was moved by Council Member Peck and I believe it was seconded Council Member Christensen to direct staff to put a list of the banks on the website, the city of Longmont website. Those banks were working with the SBA that small businesses can work with to access those loans and grants as well as other information about facilitating the $2 trillion payment. So, let me get with that. We're building a business portal that we're gonna add more information to. If we look at that, I know in terms of the tutorial video, the SBDC has a tutorial video on this now and we're pointing folks to that location in terms of the loans that they're doing. So, and I know we had the link. We're linking into, we're telling folks to link into the LEDP and then they can see some components we have which then links into the SBDC. We're trying to streamline that process right now. So, it's one move. So, Harold, if there are businesses that are working with their own attorneys, if they go to congress.gov-cares-act, probably through that on their own. And the reason that I am escalating this is that window to apply is gonna be very short. Correct. I don't want our businesses missing out on it because they can't find where to go or the right information. So, would you have any problem putting that to read the entire bill so they can search for components and see where they land in this full act? What we're trying to do, and I was gonna cover some of this in my update is that what they've done, and I can go into it later, but what they've done is they've identified the pot of money. Now the question's really coming into who's going to administer it and what are the requirements going to be associated with that? And that's what they haven't released yet. We do have several staff members watching that working on it and trying to anticipate what's going to happen. And I can cover that a little bit more in my report. Okay. Then do you, I guess I will retract my motion because it sounds like you're already on top of it. So, I can pull that back. All right. So, council member Pecks retract your motion, but it's a great idea, Joan. It's a great idea. And Harold, good job. Let's get that up as quick as we can once we have access to the money on the applications. Can I make one more point? Yes you can. Because this act also addresses individual loans or individual dollars for individual, for people as far as rent, help with rent, help with unemployment insurance, et cetera. I would like some confirmation that this website will also address that for individuals. So, we're going to have two components to this and we'll talk a little bit about some questions I'm going to have for you in the report. We're going to have a business assistance section and an individual assistance section that deals with the differing issues. Perfect. Thank you, Harold. All right. All right. I believe that I said that Dr. Waters, you were next. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. I think we all received from Jeff Kahoon, Boulder Area Labor Council some correspondence regarding a coalition of organized labor groups, non-profits, advocate groups who are addressing some of the consequences and the needs working families in this time. And in correspondence with Jeff, Jeff forwarded a resolution reflecting both some of the needs and a platform policy options in a half a dozen areas. I don't know that given the context in which we're working and the timeframe for this, I don't know that the resolution is the thing to do. I would like, haven't seen Jeff's resolution for his correspondence to take a look at it. What I would like to do is if there's a majority of the council that would agree with this, give staff directions to at least draft correspondence that the mayor and city manager could sign to the governor and to our legislative delegation from representing Longmont, that addresses both the needs and the proposals in the half a dozen areas on this platform to express our support, officially express our support for working families and need for sick days of housing affordability, economic security, housing protection, workplace health and safety, et cetera. Harold has a copy of the resolution so that the content is not a mystery. And if we don't worry about a resolution, at least to get on the record with the governor in our legislative delegation are committed to the platform in these areas. So I'll be quiet and see if I'm gonna make that move and then see if anybody wants to second. I'll second, yeah. It's been moved and seconded. Do you have any comments in addition or debate? All right, let's go ahead and take a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. All right, that motion passes unanimously. All right, do you still want the four dock or no? All right, council member Hidalgo-Ferring. Okay, so I have a couple of things. One is a motion to direct staff. Another one is requesting an update from Dawn. She already knows what this is pertaining to. And yeah, and then just another statement I'd like to say. So the first thing is the public statement, I guess I'll start with Dawn. Can you give some highlights as to what's gonna be happening? I believe it's the next week's agenda item in relation to home delivery for home cannabis delivery and permit. So in accordance with HB 191234 that passed last year. Definitely Mayor Bagley, council member Hidalgo-Ferring. We plan to bring the updates that you previously directed us to bring for the publicly traded change that the green solution is asked for. So that is coming forth on April 7th for your first draft operation. We'll also bring a couple of citation updates because the attitudes have changed a little bit. And I was at that time to ask you for direction if you'd like us to bring information back about providing delivery. If you would like to get that direction tonight, we could certainly take that direction. We wouldn't have it ready for you next week by any stretch of the imagination. We could get to work on that and bring you back information and some draft legislation and maybe in three weeks or four weeks, something like that. But it is on our radar, we just haven't gotten to it yet. So whatever you'd like. Okay. And then the motion that I would like to bring forward if there's an interest in this and I really hope that there is. But to direct staff bring forward a statement or a letter that the council uniformly supports the recommendations by the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the Colorado and Boulder County departments of public health and environment that we agree to the recommendations and orders of Governor Polis of the state of Colorado and additionally, a statement that any viewpoint we make on the contrary is solely our own opinion. And I know that, you know that, but we need to make sure that the public as a whole knows that when we are making statements out there, it's not a reflection of what the council believes as a whole or the city of Longmont. And so to have that cohesive statement, I would like to. I would second that. I would second that. Oh, third. We have motion on the table from Council Member Yagal Faring that we direct staff to draft a resolution stating that we will follow the CDC Boulder County, Governor Polis and the WHO when they are offering advice. We have other, and then that was seconded by Council Member Pack, right Council Member? Chris Jensen. Was it Chris Jensen? My apologies, I couldn't see you. Council Member Pack. Thank you. I think this is a good idea to give some confidence to the public in their leadership. The other thing that I would like in that statement is to remind people that Council voted unanimously to ratify basically giving our city managers and staff control over and joining and accepting what all these organizations decide to do. So it is up to the city managers to run our city. And we have with that unanimous ratification given them that power. So I would like that also to be mentioned. Whoever you can draft that. Council Member Christensen. Excuse me, it would be a letter to our residents. Is that right? Thank you. Council Member Christensen. Yes, I think this is really important to do because we need to speak, we set the policy in this city and we need to be unified in one voice in what that policy is regardless of what our personal opinions may be. And when we speak as a council, we need to speak as one voice because this is an emergency time and we need to back all of the emergency orders. Thank you. Hold on one second, guys. Yeah, I can do that. When you're off. Yep, I got it. Thank you. Got it. I was told that I'm getting some feedback from my mic when I go on. Susan Strait helped you, but not that much. That's all right. I will stop. All right, other comments? I have one more thing I wanted to, in regard to this statement. This right here. All right, so I guess, I mean, it's no secret. I think you guys are all being very, very, very, very, very polite. I appreciate that. It's no secret that the motion was made as a result of the comments I made this week. My only concern, so again, right now everyone's rolling their eyes. Oh my gosh, at least going up, and oh my God, not you guys, but people watching from home. Oh my gosh, Bagley's not going to support. My part of my question that I think people heard was that as I'm listening to Michael Hancock, the mayor of Boulder, the Metro Mayors folks, as I'm listening to the epidemiologists, our city staff is listening to Governor P. Sometimes the WHO, Boulder County, the governor, and others are in conflict. One part of my frustration is that, and I know I see people rolling their eyes, but they are. Part of my frustration last time was I got, I had literally just before our Thursday meeting, I got off a call with Michael Hancock and the mayors. And there were two conflicting orders. And I was notified by the mayor's staff, quote, Michael Hancock at this meeting is going to be providing the leadership that our governor is failing to provide. Michael Hancock out with an April 17th deadline. Governor Polis came out with an April 11th deadline. Part of my frustration was that Boulder County jumped on with Michael Hancock. I believe 100% you should follow the lead of our governor. That's it. So if you were to actually sum up all my comments and all the people are upset with me, right? It's we should follow our governor. It's not New York, it's not Italy, it's not South Carolina. Experts right now that are advising you you should be the one calling the shots. So I would like to see the motion. Mayor, I can't hear you. Your audio is gone. All right. You're muted now. All right. Is that better? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, we can hear you now. So I don't know where I cut off. We're gonna cut off. I don't wanna repeat myself and waste time. You had mentioned that you would like to see a motion. Oh yes. So the motion, what I would like to see is a motion stating that we unequivocally support our governor. He's got, he's the one who is leading the state. He is the one, not Mayor Hancock, not me, not even the Boulder, I don't think that the Boulder County commissioners or the health department should be leading. I think we should be following Governor Polis. If he says go to April 30th, we'll go. If he says go to June, we'll go. But my frustration is other political leaders are providing leadership with conflicting orders. It's frustrating. And so what you saw on Thursday was a result of new comment at meeting. So I'd like, that's what I'd like to do. Council Member Peck. So Mayor Bagley, I agree with you, but is that not what our unanimous vote to ratify Governor Polis' stand, getting that permission to our city managers? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that that's what that unanimous vote was for. No, well, no. So the unanimous vote was we were going, we gave Harold, sorry, Mr. Dominguez, absolute power in this, he's got emergency to call the shots during this time. So every day is working his butt off, doing what's best. If he decides, if Harold decides, we need to follow Boulder County or we need to do something, we listen to Harold, right? But if the WHO, Boulder County and the Metro Mayors and the CDC are all giving different directions or different dates, different, whatever, I think we should follow the governor. If there's a conflict, I want to follow Polis. That has been my stance, both on the phone with the Metro Mayors, as well as during my seemingly lance, so to speak. So if in conflict, I want to say let's, Governor Christensen, I'm going to mute myself. Sorry, takes me a while to find it. Okay, here's my problem. We're all, everyone in the United States and all over the world is frustrated. Everybody's worried. Those are legitimate things. I want people to listen to doctors and nurses and scientists, not politicians. Governor Polis is listening to World Health Organization and CDC. And because this is evolving so rapidly and things are changing all over the world, which is always the case with the pandemic, that's who we need to have faith in. And the governor, the governor, you're right. The governor is listening to these and that's why we should follow the governor. But the best people to follow are the scientists and doctors and nurses who are on the front lines and really know what's going on here. We're not going to be able to accumulate perfect data. There's no such thing actually as perfect data, but you know, it's, this is not a time to be obsessed with data because it's changing from hour to hour. So I would, although I agree with you, Mary Bagley, that we need to listen to Governor Polis. And the reason we need to listen to him is because he's listening to scientists and doctors and nurses and medical people on the front lines. So that's all I have to say for right now. Thank you. Dr. Waters. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. I appreciate the intent of Council Member Hidalgo-Ferring's motion, but I also recognize from the WHO, CDC and others, we could get, you could get conflicting recommendations in terms of timelines and protocols. So assuming that the governor continues to take his lead from CDC, I think the idea of, first of all, I like the idea of a statement and I'm going to vote for that. But I also think we ought to be clear to follow three different groups that might have different recommendations is not going to be a good idea because we're going to have conflicting proposals. So I appreciate Council Member Christensen's statement about science, I agree, science ought to lead, but somebody's got to call the shot in the state in terms of what the regulations are. And I agree, I think it ought to be the governor and if the motion is to support whatever the governor's order is, I'm going to vote for. Council Member Riddle-Ferring, would you accept the friendly amendment that basically says, when in conflict, we follow Governor Polis? I'll accept that as a friendly amendment. I will. Cool. So he's proven to get his information and follow his lead based on what the scientists and doctors have been saying. So I trust that. I could wholeheartedly support that motion. So, anything else? All right, let's go ahead and vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Okay. And I have one statement I wanted to... Polis next. Okay, go ahead. Is that all right? Okay, thank you. So really it's just, and I want to put this out to everybody. Over the last few weeks, I've assisted quite a few people in places, including my own family members. And one thing I want to extend and one thing, you know, we are under a lot of stress, not just personally, professionally, but what the work we're doing on council as well. And this isn't an attempt to bash anyone or demean anyone, but really it's coming from my heart. I'm worried about Mayor Bagley. Mayor Bagley, I'm worried about you. And you know, I want to find a way to support you. And if you feel the need to take a break, you know, we have provisions in our charter that would allow Mayor Pro Tem to step up and take care of your health. You cannot be a support to anybody if you are not taking care of yourself. And I've learned that the hard way over the years. And sometimes you do need to take a step back. And I would wholeheartedly support you in whatever decision you make. And the same goes to any one of us. When we start feeling, like I'm doing my first week of online learning and oh my gosh, my hair is on fire. So I may need to take you guys up on that as well a week or two from now. So I just wanted to put that out there. Take care of yourself, all of you. So, you know, each other. Council member Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I don't think that that's a helpful statement. I deplore Mayor Bagley's angry remarks, but I think our job as council members is to show solidarity as a body. And the idea that a council member is going to publicly express a lack of confidence in his competence is a different thing than deploring the statement that he made. I've made some unpopular statements in my career on this council. Some of them I stand by and some of them I regret. But I think that we need to recognize the difference between the function of an electric and elected body and its ability to lead and our disagreements with one another. So if that's a, if this is a resolution or something, I'm not sure that it is, but I certainly disagree with the statement. Okay, so fair enough. My point in being is that we need to, we are people and we need to look out for one another. First of all, I appreciate the sentiment. I wish that that sentiment would have been shared in private. Thank you, Councilman Martin for your statement as well. I am perfectly well. My job as mayor, I've had a lot of comments. Half the people, based on my statement, half the people have called me championing, saying, good job, Mayor. The other half are calling from my heads with swear words. And I'm sure we'll hear all the swear words tonight during the public invited year. My job as mayor is not to tell people to stay calm and to stay in their homes. My job as mayor is to look out for the long-term viability and health of warm. And the mistake I made, I made the mistake of suggesting we need to compare the hiding at home policy to the health and death impact on the world. That's it. And I have yet to hear anyone asking the question in any meeting about what are the health impacts going to be of shutting down the economy? It's a very loud time right now. All white noise, all white noise. Sometimes you have to raise your voice to get above the noise. I raised my voice. I am frustrated. I'm not angry. I'm not panicked. I am just simply stating that just like we have a virus that we need to make sure that we follow the orders of the governor and others, we need to start asking the question, how do we look forward to minimize the health impacts of shutting down our nation? That's it. And so people online and in-person are starting to ask those questions as a result of me basically losing my stuff. And I'm not going to resign. Interestingly, no one could anyway. I'm not going to resign. I don't need a break. I appreciate the concern. But I would like to see as soon as possible dentists, mental health helpers, orthodontics, chiropractors. I would like to start seeing the world going again. Somehow. I'm not an expert. I'm not going to advocate that that happened. But we should at least start seeing experts provide the answers to those questions. Because right now we are so focused on the virus. I understand why. But we are so focused on it, we're not asking any other questions about any other topic. That right there was my frustration. So if I feel, rest assured, if I feel that the stress is too much, I will be the first person to turn it over to Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, who's perfectly capable of chairing any meeting and acting as mayor of this town. So all right, any other questions? Dr. Waters. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. This is kind of for what it's worth. On the other side of this crisis we're in, we are going to need to be extraordinarily thoughtful and strategic in terms of how we rebuild both our local economy and the macro economy. So for whatever it's worth this afternoon, I did sit in on, I participated in a webinar offered by Strong Towns. Minnacosi, Urban Planner was the featured speaker. The topic today was kind of economic development 101. Two weeks from today, he's going to do a follow up webinar. And the topic that he's going to address is how do you develop, what does sustainable development look like on the other side of this? How do you reinvest in your communities that don't carry with them the kind of liabilities that some of the development down in the last 100 years carries with it that we're paying the price for today? So if we're going to have this conversation, I think let's find a way to frame it in a conversation where we can be in together about what do we do, right? Or what are the range of options we ought to be considering on the far side of this, right? We keep finger pointing, we're hand wringing, all that stuff is not going to be helpful. The anxiety exists for all of us. But if we could at least find a framework or some expertise that would change the narrative for, not the narrative, we could create a narrative about what are we going to commit to on the far side of this to reestablish our economy when we're able to do it in ways that'll be different and probably better than where we were before this, when we were visited by this crisis. But for my two cents, when we get into that conversation in two weeks from today, we could be in a webinar together and spend some time talking about it on Tuesday night. What did we learn and what other resources might we want to bring to our attention as we think about how do we reestablish ourselves on the far side of the crisis? So I'm going to be on that webinar. If anybody, I'm happy to say, if nobody else has seen it, I'm happy to send you the information. And if others of you want to be on it at the same time, it might change our conversation about what does development look like when we're out of this. Thanks, Dr. Waters. Mayor Pratap Rodriguez. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Just in consideration of all the commentary that's been going on so far in concern to the economic ramifications of the pandemic that we're going through at the moment, I just want to also re-emphasize the good work that the Longmont Economic Development Partnership is doing to be a resource for our business owners throughout town. And that's for folks to please reach out to the LEDP if they are concerned because they are cataloging a large number of resources exactly for this issue, as well as I'm sure coming up with strategies for the eventual reopening of the economy. I was just wondering if with this whole conversation that we've had, if we've maybe straight off course a little bit from our agenda and maybe get back on track. Thanks. Great, we're going to move on with the agenda. Thanks, Mayor Pratap. All right, City Manager's Report. Harold, you're up. Mayor, can you hear me? Go ahead and get a thumbs up if you all can hear me. Yeah, you know. So I'm going to go ahead and do another update. In some ways, it'll sound very similar. I can't see your faces, so I'm going to stop at points to answer some questions if you all have it because I can't read my notes. I need reading glasses. What I'm going to do is go with a general overview and then I'm going to talk about what that means from an operational impact, where we are on the finance piece, and then we're going to get into some hospital numbers. Dan Eman is on. So I will ask Dan to jump in on that. Dan, you might as well put your camera on so you can jump in and get ready to move in that area. And then I want to focus on some business assistance and financial and individual assistance. And then I have a couple of questions for you all. What I will say right now from an EOC component is we as staff are really, we've got multiple issues that we're dealing with or multiple opportunities and challenges that we're dealing with. The first is we're really working on continuity of operations plan, which you will often hear us refer to as COOP. And what that's really doing is ensuring that we can get our operations in line. We are moving through that and we're moving to the next level of planning. So we're making some very strategic decisions in terms of how we staff, who we staff, where they're located so that we can have the enough duplication that when we have critical services we always have someone in there to ensure that we're moving forward and providing those services to our community. In evaluating the public safety staffing issues and what they're seeing, generally the reports that I'm getting is, we're in a similar position that we were last Wednesday. Things are moving along. All volumes are there. I am asking Public Safety Department to look at some deeper data sets so we can get a sense of what's happening in the community. I get those on Monday. They look at it every week. My review of the data from last week showed some consistency. We did see call volumes drop. And then in terms of more significant issues, we're not seeing them at the same, it seems relatively stable at this point, but we're gonna monitor that on a weekly basis. Obviously, if things change fast, Mike will be in touch with me. The one thing that we're really working in public safety is we're getting new guidance from the CDC in terms of how we work with individuals in our interactions, both from a fire and police standpoint, to minimize, reduce the likelihood of exposure. Dan and his team is also actively working with both of our local hospitals and the county hospitals in terms of surge planning, and he can go into that a little bit later. The biggest challenge that we continue to have, and frankly, everyone across the country is really PPE. I know we've received some additional equipment via the National Stockpile that's coming in, but again, that's a national challenge that we're dealing with. In terms of the overall operational impact and what we're dealing with as an organization. I think we also have to realize that there's a lot of things that we do on a daily basis that we're having to continue. We have to continue making sure that our water's flowing, that our electricity's going, our next slide's going, we're serving trash. Obviously, we closed playgrounds, but we didn't close parks, so we have to manage that. We have to manage the restrooms in the parks. A lot of people go, well, why did you not close those? The reality is in evaluating what we've seen historically and the impact of closing those is we could have another health issue develop. And so at this point, we're doing that, and we're doing it in a different way. We actually are probably at a 60 to 75% of our workforce is actually working virtually. We're making decisions daily to increase that, but when you really look, we've really narrowed it down to police officers, firefighters, public works, and a handful of us that have to come in and really work within the office. And so a lot of it is virtual work that we're doing. The big thing we're trying to really also work on right now is positive and accurate information sharing. The one thing I will tell you, I think daily Dan and I are challenged with information that comes in that's not quite accurate, and we have to start chasing it down to really understand what we're hearing and whether it's actually correct. At the same time, you know, our finance department, it's interesting, I got to be on a team meeting. They're working through the audit that we have to do at this time. At the same time, they're working through the numbers that Jim provided to you and evaluating those to see are they still correct and how do we need to adjust those numbers as we look to the future? We should be able to bring more clarity to that within the next week or two with some options that we're looking at. And some of those options are gonna be critical in terms of what we bring forward to you all, because the one thing that we know from a financial perspective is that when we come out of this, there's gonna be expectations in terms of the services that we provide and how we provide those services. So we're trying to move through that in a really methodical way so that we can ensure when we come out of this that we can provide the services that we normally do and that our residents expect on a daily basis. I know there's been a lot of questions regarding hospital numbers. Dan, do you wanna jump in and talk about what you're hearing since I think you got up-to-date information tonight? Sure, I'll give it a go here. So can you hear me, Harold, are we good? Okay. So these numbers are current as of four o'clock today. Colorado has 2,966 positive cases, 509 hospitalizations and 69 deaths. In Boulder County, we have 107 cases, 32 hospitalizations, and unfortunately today we were notified of our second death. As you guys know, we have two hospitals in town and they're both part of large systems. You know, the UC Health System and the Centura System. So we're fortunate in that way because they have access to their broader systems and they can access resources in that way. And not only do they plan in inter-facility, they also plan with the other hospitals in the county. So there's five hospitals in our county, we're fortunate there too. And they also have a large planning coalition with the whole seven county region, which is Adams, Arapaho, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver Douglas and Jeff Co. So they all plan on this stuff together. And the good news in this scenario is this idea isn't new to them. They actually have hospital licensing requirements that they plan for things like this. It didn't sneak up on them. They are extremely prepared. So if there is some kind of surge issue, it's not from a lack of planning. It's not from a lack of knowing this is gonna happen. We talk to them every day. They've been great partners to us in a number of different ways. Generally their census is low right now and that's by design. They've canceled all things like electric procedures. They're trying to keep their hospitals as empty as they can. So they can start doing things like clearing out floors for increased ICU space, clearing out areas for negative pressure rooms. So they're doing all of that stuff now, anticipating a surge that's gonna happen depending on what model you look at in the next two weeks up to the next four weeks. But they have planned for this thing for a long time. And another little piece of this that I wanna make sure you guys know about is we're talking to our clinics in town too, especially Salud and Hopelight, the clinics that are gonna see the most vulnerable in our community. It's a really important piece that we keep connected with is they're probably gonna see the impacts of this first as people look to seek care there that those two clinics don't necessarily have the capacity to deal with and they're already doing some triage things. As far as needs go, Harold mentioned PPE is a significant issue for them as well as us. They're already doing things that adjust the amount of PPE that they use as are we. Testing capability is an issue that you all are aware of. They have the same issue and of course they're really trying to keep their staff healthy. They don't have any issues now but that's a priority for them also. So I'd say in general, right now things are good. They are in this mode of really trying to plan for the surge that we all know is coming. How big it's gonna be, we don't know but we talk to them every day and we're gonna assist them in any way we possibly can. I'd be happy to take any questions that anybody has on that or Harold can continue on with this update. Thanks, Dan. Caspar Martin and Caspar Peck, you're next. Okay. Yeah, I have two questions. The first one is fine case. Is that a positive test? Is it a physician's diagnosis without a test? What is it? That's a positive case. That is a test that has come back positive. Okay, so in other words, it's some fraction of the actual number of people who are contracted the virus. Listen. That's correct. And we've heard estimates on that. They're all over the board. The last one I heard is probably about 50 times that we have positive in our community but there's really no way to tell it. Yeah, so 55-0? Yes. Okay, the other question that I have is about PPE. We have people with stocks of non-sterile, material gloves. We have people who are making masks according to the FDA specifications, making gowns according to the FDA specifications. Are hospitals who said they can't use those things? Would it be possible to compile a list or find out or give a general announcement of what types of users of that equipment can use the homemade stuff or the non-sterile stuff so that the high-tech stuff can be routed to the hospitals? Yes, actually, thank you. That's an excellent question. That was something that we're literally talking about today is we're trying to get guidance from the public health entities on what would be appropriate for exactly what you're talking about and what would be appropriate for lower levels of masks that we might be able to get. So we're working on that right now and we definitely will get that information out as soon as we can. Specifically to that, you know, when we talk about our staff members that are out in different capacities and not necessarily dealing directly with individuals, we're trying to get the question answered in terms of what do they need and can they use those types of supplies as we're moving forward? All right, thanks, Harold. Council Member. Dan just answered those questions I had. So thank you. Council Member Christensen and then Dr. Waters, you're next. Thank you to both Harold and Dan. I think that those are the things that you've told us are very, very reassuring to the town. It helps people understand how many people on staff are working on this and how in touch everybody is with the hospitals, with national organizations. I know that a lot of people really want to help and sewing masks is a very easy thing but unless they are actually useful, it's kind of a waste of time. However, I think that on some level, if people go outside, it would be a good idea. Most other countries have had universal masking and this isn't to keep you from getting it because that isn't useful at all. It is to keep you from spreading it but in that way, homemade masks might be good. You can wash them every day, things like that. But is there, where would you suggest, what person do you suggest, people who are interested in sewing things to those FDA specifications contact in the city? Shannon? I think for right now, we will try to put something out once we figure out and talking to public health of what venues those kind of masks would be most appropriate for. So I don't have an answer for you on exactly what those are right now but we are looking into that today and we'll get that information out as soon as we can to make sure people that want to help have it out. Okay, I'm really touched by the number of people out there sewing up masks and stuff. I think this has brought out a lot of good community spirit but I do thank you both for updating the entire town on what's going on locally. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. Dan, thanks for the report. You mentioned where we are in terms of readiness and capacity in the hospitals. You also mentioned anticipated surge. You didn't talk about timing. Are we at a place where they can anticipate if there's gonna be a surge or anticipating there will be not quite knowing the dimensions of it. When will that occur? When would we anticipate knowing our hospitals are really potentially in it at that point? Yeah, that's a good question. And I think what we're hearing a lot of is what model do you believe? And there's probably six or seven models out there but as of today, public health has kind of given us two models that they're using. And one is kind of shows a peak around the April 17th, 18th timeframe. And then the other one is the one that the governor used in his last press conference that has that peak significantly later. I think it was more like in the May timeframe. And I know that's a big range. And they're trying to match up the actual cases on where we are in that up slope on the curve with what predicted numbers are based on other countries. So I think that's why there's such a big range. And we know it's coming because we know that the cases are starting to double quicker as opposed to every week or 10 days. Now they're starting to double in the five day range. So we know we're on upswing. It just depends on when that surge is gonna hit but we know it will. Just one related question. Anticipating the surge, what is the, I know there's a, the models also build in the lag time between exposure, symptoms and surge, right? Or hospitalization. So assuming that we stay the course with the kind of isolation that we've been practicing social distancing, when would we begin to see the better we are, how long after we get better at this, do we see the effects or the benefits of social isolation? And I'll mute myself. Yeah, that's a great question too. And the governor had some of that, some of those predictions on the slides that he put out and segmented into how well social distancing would work whether it would be 40%, 50% or 60%. I don't remember those off the top of my head but we could absolutely go grab those and get them out to you guys and put them in the minutes of the meeting too. I think it was about a week or two is what he talked about in his presentation. Okay. Can I continue? I believe that Mayor Potem had a question. Do you wanna go now Aaron or do you wanna wait seven? Just to thank you, Mayor Bagley. Just a quick question for Dan. When you talked about Centro and UC Health sharing their resources amongst their larger networks, does that also include possibly the transfer of patients in and out of communities? For instance, maybe some patients from a different community with less capacity being transferred here to Longmont? It absolutely does. That's part of their planning process they'll try to balance out within their system first before they try to work inside the county hospital the hospital and then outside of that they'll start working into that broader system. So they'll do that work first. And I think the other thing that we need to talk about in terms of this issue is we have plans upon plans in terms of surge capacity and if we needed it where would that occur? Dan and I have had conversations if we needed our facilities, if the surge was there there are many, many iterations of this as we start moving through it dependent on the situation. And that's just part of how you build your emergency management plans. All right. Anybody else? Can I keep going? Yep, go ahead, Aaron. All right, so the next thing that and so what you're gonna see from this update is we're really working and think of this as short-term, mid-term and then long-term. Very similar to how we approach the situation with the flood. Obviously right now we are focused on the short-term but we're already starting to think about well, what does that mid-term look like and how do we prepare ourselves for the long-term in these conversations? And as we're doing that, I think the one thing I wanna say and I think I said it last time and I wanna say it again is we really, we hear a lot from folks in different sections and we really under, we hope we understand the anxiety and how folks feel in terms of this issue. And to many of the points that you made earlier, we have folks that are concerned about their own situation. Many of our staff members have that same concern. To give you an example, I do in Texas have a relative that is in ICU right now. I have a mother who is in her 80s and so I completely get that perspective. I also have relatives that have lost their jobs because of some of these things and I completely get that perspective. And the one thing that I wanna say is that I would say unequivocally that the folks that work for the underserved organization get it and we're trying to do as much as we can to tackle each one of these issues because that's our job and we have to tackle those issues. I said this to the group. We have an amazing group of people here with a lot of talent and expertise and they're skilled and they're trained in managing many types of crises. They're handling the situation very well. I'm trying to do touch points with them to see how they're doing to make sure that we're moving forward. But the thing that is at the forefront of all of our minds is let's deal with today. Let's get plans for the future and make sure that we can position the organization in the community in the best way we possibly can. And how do we look at where do we wanna be in the future and what does that look like to us? And what does it look like to the community? It's going to be different. And I think we've got many challenges but out of challenges comes opportunities. And so what they're also doing, so we're working on it in multiple fronts. The analogy I use is it's like a multiple front battle that we're engaged in trying to deal with these issues. There are immediate issues. I've touched on a lot of those. I really wanna talk about the business improvement aspect that many of you talked about and what we're trying to do. And I'm gonna do a little bit of a deeper dive in that. And I'm gonna start off with first saying, and I've gotta reiterate this again as we have our core services and we have those things that our communities relying on and we have to ensure that we continue doing that. And generally classify this as the community service function because most of this work tends to be embedded within Karen's area but you'll also hear us talk about it in terms of individual assistance within a week. We've done a lot of work with our partners. I know Hope's been actively involved and the work that they've been doing with the homeless community. We work collectively to figure out how we can get showers going. I know we're seeing about five individuals, I guess a period come in and that seems to be working well. We're partnering with, you know, City of Boulder and Boulder County and the CRC facility for homeless individuals that may be sick. The thing that a lot of people don't realize that we're also working on is we also know from our experience in the flood that a lot of these programs that Congress is passing, there is a lot of different components to these programs that we have to be very careful with because whether it's a duplication of benefits, whether it's you can't get benefits if you're undocumented, all of these things start coming into play. And so they're also working with the private foundations so that we can ensure that we were doing, we did the same thing we did during the flood and finding a way to those that may not be able to take advantage of the federal funds. We have another outlet for them. The other thing that we've really started to is Carmen and many of our cultural brokers are really starting to work with them to make sure that we're getting our messages out via that network. We really learned a lot about that during the flood and there's a lot of anxiety related to those types of issues. And so we wanna make sure that we're accurately communicating to the entire community and equity is a big component of that. Today we have programs where we can provide housing assistance. In addition to that, we're engaged in mediation with landlords and tenants. We're providing education to landlords and tenants about evictions. I know there's gonna be information going up tomorrow that really talks about that. So that's where we are on the individual assistance side. Now on the business assistance side, we have really started plugging away. There's a group, they have this conversation, Joni Marsh and Peter Gibbons are my staff, people that are involved in that. They're also working with the LADP DDA, Visit Longmont Chamber of Commerce, Latino Chamber of Commerce. And now today we had a long conversation about really, how do we expand it beyond that group? Because we know there are a lot of businesses that aren't also affiliated with any of these groups. So we wanna make sure that we're communicating to them. And so today, there's a lot of work being done by Workforce Boulder County and the SBDC, in the SBDC world in terms of loans. And how does that stimulus funding time tie into that? And so we're pointing people into the LADP website so they can then get into the SBDC world. We're having conversation what opportunities they have within their structure to assist businesses that are in the DDA boundaries. I know LADP is also looking at how can we create an enterprise fund to help fund other businesses that are in the enterprise zone. And then we're looking at repurposing money that we have for one type of grant to look at it in a broader assistance piece here. And the council said, one of the things that council said, and this is gonna be one of my questions to you all, as you said, we have some council contingency funds that can we utilize for this? We know we have CDBG dollars available to handle the individual assistance. But in terms of what we have on the business assistance side, at this point, there's not a lot readily available. And they said, can city manager make a proposal on that? Because of what we have on the individual assistance side would be to repurpose that 30,000 to go into the business assistance category. So that's my first question for council. Do you all agree with that proposal or disagree with that proposal? Harold, you're asking about you utilizing just contingency funds? 30,000 to be put into the business assistance category because of the amount that we have in the individual assistance. I move that we put $30,000 for the council contingency fund into the business, what do you call it, Harold? Assistance program. Business assistance program. It's probably gonna change names. A second. All right, I've been moved by myself, seconded by Dr. Waters, council official. As you may remember last week, I suggested we put that into help for housing for people who are gonna be foreclosed on. We have a lot of money coming from the federal government for business help. And I'm concerned that we're going to be spending money from council contingency funds for businesses rather than individuals. I'm just wondering about the wisdom of that because individuals are the ones who make up the business. They are the ones who produce the goods and the services. And if they don't have a roof over their heads, the business isn't gonna get very far. But I did say that I would go with what you suggested, Harold, so. So if I can answer that question, part of why we're saying it is because we do have funds via health and human service funding, CDBG funding that are allocated for that purpose. I'm gonna get to a different set of questions related to additional funding opportunities that we have in terms of how we look at this in the future. All right, there's a motion and a second. Council Member Martin. Marsha Newton. Keeps coming and going. I wanted to understand, you know, we have a number of measures in place to keep people from getting evicted, right? We're not doing evictions now. And Barha, for example, is producing plans to work with, for landlords to use, to work out repayment plans with tenants. So are we sure that we are gonna need additional eviction support? I mean, it seems like it's too soon to tell. Harold, a question that I'd like to ask is, is that if we allocate to a certain fund now and then we find out that we have anticipated incorrectly for these different emergency funds, are we gonna be able to move money from one to another or is it stuck there if we guess wrong? I think if I have the ability to move it based on the need, we can do that based on what we're seeing in real time. Okay, and then if that's the case, is there a need to allocate it now? Is it a business confidence measure or what's the reason for doing it now? Because we need to have the ability to understand generally what the pool of money is that we have available. So today we only have $60,000 available for the business grants in terms of what we've already per funded. This would actually just add $30,000 to it, which would bring that total to 90,000. And so that gives us clarity in terms of what we're actually able to do. And the other emergency funds, do you, or I guess you said you're gonna bring that back at a future date. Is this the lowest fund? That's why you wanna help it first? Correct, and I think the issue that council has to keep in mind when we talk about the emergency funds is when Jim talked about the budget deficit that we're gonna have, because we have to at the same time manage our own internal financing structures so that we can cover the economic impact that we're gonna have from a reduction in sales tax. And so a lot of those funds that you're thinking about in terms of emergency funds, we're gonna need internally just to make sure that we can continue our operations on an ongoing basis. All right, let's go ahead and take a vote. If we don't see any other hands go up. All right, the motion is to apply $30,000 from council contingency funds to the business assistance grant pursuant to Harold's recommendation. All in favor say aye. All right. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimous. And so the final point that I have to go over with you all and this is touching on council member Christensen's question about what we can do in terms of the individual assistance category. We know that there's going to be some additional CDBG funding going to entitlement communities of which we are one. And we're still churning through this into council member Peck's point. We want to move through quickly so we can have what we need in place. And so generally, if you think about the CDBG world, there's different components in terms of what you can and can't do of which everything that we've talked about in terms of a business assistance and an individual assistance can qualify in different ways. Obviously based on what our experience was with traditional CDBG funds and DR funds, you have low mod income requirements that you have to hit in this, but we need to get a plan churning and out for public comment. And so as we were talking about this in terms of and this is not talking about how much we're going to allocate, it's just really what can we use it for and working that with staff, we really identified two components, business assistance and individual assistance. On the business assistance, when we said what are we really trying to look for, one is to prevent permanent closure, two to reduce and eliminate layoffs and three is position businesses to resume full operations as soon as possible. Because as we talk about this and as we're evaluating it, if people are churning through trying to keep people in full of it, and you get into a moment to where then they need to resume capital to try to do that. So on the business assistance side, that is the general parameters that we were talking about. On the individual assistance side, that's changing a little bit in this, well, not changing, there's other categories, but we're also looking at how do we how do we keep people housed? Council Member Christensen's component is we need to make sure we don't have people become unhoused in this. How do we keep individuals and families financially solvent? We don't want people to take a lot huge leaps backwards. We want to really stabilize them during this period. And then many of the other things that you all have in your normal CDBG plan in terms of, and you can see this tied into housing rental assistance and just how we help folks generally. The other component that's starting to come in that we're trying to look at is really from a housing authority component in terms of, again, ties to keeping people housed, but then there may be some other opportunities for funding for the housing authority that will tie to this. And so my question to Council on this is in order for us to get this process started, does this really seem like how you all would want us to look at this in terms of staff, in terms of the individual assistance and the business assistance. We will then have to come back to you all and talk about how we load that funding into the, in terms of percentages going to each category, but we needed to start somewhere. All right, I see everyone nodding their heads. Does anyone not agree? Raise your hand if you don't agree. All right, you have Council consensus unanimously, Harold, move forward. Okay. All right, Ian. That's all I have. I just want to kind of end with this to say, are there any general questions or comments to me regarding the process we're going through and how we're operating? So I'll start there. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. Maybe just a statement and then a question, Harold. We get a lot. There's a lot of incoming email, as we all know, from folks who are concerned about what's going to happen and as they see the social safety kind of eroding. So I guess just a statement is, I hope people are listening tonight. I think we're recording this and what you just shared, I think is a powerful testimony to what the city staff is doing to look across the range of needs in this community, both on the business and the individual human need side, terms of housing and whatnot. So number one, I just want to say, I had a thumbs up, kudos for the work you're all doing. I think it's just pretty extraordinary. Number two, what do you need from us? All right, you've talked about, you guys are, it's a full court press for you. We talked earlier tonight about making a clear statement from this council a book of support for what the city's doing, but our support of what the governor has said and the need to stay disciplined in our approach now in terms of social distancing and honoring the guidance that we've received from scientific and health experts. What else do you need from us? So actually, we're gonna start hitting you all with some things. And so one is, I know that Longmont Public Media via our contract has asked for statements. I think some of you all have chose to do that. Others, we're gonna really want you all to do that, to continue getting messages out to our community. Again, as you look at it, in terms of short-term, mid-term, long-term, short-term is I'm gonna keep reiterating this. Stay home if you don't need to go out. If you need to go out, make sure we're supporting our local businesses. You know, I say this a lot. We're benefiting from it too in terms of our tax revenue and how that supports the organization. But if you don't need to go out, stay home. You know, we, I will say that we had really good response from the community in many ways when we were unfortunately closing parks and doing things, but there were occasions where that wasn't as positive. And the one thing I would say is just help us really encourage the community to understand that when the individuals on the park's cruise are out doing this work, I mean, they understand the inconvenience that it causes, but we just want folks to abide by the orders that the governor has issued. And we don't like it doing it, doing that any more than they do, but you know, we have to do it and just realize that these are people too when we have those interactions. That's a big piece. I think when I look at any type of challenge and we move forward, I tend to do a couple of things. One, I get, I try to get focused on what do we need to do now to deal with the situation, but then look into the future to go, how can we position ourselves in a stronger place than we were at the beginning? And I will take you all to the flood and go, if you look at us today and you look at us where we were, and granted, it's not the same situation. This is a much larger impact or stronger. Out of every challenge, there's opportunity. And so I try to balance a couple of things and you all helping with this and communicating this is, we know where we are today and we know what the concerns are. How do we turn this into, where do we want to be in the future and how do we move through this collectively? Again, it's gonna sound a lot like it did Wednesday. We can only get through this collectively and that means every one of the members of our organization, you all and every member of our community and frankly, at a much larger level, every member of the, you know, every resident of the state coming together as we do this. This is an unprecedented challenge, but if we're good at one thing, we are all really good at taking these challenges head on and doing really well. And I have complete confidence that we can do that collectively. And so I think, you know, really that kind of message. Somebody asked me, they go, are you afraid? And I said, I am. And I said, but my job is to understand it and understand what we're dealing with and then hopefully to the best of my ability be fearless as we're doing this and stay calm. And so I know a lot of people go, you're like really calm. And I think that's what I have to do for me. And I just hope I'm providing what you won't need in this. All right, Harold. I think we speak for everybody doing a great job. So far, the resolution to have you in charge seems to be working well. So please continue, save us all. And it will be well rewarded, I guess. I don't know. All right. All right, let's move on to the consent agenda. I'm just gonna go ahead and read it down. If you don't mind, it's right here. I'm just gonna blaze through it. So item eight A. Hey, mayor. Yep, go ahead. No problem, but we need to do public invited. Ah, that's true. Sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, I didn't see you on here. So I didn't know what. So you can do the consent agenda. Now that I see you, let's read out again. What are you doing? Public invited to be heard. People were asked some comments in writing. So let's go for it. I'm gonna talk to you. Mayor, the city's gonna read these. Yes, Sandy Cedar, assistant city manager, Joni and I are gonna take some turns because there are quite a few. So I'm gonna go ahead and read it as if the person is here. First one is from Lisa Miller from 1272 Hummingbird Circle. And here's the comment. I'm strongly urging Mr. Bagley and all city administrators to take this pandemic with the utmost seriousness, prioritizing health over money. We can get by without paying rent. We can get by in rice and beans, but we cannot get by with the hospitals and our community members dying in the hallway waiting for ventilators. I am attaching linear and logarithmic graphs that depict the start and the progress of the Colorado NUS. We need to stay home and we need non-essential businesses to remain closed to continue this progress that requires support from city leadership. No more comments and bad taste. And we're making staff work in the memorial building when taxpayer dollars have been paid for a laptop. Can everyone hear me okay? Okay, great. Next one comes from Steven Grace. 658 St. Andrews Drive. It is disgusting that the mayor said such nonsense on the meeting, claiming the economic hardship from the social distancing and isolation of the closing of non-essential businesses, temporarily mind you, is far worse than the pandemic. For someone who has an economic background, if that's even true, he is woefully ignorant on it by disregarding experts in epidemiology and medical professionals that will cause a bigger burden on the economy. If enough people get sick, they won't work either way. And if they do work when they're sick, they can infect others and cause their way worse economic downturn if we follow that advice. Governor Polis has shown in his briefings that social distancing and stay-at-home orders are starting to show the flattening of the curve. Even in the Bay Area in California, it's showing that this is working to slow the spread. Mayor, keep your comments that you have made. It makes Longmont look terrible. I suggest that you read some science books on epidemiology, pathogens, general medicine, because you're showing the ignorance of a scientist of a week, a year, and one who does not base their decisions and comments on data about how they feel in the heat of the moment. I suggest you take a 14-day self-isolation vacation and disconnect yourself from internet TV and read a science book. The next person is Anthony Ingram. He is 1757 Drake Street. We are in an existential crisis on a global scale and we need strong leadership to navigate through this. Our leaders need to ensure that they take a level of an educated efforts to their actions and not allow their personal issues to cloud their judgment. All the members of the city council should reflect on their personal boundaries. Mayor Bagley's recent outburst was an excellent example of personal issues having a negative impact on someone's judgment and decision-making. If any members feel unable to execute their duties in a fair level headed and objective manner, they should consider taking a leave of absence or resigning. For leadership in a time of crisis like this will result in long-term community damage, erosion of the institution you represent, and most importantly, lives lost needlessly. There is no easy or painless solution but we should be educating ourselves as much as possible and prioritizing human lives above all else. Thank you. Next one is from Britney Scafe. 1522 Lincoln Street in Walmart. Regarding Mayor Bagley's fit in my mouth comment, being newish to the community, my impression is that Bagley was in the middle of the road because he was charismatic. There have been many city council meetings where I cringe at quick remarks. This takes the cake I even voted for Bagley in the last election. Who he on me for not having learned about his character prior to voting or for him meeting a pandemic to show history colors. I've been here almost a year in Love Longmont. One of my goals with moving here was to strive to shop local businesses whenever possible. I love so many of the local shops, restaurants, breweries, and I want them to be around after COVID-19, hopefully fizzles out. But my message is that I will love and support these businesses through the pandemic without downplaying the severity of the situation and without putting myself in a necessary list. Quite a complete bummer to be served by someone who is so tone deaf and thinks it's okay and defensible to speak the way that he does, even ingest. I don't want these businesses to close for people to be out of jobs, but I would also like to curb the pandemic and that's my priority. Mayor Bagley, I ask that you be more thoughtful in your language and reactions regarding COVID-19. Work in a position of power and influence and the jokes and sarcasm have real impact. The next one is from Chris Hickman. Well, 25 Ken Pratt Boulevard. While I understand the mayor's frustrations, his complaints and rants are meaningless and less has a better idea that could both protect residents and the economy till he is willing to give us those ideas, maybe he can stop embarrassing Longmont, making us look like a hillbilly bump into the rest of the world. If not, I know quite a few people who are willing to make his wish come true if he prefers. Next one is from Aaron Sorenson, 2130 Spencer Street. I am utterly appalled that Mr. Bagley's comments regarding our current and shared experience as this disease spreads and we begin to lose friends and family members as inshumane comments were put in an outmoded and irredeemably cynical view of the world. If humanitarianism is the mark of decency, then the mayor has failed remarkably. I can only hope that we are presented better options than a libertarian, dense, Bagley or a stupid child. I can't remember his name, but you know who I'm talking about. For our next election, let's do better Longmont. Next one is from Camille, Milla Wilson, 4202 DaVinci Drive, Longmont. I was disappointed to hear of the attitude recently displayed by the mayor with regard to COVID-19 outbreak and restrictions we are all asked to be, to all being asked to live by. It's obvious he did not literally mean that he wanted someone to infect him with a tabular attitude, sarcasm and negativity towards public health officials. I'm called for and in the term, our city is better than that, our citizens deserve respectful, responsible leadership. We are all concerned and struggling with an unknown at this time and we all have human fault. I get that and I can forgive a mayor for saying something he didn't potentially mean. This is the reason I became even more concerned that he defended his comments and challenge rather than humbly recognizing his attitude as being irresponsible. He doubled down on those statements as dangerous and just went wrong and I think he owes the community a public apology. An apology to all of us who are stressed, worried and concerned about the financial health and physical health of the president. I try every day to be respectful and humble and admit my mistakes, bottom line of the behavior I want for the next generation to have and I would at least expect that much from my elected officials. Next one is from Julie Steenberg. 1112 Collier Street. It's coming to us directed towards the mayor your tabular attitude towards the lives of our constituents will not be forgotten on re-election time. Should you recall it immediately, the fact that you are more worried about the bottom line than life will not be, will be remembered. I for one will be screaming it from the rooftops and I know that I will not be alone. Your comments, it means we will not forget. One through 10, so Joni's gonna take it from this point. Mayor and council, starting with the next comment from Eric Johnson at 1526 Cedarwood Drive. The mayor is irresponsible, does not understand the current problem of coronavirus. You may well have said, let them all die. My mother is in that group of highly vulnerable people. She has been courageously fighting cancer for two long years. So should we just let her die so your business can keep going without responding to a global pandemic? I certainly won't be voting for you in the next election. Adios. Next is Jesse Walsh at 413 Cleveland, Loveland, Colorado. You made it clear the economy is more important to you than the lives of Colorado citizens. You're a fast talker and you talked your way into a conundrum. The people will remember these comments of yours and you will never be reelected. Therefore, the only thing for you to do is to resign immediately. Next is Matthew Hale, 1475 Clover Creek Drive in Longmont. Mayor Bagley should be ashamed of his comments. This is a man supposed to lead us through a crisis. I think you should travel to New York City, Chicago, New Orleans or Detroit and let's just try it. You're a pathetic person and it's sad that you're a leader in this wonderful community. Next, Adam Isaacs, 4734 Cortifino Drive in Longmont. The mayor's comments were disturbing and horrifying in times such as these. He should be removed from his position for a lack of ability to lead the community. He is not an epidemiologist. He is not a doctor and he does not even seem to be informed on a basic level. 0.05% of 1% of us will die is so far from the truth that I wonder if he's living in the same world as us. I am expressing my true and utter distaste for his handling of the situation. Next is Zach Turner at 316 Baker Street in Longmont. Mayor Bagley's recent remarks at a city council meeting regarding his opinion that COVID-19 should not require a quarantine because it's a disease that kills 0.05 and 1% of us should not be put above the economy. First of all, his figures are simply incorrect. The mortality rate is closer to 1%. 1% mortality would mean that 1,000 long monsters dead. Are you prepared to tell the city that the economy is more important than 1,000 residents? Secondly, his callous remark, I want someone to come and spit in my mouth so I can go to the hospital now because I'm not going to die, demonstrates the fundamental lack of understanding of public health and shows the mayor puts the economy above the well-being of residents of the Longmont. Mayor Bagley, you deserve to be removed from office. If you continue with your magical thinking, you've shown that you refused to uphold the office of the mayor for your failure to do so. Next is Gregory Hansen at 506 Tucson Street in Aurora, Colorado. I just watched the live stream from last night's council meeting. The mayor of Longmont has to be the most illiterate person I've ever met to claim business is greater than saving lives is incorrect. I'm calling for the immediate removal. Making uninformed statements like his makes our entire state look bad. Next comment is from Brooke McCloney, McCloney who is at 2450 Airport Road, apartment K1107 here in Longmont. I desperately hope that our state government does not put economics above health and even life or death of its population. Please, please continue to enforce stay-at-home orders for the state. Please encourage people to cut down more on their trips out of the home. We understand that this is our way of fighting right now to shrink our daily lives in order to protect each other from this terrifying virus. You are meant to let him protect us. Please do not put the dollar ahead of life and safety. Next comment is from Jim Wise at 2195 Tula Rosa Lane in Longmont. I would like Mayor Bagley to answer why he believes that he knows more than the epidemiologists around the world who are advocating for the opposite of his position. Further, I would like him to convince me that our economy is worth more than a single one of my family members. And finally, I'd like him to know I have voted for him in every single election that he has ran for and I will actively encourage votes in his opposition the next round. What this situation demands in response is more than that. Next comment is from Jay Perez. On Atwood Street, in Longmont, I am ashamed of our mayor and his recent behavior. I sure will not be voting for you next time. Not only were your comments unprofessional, but encourage false information to the public and prioritize the economy over the lives of human beings. Your mask is gone, sir, and you showed how little you care and how much you care for the economy. Say in some 1% death rate is false, even the CDC says 3% minimum. Let's see, next up comment is from Willow McGinty at 518 Sierra Avenue here in Longmont. I'm extremely disappointed in Mayor Brian Bagley's comments regarding the stay-at-home order. The stay-at-home order is not to protect you, Mr. Mayor. This order is to protect my family, my grandfather, my father, my sisters and their children, all of whom live in your town. Do my family a favor and stay home. With that, I will pass it back to Sandy for the next 10. Thanks, Joni. So the next one is Julie Steenberg. Nope, sorry, I already read that one. Eduardo Rodriguez. I don't live in Longmont, however I do live in the great state of Colorado and have been here for most of my life. It's extremely disturbing to see the mayor of Longmont stooped to the intellectual levels of the president and also display meager leadership, especially in regards to COVID-19. The mayor's comments, no one is doubting the economy will be impacted further. Everyone is already hurting economically and some health-wise. Do you have a background in public health? True leader listens, asks questions and takes into account all input from everybody, but especially those smarter than them in their respective field. Why is it that most people critical of the severity of the virus are heavily concerned with people's health in the long term? It's already here. It's already affecting people's health and it's already taking a life in Colorado. How are you going to worry about your health and your freedoms tomorrow if you are dead today? This denial played out on a national level at the start of the year. I'm looking right at his kindness. We in the state of Colorado should be grateful the mayor, Brian Bagley should be grateful. And we hope that we do not see nor experience levels similar to other US cities such as New York City. Effective leadership is one way to prevent it. Stay safe, residents of Longmont. Seth Meyers, 219 Pratt Street. I'm really disappointed by the mayor's consideration of the lives of his constituents in the video that has now gone viral to his defense of his position. I realize he is probably terrified that he's going to lose money as a result of this, but I want him to be a courageous leader who trusts science in places more value on human lives and on stock portfolio. I was at one with the last mayoral debates. I was one at the last mayoral debates and Mayor Bagley, Brian, we had Jerry Foulos, the person of South Island, maybe he could speak about him. And the next one is from Michael S, 945-1. Embarrassing, I just moved into Longmont last year and have been loving this city so far. The video is atrocious, so many things wrong with what was said. I'm not going to argue points here, but what was said is dangerous and very immature. I would expect from a mayor, more from a mayor, such a great city, and I'm making this city my home for a long time and I would appreciate having someone who can have an open and mature discussion with everyone rather than climbing on a soap box and ranting on them. You want someone to come in, spit in your mouth because you are going to die. Many people are getting sick and then they have died, this is a big room and disrespectful. Some people have compromised immune systems and medical issues that they did not choose. I'm glad you feel confidently in your ability to fight the virus. One is Matthew Kajowski, 832 Lincoln Street. 832 Lincoln Street. Mayor Bagley is a disgrace to the amazing city of Longmont. His statements at the last city council meeting show his ineptitude. You should resign immediately and go focus on the business that he obviously cares about for them to find hard working or we're thinking residents of Longmont. The next one is from Beth Denton, 1803 Emory Street. Mayor Bagley's comments about the stay at home order are irresponsible and inexcusable. Families like mine are relying on people to stay at home and flatten the curve to the high risk individuals may face. Our health and our lives are not worth sacrificing for Longmont's economy on for Mayor Bagley's political points for him. Longmont deserves better leadership and a better example during this crisis. Next one is from Tamara Graff, 629 Stonebridge. I was appalled to hear Mayor Brian Bagley's disregard for the public health protection put into place by the only orders to stay at home. I'm new to this community and so proud to be here but was not happy with his behavior. I will gladly be voting Mr. Bagley out of office system as possible. It's clear to me that the vitality of this business is a higher priority than the health and wellness of the entire community. Jim Keel, 459 Westview Court. Now there is a huge apartment complex off the preckridge avenue that means to cut out the buses and stop at the Walmart. Traffic currently has to violate the yellow line to enter oncoming traffic and get around the park buses. This endangers the driving public. This would be a valuable addition instead of spending our traffic dollars on roundabouts and dividers. Next one is from Lori Stanley. 1015, long to be coming. Members of city council, thank you for your hard work during the coronavirus pandemic. I am ready to inquire about the status and review of your ADU requirements. Specifically the setbacks as discussed in the city council meeting in fall of 2019. Please know I realize that you have a lot to discuss regarding coronavirus and I'm respectful of your need to focus on this. However, this topic is important in the long run and we do not want other households to be negatively impacted as we have due to a lack of foresight regarding five foot setback. Last one, Stanley toll, 2137 Dexter Drive. When is the city going to end section eight, housing discrimination in Longmont? Right now it's almost impossible for people with housing vouchers to obtain housing in Longmont due to landlords not accepting housing vouchers. The Longmont Housing Authority prints a list of landlords to call but when the people find out that the landlords do not accept housing vouchers. Right now most people with the housing vouchers in Longmont are losing their vouchers because they cannot find landlords who will accept housing vouchers. A lot of these people are senior citizens or people with disabilities. This is simply disgraceful but there are people that have to remain homeless because of this discrimination, particularly now when their lives are endangered by the COVID pandemic. What's the last one? Thanks, Mayor. Ouch, okay, thank you. All right, let's go ahead and let's take just a five minute break. Is that all right? Got your legs. We'll just leave it running. Okay, everybody mute. Thanks. That's the five. Looks like we're just waiting on Joan and we're gonna go in. Here, I just had my video turned off. All right, let's go ahead and move on to consent agenda and introduction and reading by title of first reading of ordinances. Don Quintana, can you start with A&A and please start, please? You bet. Ordinance, 2020-17, a bill for an ordinance approving a farmland lease agreement between the city of Longmont and site farms LLC on the double six ranch open space, public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 14th, 2020. Ordinance, 2020-18, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brand Municipal Airport Hanger parcel H71, H72 and H73 to best feel LLC, public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 14th, 2020. 8C is resolution 2020-28, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city acting by and through its water utility enterprise, East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District acting on its own and on behalf of its East Cherry Creek Valley Water Activity Enterprise Inc., Arapaho County Water and Waste Water Authority and United Water and Sanitation District for a short term raw water exchange. Resolution 2020-29, resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city of Longmont and Boulder County for the lease of the Boulder County Fairgrounds for Rhythm on the River. Resolution 2020-30, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city of Longmont and the Colorado Department of Human Services Office of Behavioral Health for Contract Amendment Number Two for a grant funding the Co-responder Program for Longmont Public Safety and resolution 2020-31, a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and the state of Colorado for a state aviation grant for utility infrastructure at the Vance Brand Municipal Airport. All right, thank you. Do we have a motion to pass the consent agenda? I move passes to the consent agenda. I'll second. All right, that's moved by myself and was seconded by Council Member Hidalgo-Ferring saying that no one has anything to pull. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. All right, that passes unanimously. Let's move on to ordinances and on second reading and public hearings on any matter. First, it's nine, eight ordinance 22. I can't hear you. All right, hold on a second. There's a ghost that keeps muting us. It's all right, I got, I'm gonna try this. You guys hear me okay now? I'm not hearing you guys though. All right, when I read, I'll just, I can't hear you guys. Can you hear? Can you hear? I can hear over here, but I can't hear over this. Hold on. It may be your input. Can you hear me now? Can you hear? Just test. So I'll just read slow, okay? All right, nine, eight ordinance 2020-12 and ordinance authorizing the issuance of the City of Longmont Enterprise Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds, series 2020. Per federal requirements, real-time public comment will be allowed for this item only. Residents wishing to speak during the public hearing on ordinance 2020-12 need to go to www.youtube.com, forward slash C, forward slash City of Longmont, forward slash live and call 303-651-8647. Again, 303-651-8647. So we'll go ahead and wait about 60 seconds to see if anybody calls in. All right, Don, have we got anybody? Mayor, I do have a call, just a moment. Good, sounds good. Mayor, the caller is our city attorney, Eugene May, verifying that this method worked. So I'm just gonna put my phone so you can hear him. All right, Don, can you just go ahead and translate, tell us what he's saying? He's saying he just, I can't put him on speaker all of a sudden. He's saying he's calling in to make sure that this method works. All right, so seeing that it worked, no one called other than our city attorney. Let's go ahead. Are there any questions from council? All right, none. We're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing. Can I have one more moment? I had another miss. Can I just try this other number? Absolutely. Eugene was on the line just a moment. My apologies. Mayor, I have someone for you. Go ahead and state your name for the record. About 108.04 summer house. I just want to support Mayor Batley for his comments because we cannot keep a client in the room with the nuclear bomb. Thank you very much. Anyway, that didn't have, I don't know what she said, but revenue bonds, correct? I don't think she had anything to say about the revenue bond actually. Okay, all right, we'll move on then. There's no other calls and no other comments we'll receive. All right, cool. All right, then let's go ahead and close the public invited to be heard. I'm sorry, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this matter. Council Member Christensen. Okay, I'm looking here at the debt service requirements of the city and we have 54, pretty much 54 and a half million dollars and I guess I would like to hear from Jim Golden that he thinks this is, I mean, I know we have to do this because we have to keep up our water system, but I'm really worried about doing this at this point of time. However, if we wait to do this till next year, it'll just be more expensive. So I guess I would like some comment by the city manager or by Jim Golden. Jim, you gonna take it? Sure, can you hear me? Yeah, thank you, Jim. Okay, this Jim Golden, Chief Financial Officer, Mayor Bagley, members of council. This actually is a refinancing of an existing bond issue. This is not new money. So what we will be doing, accomplishing by doing this is lowering the amount of debt service we're paying currently. Thank you, Jim, that's, I forgot about that. Thank you for reminding me about that. That gives me a great deal more confidence, thanks. Okay. Let's go ahead and vote. We have a motion for 90. All right, I'll second it. All right, we have a motion on the floor to pass ordinance 2020-12 and ordinance authorizing the influence of the city of Longmont Enterprise revenue refunding bond mark, series 2020. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say no. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Item 9B, ordinance 2020-13, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brand Municipal Airport Hangar, parcel H-18 to Richard D. Sykes. Ms. Quintana, did we receive any written correspondence pertaining to the public hearing on this? Mayor, no, we did not receive any comments on this item. All right, then we'll go ahead and open and subsequent close the public hearing on ordinance 2020-13. Any questions or comments from council? All right, let's go ahead and ask for a motion. I move ordinance 2020-13. Second. All right, that's been moved by Dr. Waters, seconded by council member Christensen. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. The motion passes unanimously. Ordinance 2020-14, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brand Municipal Airport Hangar, parcel H-18C to Zulu LLC. Are there any questions from council? All right, Don Quintana, so you have any comments regarding public hearing on ordinance 2020-14? No comments on this item, either, Mayor. All right, then we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and close the public hearing on ordinance 2020-14. Council member Peck. I move ordinance 2020-14. Second. All right, that's been moved by council member Peck, seconded by council member Martin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, ordinance 2020-14 passes unanimously. Item 9D, ordinance 2020-15, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brand Municipal Airport Hangar, parcel H-7, H-8, H-9 and H-10. Any questions from council? Council member McKinley, that does sound cool, doesn't it? City Clerk Quintana, did we get any comments regarding on this matter? No comments were received on this matter, Mayor. All right, we'll go ahead and open and then subsequently close the public hearing on this matter then. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Item 9E, ordinance 2020-16, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont. Mr. Mayor? Yes. Was there a motion? Let's make sure, was there a motion? No. Passage. All right. Okay. I move passage. All right. Somebody second. Okay. Ordinance 2020-15. No, we should vote again. Now that there's a motion, okay. Ordinance 2020-15, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont. So many reasons for this, Grand Municipal Airport, Hangar Parcels, known as H7, H9, and H10. As sent into date, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Council Member Martin. All right, ordinance 2020-16, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Advanced Brand Municipal Airport, Hangar Parcel, H68 to four dots, LLC. Any questions or comments from Council? No. What on? Do you see any public hearing comments? No Mayor, no comments received on this item. All right. We'll go ahead and open and subsequently close the public hearing then. Do we have a motion? Council Member Martin. I move passage. Joan, do you want to second that? Sure, second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, passes unanimously. Let's move on to item 11. We've already handled 11A, the COVID-19 emergency items for consideration. Let's move on to 11B, the 2020 legislative bills recommended for city council position. Ms. Cedar, are you around? I sure am Mayor Bagley. So I am taking a look at these. These are the ones that should have been at your meeting on March 17th. There are two of them. And essentially, I'm clear what's gonna happen with the legislature at this point. They have temporarily adjourned until today and then they said they were gonna do essential business. We would say that essential business will likely be things like the budget and things that have to pass in order to continue state operations. But just in case they pick these last couple ones up, I just thought I'd bring them for your official position. So the first one is House Bill 2013-32, concerning prohibitions on discrimination and housing based on the source of income. This bill basically adds discrimination based on source of income as a type of unfair housing practice. There are lots of different pieces in the bill and something that actually Council Member Waters pointed out a little earlier today is that there are some that will conflict with your inclusionary housing ordinance, but at the same time, we'll actually afford these folks more protection than your ordinance does today. And so in Kathy's opinion, it makes sense to support this bill, House Bill 2013-32. The next one, which is Senate Bill 2189 is concerning provisions that preempt a local government authority to regulate the use of pesticides within local government jurisdiction. The people or pollinators group, and Laugmahn asked me to bring this bill for your consideration. It basically would give local control on the types of pesticides being used in parks and in cities essentially gives local control for that. Our parks folks are kind of mixed about this mostly because they're unsure as to whether every municipality has a whole lot of expertise in pesticides, but the pollinators assure me that there's lots of information out there to be able to help folks. So that doesn't have a recommendation for city council, but the people for pollinators are requesting the city council support and it bill 2189 due to the council support for environmental sustainability. I can't hear you. Let's go with Councillor Christensen. Sorry, it's getting dark. I think that we should support HB201332 because it is exactly partly what Stanley Toll was talking about in that section eight vouchers are not being accepted. And there are a number of things, why this is a good bill. And I believe CML also supports it. And I would also be in support of Senate bill 2189 on the pollinators. I don't really like state camsions on anything. I think it should be because these are almost invariably said about by not by individuals or municipalities, but by special interest groups. Somehow I'm getting a lot of feedback, but anyway. So I would vote for supporting that bill on local control over pesticides, but I do see what the city parks is talking about in that you don't want a patchwork of state regulations on pesticides. However, it does seem to me that that would be a better thing to have local control over. So Paulie just out of curiosity, are you moving that we actually follow the staff's recommendation? Yes, well, I'm on the one concerning discrimination and housing based on source of income. And I would, staff doesn't have a recommendation on the pollinators thing or the pesticides thing, but I would recommend that we support this. Is that a motion? Yes, I would move. I think we should do them both at different times. Do one and do the other. I move that we support HB201332 concerning prohibitions on discrimination in the housing based on source of income. We have a second. Second. All right, Councilman Martin. Yeah, regarding source of income bill, I would just like to say that I have been in communication with the city attorney regarding a local ordinance and I have had it brought to my attention that Longmont should pass that local ordinance about sources of income. So we'll be considering it if the state does not pass it. I think it would just be in everybody's best interest that the state passes it and saves us the trouble. So I will vote for it. You're muted, Brian. There's a motion on the table by Councilman Christensen, seconded by Councilman Martin to support the prohibition bill based on source of someone's income source. In favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Pollinator bill. I move that we support pollinator bill. Second. Dr. Waters. Was there a second to that? Yes. Okay. There was. I just a question for Sandy or somebody who may be closer to the bill. Given, going back to our discussions about fumatoxin and prairie dogs and what we could or couldn't do because of preemption of the state, does this lift that as well? Or is this narrowly just for pollinators? No. That's a question. That's besides. Council Member Waters, Cindy Cedar, Assistant City Manager. That's a really good question. I actually don't know that answer. It did not come up as part of the staff. Taking a look at the bill either, but my guess is that it's probably either very similar. If it does anything, it would give us more control over that. Yeah, well, if it does, that would be a two for it, right? We would be something for our pollinators and create some options for us or a whole different approach to what we could do in the issue of prairie dogs without having to try to create some kind of tricky disincentive or incentive to not use fumatoxin. So I hope for this. Yes. All right. In favor say, I'm sorry, Council Member Martin. I would just like to also say that although I appreciate the staff's concern that there will still be state level regulations and some municipalities that do not feel they have the expertise to legislate on it could just abstain from doing so and be regulated by the state. So that's a good read. I think that's, we should support it there. All right. All in favor say, I. All right. I. All opposed say, nay. All right. The motion passes unanimously. All right. This may be my last update. We'll see what happens with the legislature, but I'll certainly keep you informed. All right. We'll go ahead and skip. Final call public invited to be heard as we read them all I believe unless you want to read them again. You won't do that. All right. Mayor and council comments. Anybody have any? Thank you, Mayor Bagley. We've been getting a couple of letters from constituents that Hobby Lobby is not closing because they are not, they are not a non-essential, I'm sorry, they are a non-essential business. Do we have any, I guess this is a question for Eugene or Harry. Do we have any authority at all to make them comply? So what I can tell you is that the health departments are working on that at a statewide level because it's not just long month. And I know that CDPHG and the governor's office and I believe the attorney general is engaged in that conversation. Thank you. I have one comment and it has to do with our air quality. If you go out to boulderair.com and look at our air quality monitoring system, our VOCs are way, way, way, way out of line. And since we have been staying inside, there's not as much traffic. I am going to work with Dr. Detlef to find out why this air quality on the VOCs is so high and way past the EPA standards. And the reason I bring this up is because we are, these affect lungs, people who have asthma, people have COPD, et cetera, et cetera. So I've had three or four phone calls from people wanting to know why they're so high. So just for the public, I am going to be working with Dr. Detlef to see if he can get to some kind of resolution as to what's causing this. So thank you, that's it. All right, you're a council member, Christian. Yeah, somehow I, you blank, your voice blanks out, Brian, which is hard to believe, but anyway. So I do have a little bit of information because I wrote to Chief Butler today concerning the Hobby Lobby situation because of several emails I'd gotten and because of the article in the Times Call. And here's what he said. We're aware of the circumstances involving Hobby Lobby. The state's attorney general's office is investigating these circumstances. In general, Boulder County Public Health is the county government agency that will be ensuring compliance with the governor's executive order enacted on March 25th. If and when the Boulder County Public Health Department cannot resolve any issue, they will call the local police department in the city in which there is an alleged violation. At that point in time, if the violation is in Longmont, Longmont police would be called by Boulder County Health to assist. Longmont police will respond to these cases. Anyway, so that is the communication I got from Chief Butler. And I want to thank everybody for everybody being patient with each other in these strange circumstances of us trying to do these meetings online when our voices blank out and we can't tell what's going on. But anyway, I appreciate everybody's patience with each other. Once again, we'll get through all this and it'll be all right. There have been like 20 pandemics in the last 100 years. We get through them. But we need to stay inside so that this does not keep recurring and that we move it down the line. Everybody stay inside, wash your hands, fill out the census. You've got a lot of time on your hands, fill out the census. It's how we get representation and federal money. Everybody take care. Stay with us. Councilman Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I just would like to say I've seen an awful lot of cooperation, health, help and generous spirit among our people. I've been trying to move information around online to help people get what they need or offer what they have to offer. And it's just been a wonderful experience. And I want to thank all the people of Longmont for really pitching in and doing their part. So thank you, everybody. Anybody else? All right, I guess the only comment I have is I heard the public comments. Just make no mistake. I love this town, I'm the best I can and want to make sure that we all get out of this in the back end. So that's all I'm trying to do. So all right, with that, Harold, anything? No comments, Mayor Council. Eugene is not on the line, correct? Eugene is on the line. All right, does he have any comments? No comments, Mayor. All right, great. With that, we're adjourned.