[music]
You know you [music]
are you.
Hey,
[music] hey, hey.
» [music]
[music]
>> Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
» [music]
» Huh?
» [music]
[music]
» Hey,
hey, hey.
Heat. Hey, Heat.
Heat.
» [music]
[music]
» Heat. Hey, Heat. [music]
[music]
Heat.
[music]
Hey. Hey. Hey.
» [music]
[music]
» Do
you
[music] feel
you?
» [music]
» Mhm.
[music]
» [music]
» Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
[music]
Heat. Heat.
down. Come around.
Heat. Heat.
» [music]
[music] >> Huh?
» [music]
» Hey.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey,
hey.
Do we have everyone here? Okay. I would I would I now would like to call the
February 24th, 2026 Longmont City Council regular session to order. The
live stream of this meeting can be viewed at the city's YouTube channel,
longpublicdia.org. org/watch
or on Comcast channels 8 or 880. Uh, can we start with a roll call, please?
» Um, Mayor Hogering, >> present.
» Mayor Prom McCoy, >> present.
» Council member Christ, >> present.
» Council member Colulfer, >> present.
» Council member Marcen, >> here.
» Council member Popkin, >> here. And
» council member Pto. >> Mayor, you have a quorum. Great. Let's
stand for the pledge.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
In accordance with the council's rules of procedure, the rules for public
comment are as follows. Only Longmont residents and employees of the city of
Longmont may speak during first call public invited to be heard. You must
provide your address at the signup sheet before the meeting or I will not call
your name. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. Anyone may speak on
second reading or a public hearing item and you are asked to add your name to
the speaker list for the specific item before the meeting. Anyone may speak
during final call public invited to be heard. Well, this one's several pages.
Okay. Members of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar, and
abusive language, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with
orderly function of the council. Um, may I have a um motion to approve the
February 10th, 2026 regular session minutes? Okay. The motion has been made
by um Mayor Prom McCoy. Do I have a second?
» Second. >> Okay. And so that's been seconded by
Council Member Marcen. Are there any questions
or comments? And I can't see Popkin on mine. Where is he at?
» Oh, yeah. I see it. >> Okay. Well, then let's go ahead and
vote.
Are you going to have to do a verbal vote?
» I'm a yay. Let's do a verbal. >> Okay. So, all those in favor say I.
» I. >> Okay. All those opposed. So, the motion
carries uh unanimously. Um now we're on to agenda revisions and
submissions of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda
items to future agendas. Um, do we have any agenda revisions for tonight,
Michelle? >> Yes, mayor. Um, items 9A and 9B had
revised council communications added at 12:20 today. Um, and then item 12 C is
going to be removed from tonight's agenda. Uh, we have a ill staff member,
so that will be brought back next week. >> Okay,
that Okay. And then before I start calling folks, I do have an item I would
like to bring forward. Um, this is in regard to the airport advisory board.
Um, I've been having some reservations and I'm even thinking about how I'm
going to play this out. Um, just thinking about impacts to transportation
if we um, we we had previously made a motion to um, have TAP
take on the airport advisory board. um in kind of mulling that over the last
week or so as well as watching the last few um airport advisory boards, I uh
meetings, I just I just feel like, you know, we're
looking for an outcome before we really had a chance to
to weigh in all the options to really identify what is the ongoing issue, what
what would be the best approach. And something that I've always appreciated
during my tenure on council is having very thoughtful council people who
who we you know before we just jump to an outcome that we are actually working
through the process and really defining what is it that we're trying to solve
what's the pro the issue that we're trying to resolve and really looking at
best approaches. So that being said, [laughter]
um you know, so that in an effort to define what the outcome should be, um I
would like to make a motion that we as a city council assume the responsibilities
of the airport advisory board. Um for the time being, [laughter]
um do I have a second? >> Second.
» Okay. And so the motion has been made by me and it has been seconded by Mayor
Prom. And I'd be happy to speak more to it if anyone had questions. Go ahead.
Um, Council Member Marcen, >> thank you so much, Mayor. I appreciate
the motion. And I think in the spirit of what you're trying to do, if I'm
understanding it correctly, is is take, you know, some some of the issue off of
TAP and put it onto us, right, as we try to navigate what is frankly a difficult
situation that that that we're in. And you know, I will speak very briefly
about the last airport advisory board meeting um and my um
frankly how how uh really difficult that was um for uh to to watch as a as a
community member and how unfortunate it was to see a member of that board um
make the choice that he did to publicly um mock another public official. That
was not something that I think is is within the professional standards of the
boards that we expect. So, as we consider the best practice, I think
» dissolution and moving forward with this on us, yes, as we navigate next steps
makes sense. So, I'm going to be supporting this motion.
» Okay. Um, yeah. And so, thank you for bringing that up. Um, you know, and it
was actually that individual's comments that brought this to me. You know, one
of the comments that was made was um that there's not really a sense of
direction coming from council to the airport advisory board. So, that really
spelled out for me that you know what, this issue isn't going to be resolved.
uh we're not going to be able to to meet the needs of the airport without having
defined us as a council really definitive um what we want, what our
goals and objectives are and how and have us be in the forefront of looking
at the master plan and um you know and just even looking at at what our um code
says, you know, what are the roles and responsibilities? Are those what we want
to continue with? do we need to clarify and um and change language in there? And
I think this would really give us the opportunity for us to delve deeply um as
a as a group to be able to to discuss and determine the direction moving
forward. Um council member Christ and then between Chris and Koffer Popkin had
his hand up. So okay, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um,
can you give me a sense of what practically that will look like? Are we
going to just become the airport advisory board on the days that they
meet? Are we going to just have discussions as a council? Um,
» to go forward, >> we would have a separate we would have a
separate set meeting. So, I I'm envisioning how we meet as a Longmont
Housing Authority. We meet on a separate a separate day, a separate time. Um,
» and then these would be with with the public so that they can still come and
talk. >> Yes. So it basically just
advisory board. >> Yes, we would be the airport advisory
board. It in an effort to to really delineate what is it that we want, what
are our goals and objectives and what what what do we expect from our um
volunteers? I mean they are volunteers and I appreciate you know and I have a
couple of people who are friends of mine and so it's it it is a hard decision
» but I'm also looking at what's the best interest of the whole
» as well as the airport as an as an institution itself.
» Yeah I like the spirit of this and that I think you know it means we need to
collaborate more and be be better leaders with our volunteers and we
appreciate our volunteers heartily. Um, so the it usually meets is it the first
Thursday of the month and so that's something we would add to the calendar.
I'm just I'm asking a practical question here.
» Not necessarily. I mean we can look at um maybe we're meeting quarterly to
start or maybe we're meeting monthly to start. I you know that's
» um >> depending on issues and
» depending on issues public demand. Yes. Yes.
» Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
» Uhhuh. Of course. Council member Popkin. Thank you, mayor. Um, I think this is a
I understand where you're going with this motion and I too had some
reservations about kind of the impact this would have on the transportation
advisory board, but I did think that the merits of the of Mayor Prom McCoyy's
motion uh last week deserved to be discussed and figure out the optimal
solution here. So, I appreciated his motion. I appreciate yours. I
» I guess where I'm getting a little hung up on this is just building on council
member Chris's comments. So we we wouldn't can you clarify like
effectively what I'm hearing from you is we would dissolve the airport advisory
board and council would just take the responsibilities of overseeing the
airport which we already do if I understand kind of our role because AAB
advises us >> and so like we wouldn't be actually like
serving at concurrently as AAB members because then we'd be advising ourselves.
So am I understanding correctly? >> Yes, we're not advising ourselves.
[laughter] The so the practical effect of your motion is we're going to uh
dissolve the airport advisory board right now and let council come up with
the next strategy to provide clearer direction and structure that would
support the effective uh operations and strategy of the airport. Is that
correct? >> Absolutely. Yes.
» Great. Okay. And then I think the only other question I had for you at this
moment which is it would is you know when when do we start having these
strategy discussions because I think that will be the conversation that uh
community members will come and and start asking us is like hey when are we
starting to do this? Is it going to be on the same cadence as AAB or do we want
to appoint like a smaller task force from council to focus on this for a bit
so that it's not maybe taking up all of council's time as as much and then kind
of reporting back. Um, do we want to add this to our retreat agenda? Just a few
kind of tactical questions to to I would I like your idea of the retreat agenda
as an opportunity to discuss the formatting of what that would look like
um and just have it be a brief conversation as we're looking going to
be discussing um our LEA our roles as liaison. Anyways,
um I I envisioned that we would just meet
either quarterly or every other month, preferably on the nights of the airport
advisory board, but I think that that's up for this body to to decide and
determine what what's the best schedule. Um I it would be pretty much effective
immediately and you know when our board meeting would be we can I think we
can kind of look and determine a schedule moving forward.
I hope that answered your question. I'm trying to
» No, it really does. I I would I would encourage this group just so that there
isn't like a lost in space situation. >> Yeah. No, no, no. And that's what I was
now I remember the task force issue that was the other one. So and then we could
determine if >> I would like for us to meet at least the
first time as a whole body if we decide as a group that the best way moving
forward would be to have a subcommittee of us serving on that. I would be happy
to entertain that. Um, but I would like for us as a body to have a fuller
discussion on what we want to see moving forward as we step into this role of
airport advisory board. >> Thank you. Just add that our retreat is
about a month away. >> Yeah, it is about a month away. So,
» so it's actually not that far off and we did want to dedicate, you know, 60 to 90
minutes there to actually hone up a vision from this group. So, just wanted
to put that on the table. Thank you for your motion.
» Okay. >> So, mayor, if I can jump in. I think
technically based on where council's going
um we've been talking about a cadence. So
» there there are different issues involved in this. So things like
um rates and chart I mean so if you look at what the airport advisory board's
supposed to do >> it's supposed to advise on things like
rates it's it's delineated within the the structure of the ordinance creating
the airport advisory board. >> Those are items that could just come to
council directly in a normal meeting. >> Yes.
» And then the the other piece is a conversation of what what it looks like
to get there logistically. I think what we're going to have to do
if council goes in this direction is we'll have to bring an ordinance that
dissolves the airport advisory board. >> Then the council can
um add an additional meeting if you wanted to sit a cadence in terms of
determining what does the future of the airport advisory board look like. And
that can include everything from um composition of the board. Um
uh the council actually did this a few years ago when uh they became the
housing authority board where they said we want a board that looks like this and
we want certain types of expertise >> and other things. So that could be
something you could consider in terms of what you want the board to look at. That
can be another piece and that conversation could then happen in this
other meeting that you're talking about. But in terms of the business items,
» those don't necessarily have to >> go through that. We can bring those
directly to council. So >> if council moves in this direction, I
think we're going to need to do a couple of things.
» Yes. >> One, we have an existing motion on the
table from the previous meeting that I think you'll have to reconsider. Mhm.
» Um and then once you go back to the point before that motion was made, then
you're going to need to make a motion to direct staff to bring an ordinance back
dissolving the airport board. >> And then I think that sets the course
for everything that you're talking about.
» Okay. >> Did I miss anything? Eugene,
» that's it. >> That's it. And so those so I you know
depending on the outcome of this this ordinance you know we will be having to
resolve the previous motion for direct not ordinance the um motion
» I think you'll need to have a motion to reconsider
» yes after >> no before
» before this okay >> then that takes you back to the point in
time before that
» this is where that procedural timeline I had my charts and everything
» and then you would have to make your motion to then direct staff to bring an
ordinance back dissolving the airport board.
» Okay. And that would be tonight, correct?
» No, we would have to bring something back to you all.
» Back to Okay. >> Correct.
» Got it. >> You could make the motion tonight to
direct staff to bring back an ordinance to dissolve the
» Yes. >> AB, which is what I heard the
conversation. >> Yes. Uh what I was having issues or
struggles with was council assuming the duties when we have an existing airport
advisory board ordinance. >> And so I think the first step is to
dissolve the AAB >> and then council could and then council
could assume those duties once the AAB no longer existed.
» Okay. Okay. >> So you need
» that's that's right. So then um trying to think. So let me
No. Oh, well, hold on. Um, I'm gonna pass it.
» Do you want to go ahead and >> Sure.
» Okay. So, um, Mayor Prom.
» Let's see. I'm trying to get it. There we go. Did it work? Nope.
So, to keep this clean, I'd like to uh resend. Is that what we determined would
be the >> You need to make a motion to reconsider.
» We cons reconsider. >> Okay.
» My previous motion in regards to the >> Okay. So, I do have an open motion. So,
um I could >> revoke
» revoke this right now. >> And your second says yes.
» Yes. Okay. And my second said yes. >> And then now go ahead. And so
the the language needs to be that we need to I I move that we reconsider
uh my previous motion from uh two weeks ago about the airport advisory board
specific language would have to be added in there.
» Okay, >> that's sufficient motion to reconsider
the prior >> Okay, there's a second.
» Yeah, go ahead. Second. >> Second. So, council member Marcine has
seconded that. Okay. So, let's um are I'm assuming that the names
in the cues are for the main motion, not the reconsidering.
» Can you just clarify? >> Yes.
» Yes. Here. Can you put your And then
go ahead. Can you restate? >> Can you re um can you state which motion
you're reconsidering? >> So, at our last Was it regular? It was a
regular >> two weeks ago.
» Two weeks ago, we had a um motion brought forward by Mayor Prom to have
the airport advisory board be um combined with TAP, the transportation
advisory board. So, we are voting now to reconsider that motion so we could
» Okay. Revoke it. >> Okay. Okay. So, let's go ahead and vote.
Um, Marcine.
» Okay. And then um there we go. And that um carries
unanimously. So now that um motion has been
» removed and we are back now. Mayor and Council, if I could just explain where
you are. So, now you're >> at the point in time before you voted on
McCoy's motion two weeks ago. >> Okay.
» So, from what I'm hearing, not to say this is exactly what you should do.
Yeah. >> McCoy could withdraw, have a clean
slate, and then you can make a motion. I think where council was going is to
direct staff to bring back an ordinance to dissolve the AAB.
So yeah, we are at the point to bring back an ordinance to dissolve the AAB
» right now. McCoyy's motion is still pending.
» Is still pending. So he needs reconsidering it.
» So we reconsidered. Now you want to now we have to vote on
» No, he can withdraw it. >> Oh, you you can withdraw it now.
» So you made the motion that you can >> Would you like to withdraw? So we Yes,
we >> I get it. Time travel. That's what you
got. Now I understand. Here's my Harry Potter moment. I would I withdraw that
motion. [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you.
Yeah. So, this is where I was so caught up procedurally of tearing through my
book and it was like, okay, what's what comes?
» So, now you have a blank state. >> Now, we have a blank slate. So, now I
would like to um make a motion to direct staff to um
» amend the ordinance or devise the or ordinance that dissolves the airport
advisory board. Do I need to have that city council in that ordinance? Do we
need to have that city council will be um serving as airport board capacity?
» Uh if you would like to add that direction, I think that would be
helpful. >> Okay. Yes, I would like to add that.
Okay. So, I've made the motion. It has been seconded by Mayor Prom.
Um now we can go back to the queue. Council member Koffer. Thank you, mayor.
Um, just just for clarification, we would assume responsibilities
temporarily and then eventually we will we will learn in the process, determine
what we want this board to function in the future.
» Mhm. >> And then do we know when we're planning
to give it back to the public or that's to be
» I mean that's really to be determined. This is this is where my teacher comes
in and design challenge and STEM thinking problem solving is we are going
to be the ones that decide which direction this is to be going. So that's
why I didn't put too many too much con cons you know constraints on this is
that we would come up >> in what is the best interest of the
community the airport itself >> um sustainability viability
» with the intent to give it back >> eventually at some point
» at some point. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Yes. Okay. Um, Council Member Christ.
» Oh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, [sighs]
I'm just thinking about timing because March 3rd is a study session. So, we
would be um having our second vote on this right before
our retreat. And I'm wondering if we maybe could just suspend airport
advisory board activity during March and have our retreat where we could more
openly collaborate on this and have a full plan before we have an ordinance.
Otherwise, there'd be a lot of discussion um about the authority to do
that.
Mayor and Council, what I'm thinking is one, I don't know that I have to go look
at their bylaws. I don't know how the agenda is set.
» Yeah. >> Um,
you know, there there is an existing AAB ordinance. I always say council
doesn't have a magic wand, but it does have two readings. So if you want to
change what's in the code, it takes two readings.
» Yeah. >> Yeah.
» No, I don't think we should bypass the process.
» And well, and I'm also wondering if we brought the ordinance through and then
had our retreat, you know, if we scheduled it in such a way that we were
actually having our last vote after we had some collaboration on it. But I
think we have a lot we have to iron out in terms of when would we be meeting and
does that work with our other board commitments and also just to get on the
same page in terms of what we're expecting with boards which we're
discussing at the retreat. >> So I would hate to have a discuss a
lively discussion there that then changes our ordinance and we've already
had our second reading on it. So if we could schedule it so that the second
reading comes after the retreat I think that would be helpful.
Logistically, are there enough days in March to do that?
I don't think so because we have NLC. We're gone one of the weeks.
» Yes. So, we have pretty full agenda. So, if you could
» if you take this direction, then what we would do is look at when we can set it
in place to dissolve it. And it may be that it naturally happens on that
cadence anyway. >> Um I'm trying to think through the
upcoming agendas. We have some pretty big topics coming.
» So it may make sense to do the introduction after.
» Yeah. >> After the retreat.
» After the retreat. Okay. >> If that's okay with council.
» Sure. >> Okay.
» Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And then um I had to write this
down. Um, Council Member Popkin had his hand up. Um, next, so,
» thank you, Mayor. Um, I I just want to clarify two things here. So, on the
timing here that we're discussing and >> there just we wouldn't we could still
have this disc regardless of exactly when the ordinance would come through.
We could still have this discussion at retreat in part or in full. Yeah.
» On kind of vision and direction, we wouldn't have to wait for that ordinance
to pass. We can still have have a productive conversation there. So, I
just want to clarify that for my colleagues regardless. And then secondly
here, building on the conversation that Council Member Koffer had with with you,
Mayor, um when we're talking about structure and giving it back, my
understanding of your motion, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we
would be dissolving the airport advisory board in its current form entirely. We
would then as council have the prerogative, as we do in general, to
create a new board, to create a new structure altogether, to figure out
whatever future structure we think makes sense. Yeah.
» So just for council member Koffer's clarity and maybe others in the public
there there wouldn't inherently be any give it back. There would be a
restructuring in some way shape or form on what uh approach this council and and
this city think m or what approach this council thinks makes sense for the
city's uh future around uh the airport and management around.
» Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I just interpreted it as we're not
assuming this until the end of time. So that's
» it's not a long term. It's not a long hash. [laughter] It's not a long-term
exactly. It's that perpetu structure and direction going forward to then take
this back off our plates >> going forward. [clears throat] Is that
correct? >> Yes, that is. Okay.
» Thank you very much. >> Uh um council member Marcine.
» Thank you, Mayor. Um, couple of questions really for staff and I thought
I saw our airport manager come in, but I see Jen is here as well. Um,
operationally on the timeline we're talking about
in terms of what because I I think what how long how many AAB meetings between
now and when a dissolution ordinance could be passed. Are we talking about
two? >> One,
» maybe two. >> One or two.
» Okay. I that I I don't love that. um for a lot
of different reasons. Um and I, you know, certainly respect the
time of our volunteers. I think we have some very real challenges to work out
there. I I'm curious about staff's perspective operationally
on the work that that that board is looking at over the next two months and
whether I mean >> we can manage it.
» We can Okay. I I'm just thinking about all sorts of things, but Okay. Um Okay.
Uh whether whether we whether they're needed necessarily in that conversation
over the next two months. >> Yeah. Really the main issues that tend
to come forward um are really the leases.
» Yeah. >> Of which ultimately council has to
approve those leases. >> I think the work that we have undergoing
is the rates and charges study. But that's just starting. Correct.
» Good evening. Jen Newton, uh assistant city manager for external services. I
guess that work is just starting. There's also uh an evaluation of the
voluntary noise abatement program that we're doing with consultants, but that
work wouldn't um come to the airport advisory board in the ne it that process
will take uh 90 days. So it will come back beyond the time uh outside of the
ordinance if you uh move forward with this tonight. So what I'm hearing is
practically speaking the work that that ultimately the airport advisory board
would would advise us on is going to come to us anyway.
That that's kind of the one challenge I have is do we need additional meetings?
Do we need the additional structures? And that's an US conversation maybe for
the retreat of do we have to do that? Um >> okay I I I think that's
» that is my question. I'm still comfortable with this. Okay. Thank you.
» Very good. Council member Prietto.
All right. Surprise, surprise. I'm in opposition of this.
» Um, just a couple things I'm thinking. Um,
I don't see [snorts] the point of dissolving and then reestablishing.
It [clears throat] just seems I just I'm thinking forward and it just doesn't
make sense to me. Um
also we rely on our board um volunteers who
many are experts in the field. Um I last time I checked I don't believe any of us
are pilots or aviation experts. And so um as far as I'm aware folks who
participate in boards have that expertise and put that time in to really
give that advice. Now granted, whatever
sequence of events have that recently happened um to cause kind of friction,
mistrust, miscommunication, whatever you guys want to call it. Um I
don't feel like dissolving the board is the answer. Um and so I just I just
wanted to point out that I'm I'm strongly in opposition of this. I feel
like there can be other solutions coming to the table that don't involve just us
dissolving the board and taking the power. I think as a as a council have um
a lot on the agenda coming forward and and when we have dedicated volunteers,
future volunteers too, because I mean it's not a full board yet.
» We haven't let the process run through. We haven't got our new appointments in.
um and really tried to reestablish those relationships.
Um I just I'm I'm not I'm not loving this motion right now and
I think I'm the only one that feels this way. Um, but I feel like
it's council's
responsibility to reestablish those relationships,
working relationships and and and communication and expectation
uh to get the board that we want versus us just taking that into our own hands.
And I might be missing something here. I had a family emergency. I've been for
the most part on the emails, but I just I coming from a human aspect, looking at
how we've done things historically, looking really taking into consideration
um the human capital that can serve us in
that board. I'm I'm yeah, I'm in opposition of this today.
» Okay. Um Council Member Marcen, last time.
» Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to take this to a 10,000 foot level very quickly cuz
I know a lot of folks out here in the audience wanted to talk about the the
why and and for public invited to be heard and you're all like what is
happening? Why why are we talking about the airport? I I I get it. So I want to
just take this to a 10,000 foot level and in doing that try to address what I
hope are are some of council member Prito's totally reasonable concerns. We
rely on our volunteers a great deal for our boards. I think the challenge that
we have had um in the last right that we are kind of continually having um with
this one specific conversation is um uh trying to be very delicate in how I
discuss this. I know >> um is a board that is actively in in my
opinion often working against the direction of council has gone as far as
as was published in the times call recently one individual member um making
u unprofessional to say the least comments about their council liaison and
you know we have you know there's uh some evidence out there of concerns
about open meetings law violations and other
Um, I think the time and to answer Council Member Prito's question about
why dissolve the board, I think a reset, >> a reset,
» a reset in membership, a reset in focus, and giving us as a council the chance to
reestablish this board with clear direction, clear guidelines, and a clear
community focus is the only way to establish a clean slate moving forward.
Um, I don't like this. I really wish this was not where we were. I will speak
personally that I had problems with the motion that was brought up two weeks
ago. I got there because of I think the process elements. I think what has
occurred and what occurred specifically for me speaking for me um in the last
AAB meeting at the end of that meeting was um I was
emotional for me because that's not the expectation that I have of our board
members. Um so for me I think the moment for a clean slate, a reset, a
reestablishment, move forward together is now. That's why I'm voting for this
motion. >> Um, thank you for the use of the word
reset. I actually had that in my notes and I overlooked it, but it it it is
really it's taking that physical just a reset. I've seen this
ongoing my entire tenure on on council and it has um happened, you know, long
before I was ever even considered running. Um, so there were several
several concerns and I think you know just the the final straw for me were
were the comments that were made at the last board meeting and
and just Yeah. And I I think that
having them the person speak out on council they feel that council is not
given clear direction or expectation of what they want. That's where I felt, you
know what, we need to bring it back to us right now and set those those
expectations and set them firmly and clearly so that going forward we can
have a fresh slate and um and then we can we can work to build build
relationships with this new council and just the reset that was Thank you. Um
okay, um Popkin, last one and then we're going to vote. Um go ahead. Thank you,
mayor, and and thank you, Council Member Mars, for the 10,000 foot level kind of
uh context for folks who maybe haven't been following this as religiously as um
some some some folks. Um, there was one other thing that I just thought might uh
enhance this discussion and and I can't see who's sitting at the table for
staff, but um Harold or Assistant City Manager Uten, can one of you speak to
the air air monitoring system, the AMS um community engagement process that is
is starting to be uh moving forward? And the reason I just asked this, it's not
it's not gerine to the structure of the motion, but it does speak to the fact
that I I do believe that we will be getting continue to get volunteer and
community input even as we're figuring out the structure to the advisory board.
And I just wanted to maybe clarify that for the public as to kind of what else
is happening that can help inform our decision-m. Again, I can't see who's
there, so I'll maybe open it up and see if Harold or Jen, you guys want to just
add a little bit of context there. Okay, go ahead, Jen.
» Good evening, Mayor. Um, councelor Popkin,
we are uh just starting the process to have AMS do this evaluation of the VNAP,
and that includes looking at a number of kind of data and metrics, but it also
includes having conversations with pilots and other stakeholders and
neighbors. um and we don't yet have that engagement strategy back from them
because we've just gotten underway. And um I intended to send you an email today
to give you some insight to that process and certainly we'll send it um soon. And
we also intend to have a communication that will be in um the next city council
packet with more information and hopefully there'll be some um already
identified timelines for when those meetings will happen with the public.
Um, I think that answered all your questions, but if it didn't, please let
me let me know. >> No, that's stellar.
» Okay, thanks. Let's go ahead and vote.
» Oh. Oh, yeah. It was seconded by Mayor Promp. I was like, no.
» What? You can't throw a monkey ratch on here.
Okay. Okay. And that carries five to two with
uh council members Christrist and Prietto in opposition. Okay. So, we are
moving on. Oh. Oh, yes. We've got another. Okay.
[laughter] Council member Koffer. I forgot.
» I promise this is super quick. Thanks, Mayor. Um
Oh, yes. think I can't see my my motion, but um I'm going to be traveling for
work on April 14th. Um this will add uh a second remote session for me. Um this
is a work trip that unfortunately I cannot schedule around. Um so I'm making
a motion so I can do remote participation for the April 14th
meeting. >> Seconded.
» Okay. So, um, the motion to, um, approve remote participation for council member
Koffer for April 14th has been made by Council Member Koffer and seconded by
Mayor Prom McCoy. Um, any discussion? Okay, great. Let's vote. [laughter]
Um, oh, yep. On the other screen. Yes. And the that carries unanimously.
Okay. So, we are now on to uh city manager report.
» No comments. Mayor, council. >> Okay. Um, special reports and
presentations. None. So, we are now at first call. Public invited to be heard.
And we do have 22 names on the deck. So, um, when I go through, if you find that,
you know, when you that you've heard or that you see, you know, I'm looking at
it's pretty much the most of the list, all if not all on the YMCA. Thank you
for coming and being passionate about it. Let's see all those hands that are
here for the um the Y topic. Okay, there we go. We got to listen. [laughter]
So, um, as you come up and if you hear individuals that are saying the same
thing, you know, rather than just repeating the same language, you know,
if there's, you know, you can choose to my my topic was already discussed or
just kind of minimize a little bit, we'd greatly appreciate that. Um, but I'm
going to go ahead and start by calling four people up at a time. Uh and then so
the first person on my list is um France Francois Neter and then Mike Ariano is
the second Esteband Ryos and Marie Klene. So if you four can come up to the
front. Uh and then
» and you have three minutes and you can say
» my name is Francois Neter and this is the first time at the council. So yeah,
I'm talking about the YMCA. I want to first just establish my credibility
personally and professionally. I've been a fitness instructor, a yoga uh teacher,
movement therapist for almost five decades. And I've worked all over uh the
US, Hawaii, Canada, Mexico, and Europe. And I was very established in
California. I've worked at the most prestigious spas and clubs and gyms. And
in 1999, I moved from Northern California, where I was very well known,
uh, to Boulder and taught at all the clubs, including the YMCA in Boulder and
trained teachers there and instructors as well. In uh, 2017, I left, went back
to California and did all of this work in San Diego and then came back right
before COVID and moved to Longmont. And it was a very very dark period. Uh
to make that period even darker, I got hit by a car while walking in December
of 2022. Uh before uh in I would say probably in
2020, I became a member, not an instructor, not a trainer of the YMCA in
Longmont. And it was a very inclusive part of my healing not only physically
but emotionally and mentally. And I want to say that I have been to so many clubs
and wise all over the world as a professional and personally but there is
nothing like the YMCA in Longmont. And if there's any way and I'll I'll talk
about that how how I have one more minute. So it is not I know a lot of
people talk about it as community. It is so much more than that. It is a place in
this time where we have so much divisiveness, so much unkindness
that there is such caring between the staff and the members. And there's a
reason why so many people who have disabilities and who are older go there.
It's because it's a safe environment not only to heal the body but the mind and
the heart. And today we need places like the Y. I also volunteer at growing
gardens and I see the people here and it has been a place of safety and grace and
light and we need that in this world more now than
ever. So thank you so much. >> Great. Thank you. Um, Mike. Oh, I'm
sorry. No applause. [laughter] >> Order.
» Hi, my name is Mike Oriana. >> Yes.
» I appreciate the opportunity to talk in front of you. Uh, today I want to talk
about the Y membership. I want to talk about the staff and I want to talk about
CEO Corker, right? Um, the the the membership at the Y is a very diverse
group of people. It's professionals that provide services to everybody in this
room. There are teachers, there are medical professionals, there's emergency
service personnel, there's there's business owners, people that you bump
into. So that community, which is over 3,000 strong, has been displaced, right?
Um when when CEO Corker when he came to talk to the Y um I'm trying to be
diplomatic here. He was less than honest about what he discussed. He talked with
staff members about opening the pool. He talked about staff members um that he
had been communication with you to to keep the Y open. None of that was true.
Absolutely none of that was true. when he was called on it by the people in
this room, he was pretty pretty dismissive and he was pretty angry with
everybody. He he left shortly after that. So, um
it's it's frustrating for me. Um the other thing is I want to talk about the
staff, right? Because uh the staff is exceptional. This is not 18 or 20 year
olds at their second job. Um the two instructors that I work with
specifically, they have 25 and 30 years. CEO Corker, right? When he he talked to
these guys, um he let them believe that they were going to have a job. That
wasn't true. They were dismissed and the most disgraceful passion
way possible for everybody in this room. If you had 25 years or 30 years and you
were dismissed like that, it would be horrifying, right? And nobody let these
they they didn't do anything for these guys. These instructors, by the way,
provide livestrong. They take care of the entire community there. You have a
facility that was opened in the 70s that was closed in two and a half weeks by a
CEO that just didn't want to deal with anything. So, I have a specific request
of you. I would like an independent study done of the financial u gaps and
again that's very polite failures of CEO Corker. I would like to see an
independent review of that an independent review of the facility
because again the 3,000 members in your community, right? They take care of you,
they take care of your children, they take care of everything. Um he has been
less than honest. um everything in the paper. The last thing I'm gonna say is
he makes he hired his wife, he hired his kid.
» Thank you. >> They make half a million dollars.
» Okay. Thank you. Um Estavan, come on down.
» Good evening, city council members. My name is Esteean Rayos and I'm speaking
tonight not only as a board member of the growing gardens. Um but as someone
who participated in his programs when I was young um as a kid I remember coming
to the farm putting the hands my so in the soil and harvesting food I had
helped grow. That experience changed my the way I saw food. It wasn't something
that I just helped grow. Um it was the experience that changed the way that I
saw food. Um it wasn't something that just appeared at the grocery store. It
was something connected to the land, the people, and the community. Um, today the
same experience is happening every week at [snorts] the food project farm at the
Lashley YMCA site. Um, since 2016, Grand Gardens has grown and donated over
108,000 pounds of fresh produce, about 90,000 uh meals, supporting families
directly and partners like the OUR Center. Uh, at the same time, hundreds
of the Timberline students visit the farm each year. um for hands-on field
trips. Uh this farm is not just about vegetables. It's about uh belonging.
It's about health. Uh it's about giving young people uh the same opportunity I
had um to feel connected to their food, the land, and each other um with the
current agreement ending in 2027 um and the future um uncertainty. I
respectfully ask you to consider a path um forward that allows growing gardens
to continue its work um in partnership with the city of Longmont. I'm here
because the program um matters to me, mattered to me, and I know it matters to
the next generation uh too. Um thank you for your time and thank you for your
service. >> Great. Thank you. Um next person, uh
Marie Klene, and then if we could have Bonnie Prushnook,
uh Dean Leman, Dale Lannon, and Tim Villard. If I said that correct, if I
made a mistake, I apologize, but if you can come forward.
Okay. Um, good evening. Um, I'm speaking mainly on the part of the citizens, uh,
the senior citizens of this community. I realize there are many stakeholders in
this. Why seniors are a valuable part of this community. We shop locally. We dine
locally. We volunteer and support many Longmont agencies in business, notably
the symphony. As was stated at the coffee with
council, the uh life of the centennial pool is limited, perhaps 3 to 5 years.
Um knowing that keeping the Y, refurbishing, getting it back and
keeping it in operation is very prudent and wise so that we don't have another
problem in the next 3 to 5 years. We know that you did not create this
problem. We are lobbying as much as we can with Mr. Coker and the board. But
while you did not create this problem, we do expect you to be part of the
solution. And we thank you for all of your
attention to this. on two other points that I've heard are being discussed by
council regarding the redesign of the flag with everything else that is being
uh discussed and needed and also the history of the flag we have now. I think
that's not necessary at this time. Also, this idea of charging for the 4th of
July, um if your plans are that big that you need to charge, then I suggest you
scale back because that's a ridiculous idea. Thank you.
Thank you. Um, Bonnie. Yes. >> Um, good evening. I'm here be
» And can you restate your name? >> Uh, Bonnie Prashnak.
» Prnak. Okay. Thank you. >> I'm here because I'm concerned about the
» Can you move the microphone close to Yes.
» I'm concerned about the decisions that aren't being made by the people in
power. And um this this Y in this city is a
very loved and supported why. And um it's a place where mothers can go with
young children to get time to for themselves. is where uh elderly people
feel safe to go and they can sit and have a cup of coffee and talk with their
friends which is which is mentally stimulating and helpful.
Um there are 10,000 YMCA across the country
and four of them are in the northern part of Colorado.
uh Boulder, Lafayette, um Johnstown, and Longmont, but Longmont is the only
one that's being closed. And I think it would be a terrible
tragedy to lose something that's been here since
1969 has has uh taught many children to swim
that live here has uh has uh instilled in them
great core values. I was impressed by what the men uh talked about with the
gardening. I think this is a wonderful uh program,
but I hope that the council I like the idea since since you could just take
over the airport, maybe you could get a a group to take over the Y until we get
uh better management because if management is a problem,
let's change the management because
[clears throat] a why is something that brings people to communities
from. And you you people have approved massive amounts of building
and all those people are going to need to go somewhere.
You're building from the rec center all the way down to county line one.
They're not here yet, but they will be here.
And um our Y our comm our citywide has 50,000 square ft
and they're able to accommodate large classes which have been filled on a
regular basis and I have to agree with the other
people the staff is phenomenal. There's nobody that learns everybody's
name. [laughter] >> Thanks. Thank you. Um Dean.
» Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um my name is Dean Leman. I'm at I live at
2313 Lake Park Drive in Longmont. Um, I'd just like to say a couple of words
about the why and uh I don't want to repeat all the people here what they're
saying, but u this this has been a tremendous community effort and um I
think everyone knows that it it shouldn't be lost. That pool should not
be lost and um there should be a path forward.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Dale
» Dale Lannon 1018 Ponder Circle and um yeah I'm in support of the Y remaining
um operable. Um I would like to see the city take over and um not lose the u the
comp the uh the strength that the Y gives [snorts] the community.
Um, it allows me to regain my strength. I feel like I have to try to sideswipe
the world into keeping the earth alive. And I need to be strong. I need to be
not put off by a little heavy lifting or, you know, whatever getting things
done or speaking up in council. I need to bravely go and speak up for the
trouble and the places that are at war and not a little bit. Ukraine has been
unbelievably attacked. Europe is standing strong in their defense and our
nation is falling flat on its face and there's a state of the union which won't
be correctly given tonight. And I want strong people, a strong community, and a
place to do that and to speak with our with our neighbors. And the why is it
and it's a big big strong um
place to heal and and get ideas of what what works and what doesn't. Uh thank
you very much. Have a good evening. >> Great. Thank you. Um Tim and then I'm
going to call the next four people. Um and I do have an address lions. So um I
we would be happy to hear you at the end of our city council meeting u for final
call. Uh so Diane Harlon, Michael Schmidt, Scott Stewart, and
Corey Cash, if you can make your way to the for forward.
What? All right. Uh, good evening, city council members and mayor. Uh, my name
is Tim Ard and I'm here representing Growing Gardens. First, I want to begin
with gratitude. Growing Gardens has had a strong and meaningful partnership with
both the YMCA and the city of Longmont for many years. Uh, we're deeply
appreciative of your support and the shared commitment to the well-being of
our community. Uh since 2016, Growing Gardens has operated the Food Project
farm at Lashley at the Lashley YMCA site. And for 10 years, this small but
mighty farm has served as both a food access hub, an outdoor classroom, and a
gathering space for community of all ages and backgrounds. Through our
partnership, the YMCA has provided land access, water, electricity, restrooms,
and some financial support for farm operations.
That collaboration has made significant impact possible.
Over the past decade, the farm has grown and donated more than 100,000 pounds of
fresh produce that has been distributed to Longmont residents directly or
through community partners such as the R Center. This is fresh, nutrient-dense
food grown here right in Longmont for Longmont residents. But the farm is more
than food production. Uh it's an educational space that serves Timberline
PreK through 8 students with bilingual hands-on nutrition and gardening
education. Each class across every grade receives two field trips each year. Over
those 10 years, um we've provided approximately 300 free field trips
serving an average of 450 students annually. That's thousands of young
people that have gone to the farm, planted seeds, harvested vegetables,
tasted fresh food, and learned where their food comes from. Experiences that
shape lifelong health and connection to the environment. In addition, the farm
serves as a gathering place for English and Spanish speaking community members
and farm volunteers, many of whom uh have been investing in this space and
this project for years. Many of our farm volunteers have found us through their Y
memberships. Um other groups not affiliated with the Y such as Bhula
Kumitaria come weekly during the summers who work on the farm and then prepare
meals together using produce grown on site. The farm builds connection and
belonging alongside food security. So, we're here tonight to respectfully ask
city council to consider establishing a similar agreement uh if possible between
the city of Longmont and Growing Gardens so this work can continue uninterrupted.
This farm represents 10 years of trusted relationships, proven outcomes, and deep
community investment. Losing it would mean losing not only food production,
but education, partnerships, and a vital community space. We believe this work
aligns strongly with the city's priorities around food access, youth
development, public health, and climate resilience. And we would welcome the
opportunity to explore how we can continue serving Longmont together. Uh
so thank you all very much for your time.
» Great. Thank you. Um so Diane,
» hi. My name is Diane Harland. I'm a little nervous here. Um, I found out I
had Parkinson's disease a year ago. I had a physical therapist, an
occupational therapist who both said to me, "Diane, find a support group." I was
so scared. And so they said, "Check out your YMCA."
I did. the only place in Longmont that has um exercise program. There's a
wonderful physical therapist that's willing to talk to us if we need
questions answered or anything. There's about 30 people who I walked into that
room, I knew none of them. Now we all know each other's names. There's always
a smile. And when I leave that place, not only do I feel great because I just
got a good hour of exercise, which is so important,
um, my confidence just soarses after I do that class. Um, it's the only place
in Longmont that has someplace for people with Parkinson's to go. So to
have that stop would be such a loss to all of us. We are all valued citizens in
Longmont. And I want to say another thing and then I'll stop. You know
something in that group. I've been with them probably five months, two days a
week. You know, never has the word Parkinson's disease come up. Nobody
talks about it. We get in there, we go to work, we do our aerobics and love
every minute of it. We leave saying have a nice week or have a nice couple days
and it's just a terrific program. So, I hope that is considered when decisions
are made. Thank you. >> Thank you,
Michael Schmidt.
Yeah, my name is Hope my voice is good enough tonight.
Uh, my name is Michael Schmidt. Um, I live in the Sasquatch House.
Do you know where the Sasquatch House is?
» I didn't know I was going to be speaking tonight. I wrote my name down there.
Uh my wife died about four years ago and um
quite coincidentally I found myself without uh without a a social life
and uh my primary care physician said uh you need [clears throat] to work
out. my a my A1C was up near the diabetic
level and uh my diet wasn't the greatest
and [snorts] uh he said you need to exercise and change your diet
and uh my A1C is way down right like a low pre-diabetic level
and uh I've made a bunch of friends that I wasn't expecting.
And uh I also may be slightly below the uh
uh [snorts] main age
at um which is extraordinary. I only thought that happened at Swallow Hill.
So um I like everyone else. What much time I got?
I do know how to fill the time up. >> You don't have
» um
Well, that's probably enough. Give somebody else some more time.
» There you go. >> Uh I hope uh
I hope we can come to some uh agreement. Thanks.
» Thank you, Scott Stewart.
Mayor, members of council, Scott Stewart, 229 Grant Street. Um,
I don't actually go to the Y, so uh, I'll talk about the airport. Um, I
greatly appreciate the conversation earlier about the attention that's, uh,
being given to the airport. I think it's, uh, long past overdue. Um,
please be aware moving forward, there's, uh, two main organizations, the AOPA and
the, uh, CPA, u, Colorado Pilot Association. Um, these are advocacy
groups. They're not experts. They're they're advocacy groups. Uh, AOPA sends
out information to their um to their members uh stating things like
uh notice of proposed construction or alteration and filing and developments
inside of 20,000 ft notification area of the airports with runways. That'd be
like more than three and a half miles from the airport. They're telling their
members that uh the city needs to uh file with the FAA for any um
modifications within that range. What they're doing is they're misleading
their group. Um if you read the FAA uh there's there's more to it if you read
the FAA uh grant obligation. Um at one point the um
we ran into a problem with the uh the leases when the 30 years came up because
people were doing this like hanger number six uh
what do we got 65H. Um this was done in 2021. Uh signed up for a 30-year lease.
This is done as uh it was not a mature lease yet. they wanted to get into the
30-year lease. So, they shortcut their lease and they asked for a 30-year term
in order to shorten the the uh in order to take advantage of the
30-year thing because they saw the opportunity and nobody was paying
attention to. That rate was 35 cents 35.7 or 3576
per square foot. That was done in 2021. Um I think council member Chris was
questioning some of the numbers. That was 2021. And there is no 3% increase in
what you're signing on to today in what was done 5 years ago. Um,
at that time it was an issue. The airport manager said, "Hey, we're going
we're doing a lease review." It wasn't a rates and charges study. It was a lease
review. That lease review has never happened or has never become public.
Rates and charges study since I'm running out of time. Rates and charges
study. Um, it should include what the airport would look like financially if
the airport were to operate without future FAA grants. That should be part
of your study. The saturation policy, we don't need a saturation policy. You just
need to for pilots to follow our pattern policy. Pattern policy is a half mile or
3/4 mile turn left wind turn downwind left turn downwind at that. If you can't
fly in that, it's just like a kid driving a car. Don't put them on the
interstate if they can't follow the rules. Thanks.
» Thank you. Um Corey, and then as Corey's making his way up, um Lance Whitaker,
Kim McReynolds, Paty, um Men Menor, and Steve W, uh Whed.
» Good evening, council, mayor. I'm here to uh show support for 12A
uh the consideration of a contractor shop being evaluated as a zoning
requirement. Uh I have several businesses and recently went through the
zoning process for an existing building uh that I did not modify the outside of
at all. It was a four-month process literally from the day I started uh with
the contact of planning to the day I got board approval. I've been a commercial
property manager upwards of three and a half million square feet in Boulder
County, a significant amount in Longmont. And if I didn't have that
background, I would have walked. I would have gone to f some other community to
do business. So my uh support is evaluating the requirements of a
contractor shop and uh that is not necessarily a major development
application. [clears throat and cough] Picked quite a
night to come. >> [laughter]
» I didn't know about the airport issue. Um, just to speak on that for a second.
I was president of the airport board some 20 plus years ago. Um, disappointed
in hearing the news um, with couple businesses. I'm too busy to pay
attention to all the issues in the community. So, I didn't hear anything
about the struggles that have been happening. Um, maybe just to put out
there u because of my experience in aviation uh, business.
Feel free to reach out to me at any time. I know several of you have my
contact information. Have a good night. >> Great. Thank you, Lance Whitaker.
» Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street,
Longmont, Colorado. I'd like to give a special shout out today for Elaine. Keep
pushing that iron. You're getting stronger every day.
Um, today is National Trading Card Day. It is also National Tortilla Chip Day.
George Thoroggood and Steve Jobs both share the same birthday today. And that
is the short list for today. Thank you and have a good day.
» Thank you, Kim
Mc Reynolds. >> Good evening. Um, I'm Kim Mcrenolds. I
live at 1372 Whiteall Drive and I would say I've been in Longmont. My husband
and I moved out here to help my sister take care of our mother and this is the
first time after joining the Y that I've really felt at home in eight years. It
takes a while to recreate community. So I know there's people I've met who've
been at the Y for 40 years. Their children were there. They were there as
children. But for those of us who have also arrived within the last decade,
it's been a special place. So, I want to thank the staff. They're they've been
remarkable. It's just the kind of place that the YMCA of the US would like to
highlight because the programming that's been created there, you really can't
just, it doesn't just happen. You create it intentionally. And I think to be able
to serve seniors so broadly as well as families and children, um that's truly
the mission of the Y. And it's also what this city needs. And I think I've been
exceptionally disappointed with the YMCA and having had a history with them where
I used to live, it's been very disappointing to see the leadership. So
at this point, what I would want to ask of you is that you insert yourselves and
be active leaders in this process. You didn't ask for it. this arrived on your
doorstep, but that's what it means to be on city council and to be the mayor. Um,
I think the city has the resources to help sort through the crisis that the Y
is in. And I think the public and all the people who've donated to the Y over
the years, they deserve an accounting for what has happened. They need to
understand the true finances of this Y. it's part of a broader umbrella umbrella
organization and I think people feel um a little duped. They feel like the Y
has not been transparent with them. So we will we know that I don't believe the
membership alone will be able to fully understand what is happening with the
property with the services with the programming.
And that said, I would also ask the city to consider the timing of this work. Um
it's hard to hear that you think it might take $5 million in years to come
to a decision about what comes next. If there are ways to stage the programming
and not lose the value of all the people that are coming here now, I think the
community would truly appreciate it and we would love to hear your ideas along
the way or to ask for our input as you move forward with this process. So,
thanks for listening. >> Thank you. U Paty,
» good evening. My name is Paty Meyer. I live at 1113
Signature Circle. Um I is that okay? Okay. [laughter]
I got a late start. I just wanted to um mention and it has
been mentioned before that I've been a member of a YMCA for over 50 years. not
here but in Minneapolis and I taught classes there and also in Rhode Island
in Middletown Rhode Island, Newport, Rhode Island and um I've been a member
of the Y here for 15 years since we moved here and everywhere the Y is
community and it it exudes community through the people who work there and
through all of the members you it is a smaller group than any of the other the
rec center centennial also they're wonderful places but you feel more of a
part of a community when you're at the YMCA and I just wanted to I know that
it's been said many times and so I'll be very brief but I do want to hope that
you can help out to keep that community together because community is important
especially after living through COVID and having community just completely
dispersed. It's something that's important for us to have a community and
the YMCA is definitely that. >> Thank you.
» Thank you. So, Steve and um as he's making his way over, uh Dan March, Peter
Watson, Marilyn Voboos, and Maria Lena Rico to speak.
» Uh my name is Steve Wedell. I live west of Hover on Princeton. So, it's quite a
ways from the Y. Um, I [clears throat] like Peter Schmidt, Michael Schmidt, did
not know I was going to be speaking. So, I'm here to support all the other
members that have asked you to do whatever you can to preserve this great
community resource. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan.
» Hi, my name is Dan March. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My wife and I are
new residents to Longmont, having retired here two years ago from out of
state. Prior to moving to Longmont, I was a CEO and executive director of
several retirement communities in other parts of the country. And in that
capacity, I discovered the vital importance of active aging and creating
communities where older adults may stay physically uh active and socially
engaged. uh having a convenient wellness facility where it was easy and enjoyable
to exercise and meet others was an important priority for us in our
selection criteria when we decided to move to Longmont.
Um once we retired in Longmont, my wife and I both ended up having uh back
surgery and the wise facilities, its uh track and pool and classes were a vital
part of our rehab. Thanks in large part to those services, we're healthy and
active and able to engage more fully in the life, our life here in the city to
spend money at restaurants, go out and shop, remodel the house, and go to the
community college. Um, we've explored uh the uh the offerings of the rec center
and the Centennial Pool. We'll probably uh move our membership there. Uh, but
the Y is an intergenerational oasis for wellness and socialization. Its closure
leaves a great void for hundreds of families and individuals who depend on
its services uh for staying healthy physically and mentally. Uh I strongly
encourage you to uh you know look carefully at the the the the benefits of
that this facility offers. If you've uh been to the Y, you've seen how you know
there's hundreds of people who go to those classes. so many active older
adults who are uh you know being able to stay healthy physically and mentally
because of the uh services of that facility. Um you know according to the
uh uh the uh envision Longmont statement uh expanding recreational services,
leisure pursuits, supporting healthy and active lifestyles and offering programs
that affirm diversity and cultural inclusivity. you know, operating this
facility uh just seems to fit hand and glove in that mission statement. So,
there are hundreds of families who are going to be left out in the cold when
the Y closes next week. I know it'll take time for you to do your due
diligence to uh you know, look at the capital replacement costs and come up
with a a budget, you know, looking at the operations and the income and
expenses. Uh but uh I strongly encourage you to think about finding a way to keep
the facility open because it's consistent with the mission of Longmont.
It's consistent with the goals of the city long term to keep, you know, have a
healthy, active, engaged uh population. So, thank you very much.
» Thank you, Peter.
» Hello, Pet. Peter Peter Watson uh 731 Kubat Lane. Um
thank you for allowing us to speak tonight. I'm going to be brief um
because there have been so many wonderful comments made. Um the only a
couple things I can add is that um nutrition and exercise are the two
most important things as we age. And it's a wonderful full facility that's
open like 12 hours a day. I also learned how to swim at a Y and how to play
basketball at a Y and um it's a very important facility and I encourage you
to do everything you can you and your staff to uh help us solve this problem
and keep the Y active. Thank you. >> Thank you Marilyn
» Marilyn Vobos 10671 Forester Place. Um I'm just want to say I guess a quick
story. So, I've been a Long Me I got to Longmont when I in 2006 and I've been a
Y member since 2008. The gym is not my strength. Um, often every time I I've
gone through a lot of different gyms and I always find myself back at the Y. Many
of the times that they ask you what are your goals and I'm like coming to the
gym. That's literally my goal. And the one thing is that I've always managed to
go back to the Y because it's a great community that I've started. I've went
through high school here. I was part of um you know the Longmont Youth Center,
the Longmont City, the youth city council. I was part of all that and I
always was part of the Longmont YMCA. I think one of the things that is super
important is to have that place of community, that place where I went off
to college, I came back, I went back to a random class, signed up again, and all
the instructors knew my name. Welcome back. We're happy to see you. We're
happy that you're here. you know, um I remember my first class that I was able
to go during the day was a silver sneakers Pilates class and I thought I
was going to do great and I didn't. And the only reason why I stayed there was
because all my fellow members were doing great and I was like I need to I need to
finish this. So I guess what I'm getting at it is a place of community. is a
place where people have gone for rehab, where the pool is available, where
there's so much um just like support, not just like in terms of, you know, a
place to work out. I think that's the difference. It's a place where you go,
where people um tell you that you can do better, where people push you to be
better. Um so when I heard about this news, it was it was really devastating.
So I just hope that something can be done to continue this community. And
yeah, thank you so much. Uh, thank you Maria Lennena.
» She left. >> She left. Okay. So, seeing no one else
on the list, I will now close. Public invited to be heard. And, um, Oh, yeah.
So, and actually before I call you, um, Council Member Marcen. So, in 2019, we
had a ballot measure for rec center did not pass. 2023 we had a ballot
[laughter] measure for a rec center that did not pass. Next time something comes
up, vote for it [laughter]
» and we'll do what we can do. Go ahead. >> Thank you so much, Mayor. Just quickly,
I I know it's a little bit out of the the ordinary to to discuss after public
invited to be heard, but I just wanted to know um and get an update from our
city manager for the folks that are here. Um, you know, we had a very
productive Mayor Pro Tim McCoy and I count coffee with council. Over 120
folks showed up, I think, to to share your heart and I know that um a lot of
folks are hurting. So, Harold, can you just a question? Can you update the
community, update us about where things are at, about how we got where we got? I
think folks came out tonight hoping to hear something and um and what can we
share. >> Yeah. And what our role is.
» Yeah. And how this landed. >> How is this? Yeah. City and and how that
Yeah. >> Um, yeah, I'd be happy to. So the first
and I'd like to start off by saying one, we definitely I think the council and my
conversations with the council and as we've talked about it with staff
completely understand where the community is coming from in this process
and can sympathize um with their frustration
um um hurt, you know, all the emotions going through this process.
Um, I think the first point that I need to make is that the city does not have
control of the YMCA. Um, and it is a separate organization.
Um, so in terms of the council's authority over the organization, there's
very little. For example, I know there was a request to audit the Y. Um the
city can only audit areas where we have a contract that gives us the authority
and it's really focused on that specific area. So um do we have a contract? Yes,
we do. For early child care, we're limited contractually by what we can do.
So I think your question is why are we here today? The Y approached the city of
Longmont about a partnership. However, um in reviewing that, we did not want to
get into an ongoing contractual operation with the Y. There was um a
discussion about potentially acquiring the facility. We said, "Sure, we're
interested. We'll we'll have some conversations, but the key piece to that
is that we needed to go through our due diligence process to ensure that it's
financially viable." During the negotiations, the Y became
anxious based on um the pace that we were moving through our process and and
really stated that well, do we just need to put a for sale sign on the open
market? Uh that was a conversation with Mr. Fzner.
Um also during the conversation, um they really pointed out that that the the
cost of the location was really based on the value of the property in terms of
what its commercial value was. So, what I mean by that is when you look at
property, um, you can value it based on the assets that are on it or you can
value it based on what it could be if it was converted to something else. And,
and that's the key piece in this is, um, converting it to some type of other type
of development. [sighs] So, based on all of that,
unfortunately, we're here today because of the information that was sent out to
the staff and members of the Y in this process. Um you know we have evaluated
the purchase price of the building. Um we have brought in um architects,
engineers and others to evaluate it. And in that detailed evaluation we've we've
definitely um highlighted some significant issues that um are
associated with that property. Um, specifically, I think we've talked about
the roofing structure over the pool and some other areas in terms of its
capacity to handle wind and snow loads. So, so for us, there's safety issues.
Um, you know, um,
we also have communicated that if we were to purchase the building, um, we
were very clear we'd have to close it down to make those, um, repairs, the
necessary repairs and improvements. And, um, as indicated, we did say it could
take up to two years. One of the challenges with doing it incrementally
is if you know there's safety issues, you really can't open the building. Um,
but more importantly, it adds to the cost of renovations when you parse it
out. We've unfortunately experienced that on our own facilities. Um,
and then we've evaluated um, and we're, you know, I had a another briefing on
refining ongoing and operating maintenance cost. Um, and so we're
finalizing that as we speak. Once we do that and and we pull it together, we'll
make a recommendation to the council in terms of how we see it as staff. You
know, unfortunately being in this position, I think one of the things um
that is fundamentally my responsibility is to tell council what you need to
hear, not necessarily what you want to hear. Um when we're looking at um these
types of situations, the one piece that is important for me is I have to ensure
that we're not taking on someone else's problem that we're putting on the back
of the entire community. And so that's the due diligence that we're going
through because what we don't want to do is negatively impact our recreation
operations and potentially negatively impact the general fund as a whole. So
it is a significant issue for us as we evaluate that. You know, we've also
talked last on on Saturday about the fact that if the city were to assume the
Y, it would have to be operated in the same way that we operate our other city
facilities. Um it couldn't necessarily be operated in the same way just to be
fully transparent. At the end of the day, ultimately the
why controls what the facility will cost and it really depends on their
particular interest and what they're trying to achieve. If it's about
financial gain and really looking at the maximum amount you can get for the
commercial value, um that's the wise decision. It's not the city's decision.
Um, but ultimately they control that. If they're interested in keeping the
location as a public asset, as stated in the letter to the members and staff, you
know, they can choose to negotiate based on the cost of making making the
necessary repairs, but at the end of the day, the Y controls that.
» We don't. So, um, that's kind of the update where we're sitting. We're still
um finalizing those details. Um and and honestly information still coming out
that we have to track down to determine are there other issues that are in play.
Um and um so it seems like when we get to a point where we think we know it,
new information comes out that we have to track down. So I hope that answers
your question. >> Thank you
and thank you all for coming out. I think this is important discussion. Um,
so now we're on to, oh, seeing no one else, now we've closed public hearing or
I'm sorry, um, public comment and now we are on to consent agenda and
introduction and reading by title of first reading ordinances. Can you please
um read the consent agenda to for the record? Oh, sorry.
» I was going to do the consent agenda first.
» Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good. >> Yes.
» Um, item 9A, resolution R, 202612, a resolution of the Longmont City
Council approving the tax increment revenue agreement between the city of
Longmont and the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority for the Twin Peak Small Urban
Renewal Area. Item 9B, uh, resolution R, 202613,
a resolution of Longmont City Council approving the tax increment revenue
agreement between the city of Longmont and Longmont Urban Renewal Authority for
Southeast Longmont Urban Renewal Plan. >> Okay. Um, hold on, Michelle, I'm sorry.
I'm going to interrupt. Um, can we have So, we're we're trying to conduct our
meeting. So, if you all can exit quietly, please, we'd greatly appreciate
it. Um, continue. Item 9 C, resolution R, 202614,
a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for
economic development services with the Longmont Economic Development
Partnership. Item 9D, amend rule 27 of council's
rules procedure for regarding board interviews. Item 9E, approve the
appointment of Longmont Tourism Improvement District LTI Director. And
[snorts] item 9F, approve three capital improvement program amendments.
» Uhhuh. Thank you. Um, does anyone want to pull any items?
» Council member Marcine. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull uh to
pull A and D. >> Okay. So, items A and D. Anyone else? I
think that was Okay. So, can I have a motion to approve the or move forward
the consent agenda minus items A and D? >> Okay. So, the motion has been made by
Mayor Prom McCoy, seconded by council member Christ.
Okay. Let's go ahead and vote.
Okay. And that carries unanimously. Um,
so before going on to ordinances on second reading,
um, would do we all need a break? >> Five minutes. Okay, we're going to take
a five minute break.
Heat. Heat.
» [music]
[music]
» Oh, down.
Heat. Heat. N.
» [music]
» Heat. Heat. N.
I found.
[music]
» [music] >> Heat. Heat.
» [music] >> Mhm.
[music]
» [music]
» Heat. Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Okay. Are we ready to reconvene?
» And Council Member Popkin, I see you. Oh, yeah. Go ahead.
Is it possible that someone adjusts the podium camera so I can see the gallery a
little bit better? It's a little pointing at the ceiling situation.
» Oh, yeah. It's always like that. Can Can it be moved?
» Thank you. Lawyers to the rescue. Thank you, Eugene.
» I don't know if it'll pop back up. Okay. Nope.
» That's great. Close. Appreciate it.
» Is that helpful? Okay. So,
okay. So we are now on ordinances on second reading and public hearings on
any matter. Um the first item is ordinance or O2026-03
a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses
and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January
1st, 2026. Um are there any questions for council?
Okay. Nope. Nope. and is there's no presentation or staff. Okay. So, I will
now open the public hearing on U ordinance 2026-03.
Um I see no one on the signup sheet. Is there anyone who would like to speak to
this matter? Nope. Okay. So, I will close public hearing
and um may I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-03?
» So moved. >> Okay. Okay. So, the motion has been made
by Council Member Christ and seconded by Council Member Marcen. Let's go ahead
and vote.
» Jeopardy song. >> Okay. So, we're going to do a hand vote.
All those in favor? I raise your hand. Okay. and nobody in opposition. So that
carries unanimously. Uh we are now on
um ordinance 2026-04, a bill for an ordinance authorizing
authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance
Brand Municipal uh airport hangar parcel H33,
the premises to Dennis Tracy and Dwayne Root tenant. Um, are there any questions
from council? Okay. Um,
so I Yeah. Um, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? I do
see a name on here. Scott Stewart and you will have three minutes.
» Mayor, members of council. Scott Stewart, 229 Grand Street. Um, I brought
this up a little bit earlier and the public invited to be heard. Um, I think
what we've got here is a um a failure to update um rates as as we go along. We
were uh we were told two weeks ago that um
the lease um the lease template, we kept referring
to it as a lease template, lease template, lease template. Sounds like
the lease template was autofilled with a rate that's at least five years old.
um the rate schedule and charges that is on the city's website actually reflects
that. So this at some point should be reviewed. I don't know if this stops,
you know, slows anything down at night or what have you. And I'm not sure that
it should, but this is the type of oversight that we need that's not that
has not been happening for the last five years or so. Um
yeah, I that's that's basically it. It's it's 2021. It is the same lease rate as
the one you're signing today. Um, that being said, new construction stuff
and development of the airport, all of that. That's you guys got a you got a
document for that. They got a they got a little flyer here at airport land
development stuff says you guys can you know the city can actually
change terms and do all kinds of different things as far as in order to
you know encourage development at the airport. Um you guys got a lot of power.
you're just not utilizing it in in we're taking shortcuts. And for somebody to
for for management to hand you a lease that doesn't have an appropriate rate on
it that hasn't been adjusted, you know, we're starting from the base every year.
Now, if somebody signed this in 2021, I pretty much guarantee that that person
has got the 3% increase every year. That 3% increase should
maybe I'm crazy but it should apply to the base number for every year and it
should be adjusted every year. Doesn't look like it's been done in at least the
last five years. So we got some figuring to do.
» Thanks. >> Great. Okay. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak? Okay. So with that I will now close um public hearing. Um,
may I have a motion to pass and adopt? And then when we second it, I'll open it
up for final discussion. Um, >> so moved.
» Okay. So, the um motion to adopt um ordinance 2026-04 has been made by
council member Christ. Do we have a second?
Okay. And council member Kulka seconded it. Um and
mayor prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Harold, can you uh
uh talk to what uh uh member of the public was just pointing out there? Mr.
Stewart, >> I'm going to ask uh Jen and Levi to come
down. I think we went through this >> uh the the
» discussion. The last time this was on first reading
» in terms of the um there were some questions also about the term and the 30
years and how we were handling that in terms of an assignment in the new lease.
So Levi, can you jump in on this one? >> I can jump in on that real quick. Um
kind of the way operate the rules and regulations at the airport, we have a
rates and charges set schedule and that's kind of what we put leases out at
and that's adjusted ever so often. And if I recall correctly, last time we
actually updated those 2023. I'd have to check on that to be 100% true, but
that's actually what we're doing currently with the rates and charges
study. We'll have all that reassessed and what we should set that moving
forward to. Okay. Um that was a little bit confusing
uh because what uh Mr. Steuart was pointing out was
is that that was the 2021 uh rates
and >> I know for a fact that we have set them
since 2021. So whatever rate was set was set at the most current one which should
be the 2023 I think. again. I'd have to check
» was actually approved. >> So, should we be holding off until we
get that that information? Because >> I'm wondering if this is
» uh updated. >> So, we did we did vet this through the
city attorney's office and we double checked the rates and charges and it was
all came back. >> This is the same as 2021.
Um, it's actually the same as the last time it was approved raising charges,
which I want to say is 2023, but again, I'd have to check the
» So, 2023 is the same as 2021. >> Uh, no, they were increased over that
time span. >> Okay.
» Okay. Thank you. So, let's go ahead and vote.
Okay. And so that carries 5 to2 with um council member Kuffer and council member
McCoy or Mayor Prom McCoy in opposition.
Okay. So we are now on to ordinance 2026-05
a bill for an ordinance authorizing the consent to the Vance brand municipal
airport lease assignment for hangar parcel H14C to book family trust. Are
there any questions from council and is there anything from staff for us?
No. Okay. So, um Okay, >> mayor.
» Oh, there you are. Didn't show up on my screen.
» Okay. Go ahead, council member. >> Thank you, mayor. I the last statement
I'm really confused about whether or not we have updated the rates cuz it I I'm
so confused and if we're going to vote on on three more I I want to make sure
there's clarity that that they have been updated. Um I'm I'm for renewing the
leases, you know, if if the rates have been updated because we're already this
far in the negotiation, but I'm confused if the rates are updated or not. Can I
» provide it? think a little bit of clarity on it.
» Um, so as we operate every so many years, we reassess and update the rates
and charges. The latest incarnation of that was actually asking for a third
party to do a true rates and charges study for us, which we're currently
moving forward with. So that's what's happening now. So [snorts] in the past,
and again, it happens every few years, we have an adjustment to the rates and
charges. That was actually one of the first tasks when I came here as the
airport manager. Um, so I want to say it happened late 2002 or early 2003, hence
when it was officially adopted. Um, and it was adjusted up at that point. So
there is a set rates and charges schedule for the airport. So if you're
getting a new lease, we're obliged to go off of that schedule. Now, if you have
an existing lease yeartoear, the lease itself says it goes up by the consumer
price index. So it goes up however many% the consumer price index is for that
year. I should also clarify that via our rates and charges document, it actually
says on there, here's the rate that it will be unless it's already at a higher
rate and then it will continue to be that. So that's currently what our rates
and charges document says.
» So across the board, you'll see little variances in the rates and charges via
our own rules and regulations on on how those are set.
» Okay. Um continue. >> I'm still confused. Clear as mud, but
Yeah, I I'll I'll pass it on to uh Council Member
» Marzing. Okay, Council Member Mars, go ahead.
» I I I was actually just going to echo Council Member Caloffer's question
because Levi, that was a I don't know if I'm not that bright. I just was a lot of
words that I don't think answered the question directly was when was the last
time rates were updated and by how much? >> For for that detailed information, we'd
actually have to go get the ordinance. And unfortunately, I don't, you know,
have it fair. >> Yeah. Um, okay.
» Oh, there you are. Yes, Council Member Christ.
» Thank you, Mayor. [clears throat] So, I asked a lot of questions of you um
in last session, um, Levi. And I think [clears throat] the
conclusion we came to is that each of the leases that we were looking at had
advanced and um they were being renewed at a at a higher price but not a higher
rate than they were originally. >> Yep. And we did double check them all as
before we brought them here last time. >> And then there was some discussion about
concern about going with a 30-year lease when we are adjusting rates. Um but
legal counsel advised that that is the template and we have to be um very
equitable in our application of leases. So that is how this got into second
reading because after much discussion we decided that we had to go forward
with what was before us because they were expired. Yep.
» Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um, oh, there we
go. Okay, Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. I actually have less
issue with this particular one just here because it's a selling of the property
and it's already in the uh in in that process. And so we're just
agreeing to let the property owner sell their property to another and changing
who's on the title. um than I do with the other two where I feel that there
are there's
I know we're waiting on the lease uh and uh rates uh study but
uh I am really concerned when uh people who are just trying to keep a shelter
over their head in one in some of our um trailer parks in town pay you know in a
three-month period of time more than these people pay over an entire
uh year. And I feel that there's a disparagy between the halves and the
have nots and the and and I'm concerned about that. uh and uh you know maybe
that'll be you know wled out in the rates and
charges study but as it is right now I feel really uncomfortable but I also
feel that we have some leverage here that we need to be looking at in the
future. Um, you know, there's a lot of folks out here that are, you know, we
look at Boulder and by the end of the year, they are
they, according to the news today, they are um, uh, going to require, you know,
uh, unled gas at their their facility. It sounds like, uh, and I don't know how
they're doing that, but more power to them. But I know that uh there are a lot
of community members that are tired of, you know, 60 and 50 year old planes.
Something that not one of us would commute regularly uh to work uh with uh
uh but uh that are flying overhead and that the repairs to change them to, you
know, a unleted gas sort of engine has not been done. And I think people are
sick of it. I think they're sick of that sort of stuff and uh that that somebody
always gets a pass. And so then we're letting them have a 30-year lease when
we should be giving them uh much shorter leases to encourage that that sort of
capitalist approach to sticking the carrot, trying to encourage people to do
things either by the stick or by the carrot. And uh and I'm concerned that uh
uh that that that's the thing that is one of the many things that concerns me
about what's going on at the airport and it's not a reflection on you. You're
getting direction uh through Harold through from us. So,
uh, but, uh, it is a it is a deep concern of mine and that's why I'm I'll
support this one, >> but I won't be supporting any others in
the future. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Um, Council
Member Popkin,
» thank you, mayor, and thank you, council, for your comments on this. I
there are a few broad points I want to make here. I think one I want to remind
everyone that we're focused on a very specific individual hanger lease for
today's discussion >> and that many of the policy concerns or
issues raised by my fellow council members um I actually do want to get
into the merits on but that today is not the time for that. We are discussing the
specific hanger leases and I would encourage us to stay focused on that
today so that we can set up productive conversations as the mayor prom and
mayor helped start kind of over the last couple weeks on the structure and the
future of airport advisory efforts in the city and how and the future of
airport management. I would encourage us to keep that. I I also want to remind us
that we're talking about a fundamentally different market when we're talking
about hanger leases. We're talking about a different market compared to housing
and uh Mayor Prom, if we did control uh mobile home parks and the land there,
I'd say let's definitely have a conversation about the equity there, but
unfortunately to my knowledge, we really do not. Um and then lastly, I guess I
have a question for the city attorney here just to kind of maybe pull this all
together. Uh my understanding is that our airport manager and assistant city
manager uh Uten have looked at the leases that these have been reviewed
consistent to our practice and that the city attorney's office has reviewed this
as well. Are there any reasons to doubt the cons and how these leases have been
applied um from your legal review uh for our purposes of approval tonight?
» Uh thank you council member Popkin Eugene May city attorney. Uh, mayor and
council, I'm looking at resolution 22-186
approving lease rates for land at uh.3576
per square foot. That is the rate that's in the lease.
» I don't think there's any other reasons why I would doubt the
accuracy of that number. I will say I do not personally review this lease. Uh but
my attorney works with uh these matters all the time. Uh
it was a search and I haven't had the chance to look to see
if there's been a further update, but the 2022 rate um resolution rate appears
to be the correct one and that's what's in the lease
» and just uh that was um adopted and signed on January 4th, 2023.
And so >> so that was the update that was being
discussed and the number and that rate study matches the number that is in the
contract >> and and so that's what we're operating
off of >> specifically uh to talk about airport
lease rates. um it is a different market. And so if
you are leasing land on an airport to a non aeronautical use, then you actually
use the market rate for the lease. If you're looking at an aeronautical lease
rate, then you're not comparing against lease rates in the community. You're
comparing against lease rates at other airports. uh and that's within the FAA's
guidance in terms of grant assurances and and so that's another piece of the
conversation. And then you have the non-discrimination clause that exists
within the FAA grant assurances in terms of how um you inherently have to treat
everyone at the airport in the same fashion. And so it's really those grant
assurances combined with the lease rate that was adopted, but the lease rate
that is in the ordinance matches the lease rate that is in the contract.
» Okay, great. Thank you. Um, >> thank you. Thank you, uh, Eugene. I
appreciate that. Um the last point I just wanted to make was um you know I
really I really think this council needs to be careful as we start to pick at
individual um agreements going forward. If we want
to have a policy conversation we should absolutely have that but it shouldn't be
over individual things. That's how we make people make people prospective
businesses and current businesses doubt like how we are handling this whether
we're >> public trust as well.
» Yeah. Exactly. and and so I think we want to be careful as we go forward
about when we have policy conversations versus when we're approving things that
are already in our policy and and moving things forward. So I can't tell if other
people at the mic otherwise I'd call the question.
» No. Um you know what I still have to do public hearing. So um I'm going to go
ahead and open up the Oh, never mind. We have one more question. Go ahead council
member. >> Very quickly. Thanks, Mayor. Um, I the
the reason I voted no for the first one is because I was unclear if the if the
rate on the lease was correct to what is in our ordinances. But now that it's
clear, I'm okay moving forward. But if if it if there was a discrepancy with
what is in our ordinance versus what is on the lease, then I had problems with
that. But since we cleared that up, I'm good to go.
» Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I would like to now open the public hearing for
ordinance 2026-05. Uh, there is no one on the signup sheet,
but is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak?
» Okay, come on down.
Mayor, members, council Scott, 229 Grand Street. Um, we were told two weeks ago
that lease rates adjust with the CPI annually.
Have we not had a adjustment in the CPI for the leases in the last what is it?
Three years that it's just confusing. We're starting
at a point that's three years old. Have we not increased any of the lease
rates? We've got a We've got an airport that's struggling for money that asked
this council for 50% discount to the administrative transfer fee. That's
money that should be going to the general fund. We need money in the
general fund. the airports receiving a discount for services provided by
taxpayers and we're not doing increases
as we're supposed to within the
the airport has great rules and regulations and policies and stuff.
Somebody got to sit down and read them. I've read them. I'll read them again.
I'll keep reading them. Anybody wants to have a conversation and correct me,
please do. We're not doing what we said we're
doing. Two weeks ago, we were told to adjust with the CPI.
3% was the number that was given. The rate that you're getting, I and I
don't I think you pass this to Council Member Popkins point earlier, this
should not stop this this thing. Approve it, get it going, but understand you got
a systemic problem with what's going on at the airport and has been going on at
the airport. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay. So,
seeing no one else, um I will go ahead and close the public hearing and can I
have a motion to uh pass and adopt ordinance 2026-05?
Um so, council, the motion has been made by council member Kuffer. Do I have a
second? >> Second.
» Okay. And council member Christ has seconded it. Let's go ahead and vote.
Okay. And that carries unanimously. And we are now on to um item D, ordinance
2026-06, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the
city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brand Municipal
Airport Hangar Parcel H55, the premises to Lyall Properties LLC tenant. Um, are
there any questions from council? >> Okay, council member Marcy.
» Thank you, Mayor. Just very quickly, question for staff generally. How much
has CPI gone up? Like, if we're basing if we're basing a lease rate in 2022,
and it's January of 2026, theoretically, what would that adjustment have been? My
quick Google search gave me a number that is different than 3%. So, I'm
curious about the staff's Oh, my time's expired. Yeah,
» appreciate that. Thank you. Um,
» yeah. >> So, a couple of things. So, I think
we're we're mixing a couple of So, there's two pieces to this.
» Yeah. >> Um,
» help me understand. >> I'm I'm reading the lease right now.
lease rate by adding an inflationary adjustment which shall be equal to the
inflationary increases defined by the most current consumer's price index of
all consumers for the Denver area liquid metropolitan area. So, so that's a
number that needs to be in there on the annual increase, but the base rate
starts at the number that's adopted by council in the policy and then within
the lease it create it increases the lease itself increases by the CPI index,
not the base rate. >> Okay. And we are doing that within our
leases. So, theoretically like that number based on my quick Google and
correct me if I'm wrong would be like 11%ish.
is that on those >> how much CPI has increased you mean
» between the time that that rate was established and where we are
» um I I couldn't say exactly off the top of my head but approximately if I recall
» okay if it's if that doesn't sound crazy then I'm I'm I'm comfortable okay thank
you >> so to to the point when you look at the
standard rates and charges >> um
so existing lease improvements point or current lease rate whichever is more.
That's where it catches it. So, the current lease can be more than the base
rate >> because the current leases increase on
that piece and that's the nuance in in the details in terms of where you start.
» Great. That's helpful. Thank you so much.
» Great. Anyone else? Okay. So, um now I would
like to open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-07.
Is there anyone? Oh, we already did public hearing, right, on this one? No,
we did not. It's all these hanger leases that's all meshing together. Um Okay. Is
there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this matter?
» Thank you, Scott. [laughter] Okay. Um so, seeing no no one else
coming forward, I now close public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and
adopt ordinance 2026-06? Okay. So, the motion has been made by
council member Koffer. Do I have a second? Seconded by council member
Christ. Let's go ahead and vote. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry.
» Oh, I didn't see you. There we go. Go ahead. Um, before we vote, go ahead,
Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. You know, I really
don't want to harm anybody. My votes are more of a loyal opposition
sort of approach to letting the the hangar owners know that they need to be
aware that that there's going to be some changes here and uh and that they
shouldn't have a unanimous vote every time they uh we come up here with a
uh with an ordinance. It makes me concerned that we do have other uh
members of the public that feel, you know, distinctly
uh different about this. that my vote is not intended to make uh uh to harm uh
it's intended to send the signal that we are in in a a period of change and uh in
in a situation here where things have to get better and uh and there's going to
have to be an anticipation of change uh there. So, [clears throat] it's it's not
intended to make to to go against uh you know, our policy so much as to send that
message that it wasn't unanimous. It's not always going to be unanimous and and
uh and that uh we're if members are are agreeing to this, it's because uh you
know of the contractual side of things. It's not that they necessarily
um agree uh with uh what's going on or and and I
think there's many members here on the council that would like to see some sort
of uh uh change of how we how we do things because you know there's an
equity issue and things like that. So uh thank you and and Levi thank you for
trying to answer our questions to the best of your ability.
» Okay. Um, Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. Um,
Mayor Brom, um, with all due respect, and you know, I have the utmost respect
for you, sir. Um, I I do want to just note that like if every single person
here on council took that kind of principled loyal opposition stance, then
we would be unfair to the people who are following our current laws and policies
and procedures. And so while I understand the willingness to try to
make a point with a vote, I would strongly discourage this group from
getting the habit of that because it does then create these problems where
multiple people could start to kind of vote on that principle when all the
people who are when when the folks who are applying for these leases or coming
to renew are just following our rules. And if they are truly following our
rules, we shouldn't be penalizing anyone for following our current policy. when
if or when it sounds like it's a question of when we decide to update
that. I I fully encourage this group to have a very spirited conversation and a
very intentional conversation about what we want the future to look like for
this. But I really really would discourage this group from making a
habit out of um you know principled votes on a broader policy issue than the
question uh than the topic in question. >> Okay, let's go ahead and vote.
Okay. And so that carries 5 to2 with council me council member Marcine and
Mayor Prom McCoy in opposition. So we are now on to item E.
» I think that's us. So, um, ordinance 2026-07,
a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a drainage
easement located within the boundaries of the fairground marketplace
subdivision plat. Um, do we have a presentation or any
update from staff?
» No. Okay. Um, do we have any questions from council?
Okay. So, I wouldn't Oh, wait. I'm going to check out our Zoom person. And did I
lose Popkin?
» Nope. Okay. No, I Oh, there he is on my on my screen. Trying to Now I have this
weird thing popped up. Oh my god. Okay, I am having issues on my my computer. I
have too many tabs open. See, look at what happened.
» Close that. Okay, there we go. But then I can't see this. God dang it. Okay,
[clears throat] no that. Okay. So, okay. I just wanted
to check to see if Popkin had his hand up. He clearly does not. So, Council
Member Chris, I'm just having all these windows keep popping up on my screen.
» Oh my god.
» Turn on. >> Yeah.
» Thank you, Mayor. >> It's just a comment and this um item
came before the water board and they did not have any problems with it either.
So, so that's just to inform that the water board approves as well.
» Okay. >> Very good. Thank you. And um
public hearing. I would now like to open public hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience who wishes to speak on this matter? Okay. Seeing no one, um I will
go ahead and close the public hearing. And may I have a motion to approve
ordinance 2026-07? >> Okay. Second.
» Okay. So, the motion has been made by Mayor Prom McCoy, seconded by Council
Member Christ. Uh, let's go ahead and vote.
» Okay, so that carries unanimously. We are now on to um items removed from
consent agenda. And I believe we had item A
and that was made by Council Member Marcen. Is that correct?
Yeah. Items removed. >> Oh, nope. You're fine. Resolution
2026-12. >> Okay. Go ahead and put on your mic.
» Thank you so much, Mayor. Um, and it looks like we have staff here uh to walk
through a presentation. So, I I mayor I mean Laura's here. Do you want to do
that? Do you have a presentation, Laura, or do you have Amazing. So, do we want
to walk through that first and then I can share some thoughts and questions on
the back end? Would that be because maybe I'll answer it. Awesome.
[snorts]
Good evening, mayor and members of city and council. I'm Laura Moody, um
redevelopment director and the executive director of Longmont Urban Renewal
Authority. I will be presenting on two intergovernmental agreements. Actually,
one one was pulled, one stayed on consent um between the city of Longmont
and the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority.
So, we'll start with the idea of tax increment financing um tiff. And so tax
increment financing is the added taxable value of the improvements that of the
development that that is created by this new private investment. It is generated
from the existing mill levies imposed by these taxing entities. It's established
through negotiations with the taxing entities. It has a maximum of 25 year
collection period. And then what is it not? It is not a new tax and it is does
not increase tax rates on properties. >> Hey Laura, let me jump in real quick. at
its base, I think it is not money that we're currently collecting
uh from the property. And so I think that's the big piece. It's a lot of
times you will hear us talk about a but for it really is but for the project,
you don't have the money. And so if the project doesn't go forward,
» then you're generating no tax revenue. And I will I will get to that in just a
minute where we we look at the existing um property tax on the existing property
and then what that will impact uh moving forward. So tax increment financing,
you'll hear the term base and you'll hear the term increment. And how that
works is the base is the assessed value of the property without the property
improvements. And [snorts] the increment is the amount
of value increase over that base that increases due to the property
investment. And so the money in that increment is what is invested back into
the property and the money from the base remains with the taxing entities.
So some key impacts key impact points that I do want to you
to have three takeaways before we go into the presentation. One is the
property taxes generated by the new development is reinvestment reinvested
in this plan area. The second is for the Hover and Nelson project. This
reinvestment makes the project possible. Without it, it would not happen. And
then um the second and Martin project the that that money is then reinvested
in the southeast Longmont urban renewal plan area and can further other
developments within that plan area. So touching base on the Twin Peaks Mall um
plan area for TIFF area 2. This is um just with a with a map we are at 800
South Hover Street. So, just a little bit of um table setting. This is the
former Walmart site. The Walmart closed in 2011. The building was demolished in
2016 and it's been vacant ever since. So, um I have gotten several questions.
So, this intergovernmental agreement that we're discussing tonight is between
the city of Longmont and the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority. The request is
for 100% of the city's portion of the tiff for a period of 25 years and the
city then retains for that 25-year period the property attacks associated
with the base. Now you're also aware of a of a redevelopment agreement that has
already been approved um between Lura and Hines Longmont 800 LLC. So this is a
reimbursement agreement of up to 600,000 per year for up to 15 million over the
25-year period. So [snorts] only the tiff generated is reimbursed. If it's
less, less is reimbursed. And then if more than 600,000 per year
is generated on the property, lura then can keep that excess and lur the lura
board then decides how to spend that money. So those are the the differences
in the agreements. So just some more information about the 800 South Hover
site. There have [snorts] been extensive calls for service particularly in the f
in the last five years. 375 including trespassing sus suspicious situations,
um extra patrols, wellness checks, etc. Um and this many people are familiar
with the car meetup that resulted in the death of a teenager. Mhm.
» So, I won't go into the 11 conditions of blight, but you will see that um there
are 11 conditions and you can identify them on the site. Um the map here that
outlines where the different conditions are and what conditions are found on the
site. So the site is part of our future land use map and it is identified as a
regional center in the future land use map within Envision Longmont. It is
identified in an area of change and what this means is that it is identified as
an area for potential infill or redevelopment.
So what does the regional center designation mean? It means that um uses
can be large format retail, restaurant entertainment or highdensity apartment
and condominiums.
There are existing site challenges which make it extremely challenging for retail
and commercial development. First and foremost is the successful development
at Village at the Peaks um very close by where we do not want to cannibalize the
that successful commercial development within the site. There are multiple
ownerships. There is a reciprocal parking easement across uh the property
that requires consent for parking. There is limited access off Nelson and then
there is also awkward access off Bent. So when there are access issues like
this um it is not appealing to retail or commercial development. So what project
is being discussed? There is a development project of 256
units of a retail um wrap that is an unproven product here in Longmont. Um
there is a community benefit of the elimination of the site issues on the on
the demolished Walmart. There are transportation benefits. This site is on
the bus rapid transit line where you would have individuals who could take um
bus rapid transit and live and work within Longmont. The developer is also
proposing to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement by one and a half
times by contributing 450,000 to satisfy this requirement. And finally, um we
heard this morning um at the LED event that houses are where jobs sleep at
night. And so this would be where Long Longmont residents could um live and
take transit and um live in this walkable environment for um these
community members. So what improvements are being proposed?
These include a north south drive, installation of water, sanitary storm
lines, plaz uh a plaza and landscaping among others. So what are the re revenue
benefits to Longmont? Um Longmont benefits from 1.7 million in use tax as
well as six over six million in development fees. There are benefits of
sales tax revenue and these estimates are the proposed residents um who would
be living in these 256 units. this this was what they would be spending as they
would be shopping in within the city of Longmont. [snorts] And what I mentioned
before is the property tax. So it would be estimated that the city would gain
13,000 um per year of that base and then that that would be estimated to be
approximately 30,000 that first year for LURA for the increment. And um like um
what what was just mentioned, this is a this is an increase because the existing
property tax revenue for 2025 was um 6,700.
So that is the projected 25-year TIFF analysis for the redevelopment. And then
finally, just the the recommendation and that that we would um our our
recommendation is to approve the resolution approving the
intergovernmental um agreement for tax revenue increment
revenue sharing between the city of Longmont and Longmont Urban Renewal
Authority in TIFF area 2. Can I answer any questions?
» Okay. So, I'm going to give it back to Council Member Marcen. he pulled the
item. >> Thank you so much, mayor, and thank you,
Laura, for that presentation. I know there's been a lot of back and forth
around the community about this specific project of late. Um, and I just want to
kind of frame my own thinking here before I ask a couple questions, which
is this is the first time that I, as a member of council or a member of the
Laura board, have had the opportunity to to vote on and look at this specific
project. I think the last time it was considered, I was sitting out there. So
I I'm approaching it with maybe a different perspective than my fellow
council members who were here and also the perspective of having just heard
very loudly and clearly from our community where they are at on a project
that I think from a community perspective is going to present a
certain a certain way. Um so just want to be really clear that that these tiff
dollars and the reason I'm asking these questions is not so much about tiff. I
understand tiff. I I think tiff is the right financing mechanism for this. My
concern is with the end product that these TIFF dollars are gonna are going
to create are going to allow. Um and it's the only time I'm going to be able
to discuss it. So um remind me one more time how many total rental units are we
talking about in phase one? >> 256
» and and and that's a 200. So we're talking about a 256 apartment
development on Hover and Nelson roughly in an area that as my fellow council
members are well aware has been seriously stacked with those kinds of
developments. We've all heard about it from the community over the last several
years. Um was any consideration just in the negotiation process and find you
know development partners working through the planning phase given to and
I don't know Laura I know you're on the lur I don't know if you're the
necessarily the person to answer this question but given to working with a
developer more interested in for sale product interested in a different mix of
product for this specific site. I appreciate you in your presentation
highlighting some of the challenges with that for this specific site. Um, and we
all know the challenges related to condos and for sale units, but was that
a was that a conversation during this process as far as you're aware?
» I I think at least in the conversations with this this group, I know from the
urban renewal perspective, that was something they talked about and um
» um I think what they indicated is that it it wouldn't pencil out financially
and ultimately they have the contract on the property and so
um it's really dependent on who the owner of the property is and the
contract that they have with the buyer in terms of who we negotiate because
similar to the why conversation we don't control that the property owner controls
that >> yeah and I appreciate that and and I
think just from my perspective had I been able to be in the lura
conversations had I been had the planning process been something that I
you would have had a say in. I I would have thought differently about this. Um,
from my perspective, this is a vote essentially to allow the financing and
development of another large apartment complex in an area that's already
oversaturated and our residents are have said very clearly where they're at on
that. Um, and I'm going to So, I I appreciate your your work on this,
Laura. I'm I'm going to vote no on financing on on this on these tiff on
these tiff dollars. I I I want this site to be redeveloped. I think had the
projects that have gone on in that side of the community had not been there in
the last few years, my thinking would have been different. I think right now,
um, as a representative of the community, I have to I have to vote no.
So, thanks. >> Um, Council Member Popkin,
» you got to get out. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, Laura, thank you for
the presentation. I I had one or two clarifying questions for you. Um, and
and then, uh, maybe a couple comments to make. Um
when for for members of the public who aren't following like all of the TIFF
definitions super closely um is is tiff a tax incentive?
» No, it's enabling development to pay its own way.
» Thank you. And is it a is it a subsidy using city funds?
» No, it's not a subsidy. Is it a rebate or a grant or any other kind of
incentive structure like that that we're taking out of our other funds
» as in like are we taking it away from other purposes that that we could be
applying it to >> if we use it for this project?
» Um so TIFF has very specific guidelines on
what it can be used for. Um there must be it must be utilized for public
improvements. Um so there are very specific guidelines
on what how it can be used what it can be done what it and how it is used to
mitigate reverse prevent blight. So it is it is there are very strict
guidelines on what it can be used for and and and that that
mitigation of blight is the is the prime directive there. That is really the the
reason of what what what we're doing what we're doing within urban renewal.
So, um, you know, it it it's come back to my original question just for the
sake of time here. Are we pulling funding from other areas in our budget
to pay for these improvements? >> Uh, no. And I think that goes back to my
first comment is the the funding for this is only available because of the
project. If the project doesn't go forward, there's no funding to put in
the increment. Thank you, Harold. Thank you, Laura. So,
not only is there no funding to put in the increment, there's no funding to uh
help address the public safety hazards on the site. There's no funding that is
stimulating the businesses in the village of the Peaks commercial area
generally. There is no funding to support workforce housing there um
that's uh connected on the future bus rapid transit lines. Like this project
enables those things. It doesn't pull money from other purposes. Correct.
» Correct. >> Okay. And then this project is also, if
I understand the development agreement correctly, um adding a
150% of the afford is paying 150% of the fee in L for affordable housing.
Correct. >> That is correct.
» And and I just want to go back to your question of um pulling funding. It is
bringing more money to the city. Like I said, the the property tax in 2025 was
just over 6,000. And due to this project, the first year of property tax
revenue of the base will be nearly double that. So the city will see 13,000
in property tax. So the city is benefiting from this development.
» Yeah, that feels small to me when we think about in this context. Can you
give me the remind me of the redevelopment fee or like the
development fees that the applicant is paying that also go to the city.
» Correct. There are over $6 million in fees that will be paid um to the city as
well. >> So that Yeah. And that's a little bit
more substantial than just the kind of 12 13,000 um increase there. Correct.
Substantially. Um >> the other clarifying question I had so
the Walmart site and correct correct me if I'm wrong because this was before my
time here, but the Walmart site closed in 2011. Correct.
» That is correct. >> Has there been any uh serious efforts to
redevelop this since before this project?
» I I can jump in on that. Um since I've been here, I I joined in 2013. Um
there was only to my knowledge there was only one
potential project that was brought to our attention on
that location. Unfortunately, because of the ownership structure on that parcel,
uh that project didn't move forward. And that existed when the Walmart building
was actually still in place >> because
» that was pre 2016 even. >> Pardon?
» That was pre 2016, I think, before the building was demolished.
» I think so. So, before the building was demolished, there was one interested
party in that location. And the the issue with that location is really when
the building existed. Um it was odd in how it was approved because you
have two different land owners and one of the land owners owned the
building and so the two didn't necessarily agree and so while the
building was there there was nothing that really could move forward. Um,
since that date, I have not been aware of anybody else that's interested in
that location. Laura, have you Are you >> Thank you. Thank you, Harold. And And to
be clear, like that you haven't heard any interest through perhaps a period of
the historically lowest interest rates for financing construction projects in
recent history. Correct. >> No.
» Uh, thank you. Um, so I guess where I'm trying to get at is
» Yeah. I'm going to say get to your point quick because I we have a lot of people
in the queue. So >> yeah, so I I fully sympathize with uh
some of the points that Council Member Mars made. However, I want to reiterate
that what this project is fundamentally
different from some of the other housing projects that we have seen come up. It
is aligned with a lot of the plans that we had a lot of community input on. And
it costs us more money if projects don't move forward. And this one does align
with so many of the goals that we care about. Um, and there's a there's a major
challenge right now with state law that is preventing for sale housing, which I
know myself and and most of this council also care about. And we specifically did
inquire about that during this process. Um, and in fact, this project does
contribute to our affordable housing fund that we can use to help invest in
future for sale housing, which I and and they're contributing more than they're
required to. So, I I'll pause for now before I make a few other points, but I
because I do want to hear what my fellow council members think, but I do want to
remind us of the context of how we got here over the last 15 years and why this
project is is not uh you know, maybe the the cookie cutter thing that some people
might think it is. I've had many conversations with residents throughout
the the uh campaign season after that about what this project is doing and
after they understand kind of the mechanism, the concept, the goals of it,
and what it's actually correcting for. Um I have I have not only received less
opposition but actually support for why we're doing this. Okay.
» So I did want to make that point because I think clarity is king here. Thank you.
» Thank you. Uh Council Member Prito.
» Uh thank you Laura for the presentation. I had sent you some emails earlier. I
got a response to one of them but my other one might have been lost. Um
and maybe it was yesterday. I don't remember. [laughter]
But one of my questions I'm I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around the
25 year tiff time frame and how um we go about using that if I wasn't
mistaken in the other contract for the Martin one that had a sunset. So
once we meet x amount then it cuts off and we don't go to the 25 years. And so
I'm just wondering why the city um does the overall 25- year period kind of rule
of thumb and doesn't cut it off once that debt is paid so we can start
getting those taxes back to us. Can you explain a little bit of that background?
So the state statute dictates that the period can be 25 years and it really
does um tie back to
um how the money is to be utilized to mitigate blight. And so in
this situation um were were you asking about because they're they're very
different situations. the the the Martin project versus the Hines project. Um, do
you want me to elaborate on the 25 years, how it's used
differently in the two projects? >> Yeah. Well, I guess I was just trying to
understand why in this project it goes to the full 25 years, but in the Martin
project, I believe it it cuts off or sunsets once that debt's paid off.
» No, they're they're both for 25 years. >> They're both for 25 years. And so I then
I guess the question is why do we go for the full 25 years and not the projected
x amount of years to pay off the x amount of debt.
Does that make sense? >> So um Harold, did you want to answer?
Okay. >> Okay. So the the redevelopment agreement
with the Hines project, it is aundred
20 um million dollar project. So there is no um
repayment of debt. It's just contribution to expenses.
And so the way the contribution is broken out, it's
reimbursed over that 25 year period to get to that total amount of
reimbursement. And how that is allocated is that
because the the property taxes are generated on a yearly basis, the
reimbursement then goes in a yearly basis to get to that total amount of
those public improvements. Does that answer your question
» somewhat? And and I think because you know I think the argument that this in
in what we tell our constituents or like the explanation we give is we
without tIF the project is not possible. >> Correct.
» Right. >> Correct.
» But in some of the situations it doesn't sound like that that argument stands.
And so I just want to make sure that we're not just giving
this the tax away that it is actually that reimbursement or filling in the gap
but and and making sure like if it doesn't need to go to the 25 years then
why do we go to the 25 years when we could be getting that back into maybe
general fund or other things. And maybe I'm misunderstanding this um but I was
just wanting some clarification on that and understanding. So on this one you
have two different pieces. There's two caps that actually are in place. There
is the total cap of the funding that goes into it and then there's the yearly
cap of the funding. And so they're capped on a yearly basis at $600,000.
» And then so if they generated $800,000 in increment, they only get $600,000.
if they generate $400,000 in increment, they only get $400,000.
So when you're running the cap to the full 25 years, that's projected, I
believe, on the 600,000 for 25 years. So they have a maximum cap that they can
get and then they have a yearly cap that they can get. So to get at your point,
if they build it and all of a sudden it appraises at this and they're putting in
900,000, they only get 600,000 and then the remaining piece comes back
into the urban renewal authority. Correct, Laura?
» That is correct. >> And so then the urban renewal authority
can invest it in areas adjacent to the property. So let's say theoretically
we needed to put a new signal light at Hoverver and Nelson, the Urban Renewal
Authority can contribute to that project or if there was um we talked about if
there was a project at the fairgrounds, the Urban Renewal Authority could take
because it's adjacent to the area, they could take anything that they get above
that to participate in that project. So I think to answer your question, they're
limited at 600,000 per year. And when you take the 600,000 per year over the
25 years, those two numbers align with each other. Now on the other side of the
equation when you look at different projects
if you're looking at urban renewal authorities to let's say we're trying to
build a public project transit station for example we may be the ones that
issue the debt to construct a transit station. So then that one's written in a
way that if we incur debt and for some reason if we pay the debt off early then
it stops. But that's related to debt that we're issuing. So they're two
different agreements that are trying to accomplish two different things. Okay.
» Did that answer your question? >> Yeah. You did a better job.
» Yeah. No, it was and it gets really confusing and I guess the due diligence
that I want to make sure is yes. like and I think Lura is almost one and the
same with the city like it's a very close partnership and so just making
sure that it's not just all going to Lura and the city's actually getting its
tax back to put into our public fund so that we can pay for things that we need
and and have the flexibility to pay for whatever and not necessarily hands tied
to a specific area or project. So, >> and I think to that question, so think
back last year when we were well, and it could be this year, we're not far enough
into it. No, but when we were having sales and use tax issues. So, when you
bring the sales and use tax that they're putting in as part of the permit fees,
that's also adding a different source of revenue to the system. So if let's say
that project happened last year, our gap in terms of sales and use tax may have
been smaller because of the fees that they're paying as they're coming in.
That is a tax. It's just a different form of a tax that comes into the
system. >> Thank you.
» Okay, Council Member Christ.
Thank you, mayor. [sighs]
So, I was one of those that sent you an email, but I was really just curious.
Um, and one of my questions was, you know,
how are we going to spend the extra money that's um about 3.3 million, you
say that will be above what um Hines takes out of it? And I I just look at
this as a big investment in the community because um basically what
we're saying is that the um that we're going to keep the original
property tax and you say as we begin to develop it that will actually double to
be 13,000 a year. So >> that is correct.
» That's a win right there. Correct. >> And then um
we're going to save public safety time and excessive calls on in that area.
Plus, we're also going to receive sales tax and I think you said $500,000
to which will sales tax will go into the um public safety fund in that amount.
So, we actually have more sales tax for the city, but the public safety portion
of that would be about 500,000. So, that's another win. And and then um for
those who weren't in the original meetings with Hines, I've got to say
that this is a bit of an original project and that it has a wraparound
garage, so the garage is safe and out outside influences can't come into that
garage. It's five stories, so there's elevators and it's in an area where
there's a lot of commercial activity, so it's very walkable. if you want to go to
a restaurant, if you want to go to entertainment, if you want to go to the
fairgrounds, if you want to catch a bus, um it it's quite a bit different than
some of the slap and dash that we've been seeing that the community is
concerned about. And I actually have had a lot of interest in that product
already from the community. And so my big question is I've been tasked to ask
is when are they going to break ground on this product?
» They're hoping very soon. I mean, they were they were really hoping to um break
ground as soon as they can. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um and my understanding
of that extra um the extra money that will come back to
Lura, we can reinvest in in more buildings, in more um assets that will
also grow property tax and grow sales tax in those two areas. But it'll be up
to the lura board. So we'll have we'll have influence as we go forward as to
how's that how that is spent. >> That is correct.
» Okay. All right. Well, I I'm in favor of this and thank you for being so patient
and showing us once again what the plan is.
» Thank you. Yeah, the plan and the process as well. Um, Council Member Cole
Copper. >> Thank you, Mayor, and thanks for all the
information. Um, so it's been a vacant site for a while. No, hardly any retail
or large event company has shown interest in the site. It is a hard spot
for retail in-n-out. So, I'm not surprised that there hasn't been much
activity for that. Um, but no like Trader Joe's type of grocery, no no
library branch that we've been working on could fit there. Like, what else
could go there if it weren't this project?
you know, those um access issues are are are really limiting and access is is
bread and butter to these retailers and if they have any access issues at all,
they will find another site with no access issues. And um retailers have
have a formula. They know exactly how many cars per day, how many people
within five miles, how many um they know exactly what they're looking
for in a site and if they cannot find it in a site, they will look at another
community, another state, another I mean they will look at at other sites. So, I
I think the the access issues speak volumes.
» And if we don't approve this, that doesn't mean that another apartment
developer wouldn't come in and develop it anyway. They just might not get the
tiff. Correct. That doesn't stop development from happening there is what
I'm kind of asking. Is that correct? Um, I think potentially I think what you
would get is if something were to occur is is probably not this type of product.
Um, and it would probably be more of um suburban style simply because the the
challenge in this is really the wrapped design in this. Um there hasn't been
anything like that built in Longmont. And so the the underwriting on that
project is what's creating certain issues, you know, and talking to Hines,
they said we could underwrite this probably right away in Cherry Creek
because that's what it's proven itself there. So behind it is the financing
piece that that is part of the challenge in this. So could you get multif family?
Yes. Could you get multif family that is designed like this that has elevators
and other pieces? I think it's hard to say without the tiff because that really
the financing is driving that issue. I think the other thing that we probably
we didn't talk about in this is it's not just the land ownership on the Walmart
site. It's the land ownership in the entire site because there are um
covenants on um retail sites that you often see where certain tenants have
certain rights um that can preempt the rights of the other property owners. And
so in this case, when you think about Hobby Lobby in particular, it's
sightelines, it's access, it's these other issues. And so I think that piece
of the puzzle is also making the site very difficult which retail then becomes
a problem because I don't know this agreement per se but I have seen other
agreements where they also can say yay or nay to who comes in. Now on the
retail front to Laura's point you know we can say we want this type of retail
or we want this in the community. Um, kind of when I said earlier, tell you
what you need to hear, not necessarily what you want to hear. [snorts]
» Um, the reality in the retail world right now is that they have been under
fire probably for the last 10 years. And their their decision making process is
probably more refined than anything that I've seen in my career. And in most
cases where people are bringing retail in uh in a lot of areas that are
adjacent to us, they're actually having to participate in sales tax sharebacks
in order to get the retail which from my perspective becomes dangerous because
then what happens when it's not working and so it is a very competitive world
and really the biggest problem with that site is access visibility to Hoover in
terms of the building that's in front of it and you know what we're hearing is
it's just not a desirable location right now for retail and we we've just seen
the hit since I've been here we just kind of have seen what's happened in
that location. >> Mayor, I'll be quick. Um what is our
current vacancy rate in Longmont? Is it somewhere around five 6%.
» I have that slide. I think um 3% >> 3%.
» We saw that this morning, didn't we? We we [clears throat] saw we saw some
information >> vacancy 3.4%
um within uh the city of Longmont. This was from our from our housing people
today. >> Okay. And um any ideas on what the rent
price might be? >> No,
» I do not know. >> No, that's fine. Um my concern is that
there's not going to be affordable housing near transportation. I am for
building um housing near transit because I think we need to move people
efficiently with our transportation network and I'm I'm sad that there won't
be any affordable units here because this is in a major transportation
corridor and it's surrounded by um many shopping centers and I feel like sure
we're getting money uh flu to to do something else somewhere else um but I I
don't want to push people on the outskirts town where we don't have
transportation to help them get to their jobs and their services. Um, this is to
my core where I want uh density in transportation corridors, but I I I I'm
really want to see affordability near these corridors. And
I don't know where I stand. I'm conflicted. So, thank you. Okay.
» Thank you. Oh, Council Member Popkin.
Thank you, mayor. I'll try to keep it briefer than my other comments. Um,
there there are a few things that I want to maybe set the record straight on
here. Um, first, I I share Council Member Kalcott for uh struggle a little
bit in terms of, you know, really trying to prioritize affordability along these
corridors. What I will say though is housing supply in of itself increases
affordability across the board. and you could subsidize something publicly in a
specific area, but you know that actually dilutes the the market effect.
And when we're thinking about a new zone in our first and main area and sugar
mill and steam uh district, like that's where like all of these ideas, all of
this passion and energy should really come to a head so that we can set up
those zones for exactly the kinds of things we want around transit oriented
development. This project is a particularly unique creature because
it's correcting for some defects on this site, some blight conditions on this
site. And when I think about what responsible growth looks like in this
community, it is leveraging a site like this
» because it is along, you know, the downside about it being along a major
corridor is that it's visible, but the whole intention of it being along a
major corridor like this is that it's transit accessible and business
accessible. Walking, biking, taking the bus, and all of that, right? And so,
What this does is it also pulls pressure off of existing neighborhoods. And I
know this council hasn't seen some of those projects yet either come back or
come through, but uh I know some of my my former my current colleagues who've
been on the council for many years longer than myself have seen that
wholeheartedly. And when you get those types of pressures, um it's a very
different conversation. This pulls pressure off of existing neighborhoods
and focuses on redeveloping, not developing, redeveloping sites that have
been previously disturbed um and our public's health and safety hazards. Um
and and I want to build on uh Council Member Chris's comments before. This
really is an investment in Long and our region. redevelopment of this site. And
Laura, correct me if any of these numbers are out of date, but as of uh
end of last year, redevelopment of this site will generate an estimated $ 48
million in just the first 25 years in local revenue to Longmont, Boulder
County, and the school district. Money that would not exist otherwise. Um, and
in fact, this actually includes approximately 11 million in city taxes,
fees, and other revenue um that directly enhance and support our public safety
and our core services. um and roughly 32 million in taxes in for uh the school
district and and the county. Um this helps fund important services without
raising taxes on current residents um or expanding development in farmland or
existing neighborhoods. And and so this is particularly valuable when our
budgets are tighter and when federal and state funding is limited. Um, this when
when you think about the TIFF revenue, when you think about everything that's
coming in and going out, it's roughly a 220% return on investment.
» We're putting in 15 million through TIFF and we're getting about 48 million in
regional revenue. I I I would love to see more projects
that achieve that and that correct public safety and
health hazards. I don't know where how often we're going to see those types of
opportunities and from the where the risk is all borne by the private sector.
It is such an opportunity for us and an opportunity to support the village of
the peaks which when economic times get challenging. More foot traffic is so
incredibly valuable to the strength of that um part of our community and those
businesses that are there and the businesses that we hope to frequent on
occasion when we when we need something or want to shop there. Um it really
enhances that. The last thing I'll just say here is that I think this is truly
responsible. >> Um before you do you have a question?
You have about a minute and 20 seconds left. So
» question are there any other mics on?
» Uh yes there are. >> Okay.
» Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Um
» so I won't move the question then. Um yeah don't
» this this is from my perspective and from all of the conversations I've had
with residents. Responsible growth where growth makes sense for us. Um, it's not
the dirtiest and dis most disgusting site in Longmont that's reserved for the
sugar mill when if for when annexed, but like it is not a pretty site and it is a
complicated site that impacts our other businesses and housing right nearby. And
we have an opportunity before us. We have a partner who is actually trying to
negotiate effectively with us and trying to build something that is uh creative
and new for our community. Um, is it the perfect thing? Uh, probably not. But
most projects aren't and we're do we have something that's really really good
and a sound investment for our community. So I really really hope we
set a clear precedent with this and say hey we want you to build on these types
of sites because we got a whole lot more of those at first in Maine and in our
sugar mill. >> Great. Thank you. Council member Marcen.
» Thank you mayor. And I I want to say I appreciate council member Popkins points
because I actually agree with him on a lot of it when it comes to this specific
site. I think this site is appropriate for development like this. It's along a
major corridor. It's near services. It's close to transit. Um, from a planning
standpoint, I get it. Makes sense here. Um, I really wish this had come forward
5 years ago. Um because I I agree on virtually every point that Council
Member Popkins raised with this specific project, but but I think we're talking
about an area of the community that our residents are screaming at us about when
it comes to the hundreds of highdensity rental units and highdensity apartments
that have been added in this quarter mile area in the last 5 years. As a
council member, I believe I have to take a broader view here. Um, I think at one
point during the campaign, I heard almost everybody who was running um say
that they would like to see prioritization for for sale units and
fewer apartment developments. I do not believe I can honestly tell my
community that I'm doing that and not voting for more apartments if I am in
fact about to vote for more apartments. Um,
our residents are screaming to slow this down a little bit and to be very
thoughtful. I appreciate the project on its merits, but our community needs
ownership opportunities. Our community needs chances for folks to put down
roots, build equity, and see Longmont as their long-term home. When we invest
publicly in redevelopment by approving a mechanism like this that's going to
enable a development, I think it's fair to ask if we're advancing the right
balance in our housing mix. And I don't think this does that. I don't think
another 256 market rate and above market rate rental units with no affordable
on-site units that this tiff will allow to be created is what our community is
asking from us. Um so for that reason I'm not going to support the item
tonight. >> Okay. Okay. Um Council Member Kuffford,
I believe this will be your second time, correct?
» That's correct. >> Okay.
» Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Uh and I'll be quick. Um I did speak with um the
management for uh village at the peaks and they have been having issues um with
that area and I appreciate everything that everybody on this dasis has said
tonight and I appreciate what council member Marging said. Yes, we have heard
from our community almost all of us um that we we have too many rental
apartments. Um, but I'm also looking at it from the opportunity of redeveloping
this area that has caused our businesses at Village at the Peaks a lot of
heartburn and that they're spending a a large amount of money because of the
surrounding area is is a magnet to blight and we're we're having issues and
I think we have an opportunity and it is a a very difficult decision that I'm
going to be about creating more rental apartments.
In my heart, I really want us to have for sale apartments that are affordable
in transportation corridors. I believe this this site is appropriate for what
we're doing. The apartments that are being built elsewhere are not in the
areas where I am passionate for us to develop. Um so I I believe I'm going to
be for this. >> Um thank you and thank you for the
comments. I mean, yes, we do have to vote our heart on on these issues. For
me, you know, this area has been a source of consternation, public safety
activity. Um, you know, it is it has been a pain for the business owners in
that area as well as the city itself, our public safety. Um, you know, and I
think about the talk of rentals and all that. Well, guess what? I rent. and
buying a home. You know, I you've known my situation over $200,000 in mental
health, health care because of a broken system.
Um there are people who are and the more I talk about it, the more people come to
me and are in the same boat where they have great credit, they have money saved
up, they cannot qualify. So, you know, we also need a place to
go. And I think about um you know folks and friends that I have in the ID, the
um individuals with developmental disabilities as well as um people with
severe mental illness, you know, looking for places that they are close to
commerce that they are not having to drive but they have easy accessibility
to buses and transit. you know, I see this development in this location as a
prime opportunity for people in that situation. So, you know, that's why
moving forward with this, um, I look at other annexations that will be coming
down our pike, other things that will be coming before us, and I'm going to look
at them with more critical with a critical lens in the sense of are we do
we want development out where there is no transit, where there isn't close
close to businesses and economic development, and that we're tearing
apart farmland or open space areas, you know. So those are those are areas that
I'm looking with a critical eye and being cognizant. So this is about
careful and smart planning. I understand it's it's condensed in this area, but it
also allows opportunity for people who don't have access to vehicles to
actually get to where they need to go. Um, and that's just what I've seen in my
own personal experience in folks that I've I've worked with in the past. So,
you know, I'm looking at it from a different lens as well. Um, Council
Member Popkin, you've already spoken twice. Um, Council Member Prito,
» just a quick uh question for Laura. Um, so I know not every development is the
same. So, I'm going to ask this question. understanding that um in the
past the public has come out and spoke against certain developments and we've
seen developers come back with updated um
plans um and how that development could look. What are the odds that that could
happen here? Um, [clears throat]
do you mean updating >> like the amount of units? They've
lowered it, they've changed it from apartments to town homes, uh, different
things like that. >> So, we worked um, extensively with them.
Um part of our negotiations were included looking at their proforma and
that we we needed to see that there was a gap and there was a but for and for us
there was the gap with market rate and we asked about if they could add
affordable units and they just couldn't make that pencil and
in exchange they offered the one and a half times of the inclusionary housing
fee. So that was their um offer
to be a good community partner. And so because they could not build
affordable units and make the proform work, um they offered that instead.
» Okay. And I understand the affordable piece. I guess I'm just asking about
like design. um you know why 250 apartments and not
you know a certain amount of town homes or
» so I think we we we did have that conversation and it really gets down to
the proforma okay >> in terms of
» when you and so now I'm going to put the housing authority hat on
» okay >> so when you're looking at these projects
and you're looking at the total construction cost you're also looking at
what the rents are what the rents generate over time and and and the issue
is they couldn't make it work financially.
» Okay, >> we had them work scenarios where they
did put affordable housing on it and some people have asked, well, why can't
they put more money on the front end versus affordable housing units? It's
because the rent structure out over the life of the loan
» cost significantly more than if they put it on the front end. And so I I think
that's really the issue. It it is a financial underwriting issue on this
project. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. So, um let's go ahead and May I have a motion? Okay. So, council member
um or I'm sorry, Mayor Prom is moved >> 9A.
» Item 9A. Do I have a second? >> Um and council member Popkin has
seconded it. Let's go ahead and vote.
Okay,
» it just says waiting. >> Um, it was um count uh mayor prom
» and then Popkins seconded.
Okay. Okay. And the item carries um 5 to2 with council members Marcen and
Prito in opposition. Okay. Now we're on to item D. Amend rule 27 of city
council's rules of procedure regarding board interviews. And that was also
pulled by council member Marcen. >> Thank you mayor. Hi Don. Good to see
you. >> Good evening.
» Um do you have anything you want to say at the top or or just questions or
thoughts or >> Good evening is all I've got.
» Okay. Awesome. Um, I just wanted to I know it was a lot of sausage making last
time and I just wanted to thank um folks for kind of the conversation that we had
around this. Um, I I I pulled this because I wanted to just bring up a
topic one more time for our consideration before we finalize our
approval on this. And that is kind of this question that I continue to have
about boards and echo chambers about you know we we have had this challenge that
we discussed earlier tonight where very technical boards approve folks from
within that circle and we don't often get the community impact or community
input that maybe we as a council are looking for. So I do not want to remove
boards from the interview process. I actually really appreciate and desire
the the the place that that that boards have in that process. I think where we
wound up in the the interview panel, I actually think that's a good outcome.
The one thing that I'm still struggling with personally, I want to vote for
this. I am still struggling with the notion of formal recommendations uh
being provided um by members of the board. I'm still struggling with that
and a number of my council teammates have rightly reminded me that we are not
obligated >> uh to vote for recommended candidates.
That is true >> but I don't believe that our written
rules should necessarily rely on our studiousness or on individual vigilance.
Right? So good governance is about safe rails and structure so that authority
accountability remain clear regardless of who sits in these seats 101 15 years
from now. So what I don't want to see happen is a situation where we get
ourselves into another issue because we've created yet another echo chamber
because boards are able to firmly recommend and then future councils
perhaps rubber stamp those recommendations. So I'm going to I'm
going to take a shot at this. Um I have an amendment that deals with three lines
» in this and I've sh I've shared it with staff. Um section
» uh it is section it's rule 27F >> and then um rule 27 F2.
So and I shared this with staff so I think they have a copy. It's actually an
amendment that's kind of in three parts, but what it would do is essentially
eliminate and this is the discussion is like is the formal recommendations piece
is is so that it would strike um this amendment that I shared with staff would
strike the phrase and provide a written recommendation to council.
» It would strike the phrase but final recommendation shall be made by the
board as a whole. And then it strikes um all applicants and interview materials
for EL oh sorry it adds doesn't strike it adds the following subsection excuse
me um it adds a subsection that says essentially all applicants and interview
materials for all eligible applicants including interview recordings score
sheets or other documentation shall be forwarded to city council but the board
shall not make a formal recommendation and um I would entertain a second for
discussion at least second. Thank you, Mayor Prom. I appreciate it. Um,
» could I add one one thought to your motion, Council Member
» Marcing? Thank you. I did note one other spot that we we overlooked.
» Okay. >> It's 27F.
» Um, does it the towards the end of there it says together with written
recommendation from the board. >> Yeah.
» So, I would just >> I would take that as just to just to
have the conversation. So, um I I believe
that council as the appointing authority should be clear and unambiguous in how
we approach this conversation. Um I love that boards are going to help evaluate
these candidates. I love that we've empowered them to take that process on
fully and to ask the questions and develop the the the feedback that they
want to bring. But if I really believe if we want to avoid some of the
challenges we have had um in this recent period, the one of the better ways to do
that is to make sure that council is the ultimate appointing authority is is the
only frankly appointing authority and not the board itself. That would also
return us to the norm that existed prior to that rules of procedure change.
Something that council has done in the past consistently. So that is the the
motion that that I have the amendment.
» Council member Christ.
» Uh well this is perhaps the right time to bring it up is I have another
adjustment. Um for let's see section F number three. It was my
understanding that we would the um video would be available to all of council and
so I was going to add or change the language in number three to be um be
recorded with video and audio that is made available for council review
» and strike whenever possible. >> And strike whenever possible.
» Mayor Mayor has a point of parliamentary procedure here.
» Yeah, I know. I think we probably need to wait.
» Yes. Yeah. But that is why I had my light on. Okay. So, we can do it
separately. >> Okay. Well, let's just speak to the um
» the motion council member. Yes. Got it. >> Yeah. Thank you.
» I generally agree with what you're saying, councelor Marsing.
» Okay. So, um did you have any comments to what he said?
» Yeah. I'm just saying I generally agree with
» generally agree. Okay. So before um I'm going to kick it back to council member
Marcine >> because it did look like you were not
done with your amendments or are you done?
» I was just going to I was going to do a separate amendment that does exactly
what council member Chris just talked about because I caught that as well.
» Okay. So um Don, would you like for us to vote on these separately or as a
unit? >> I think
» we're saying separately. >> Okay. Well, hold on. I'm going to ask D
on [laughter] your she's large and in charge.
» We we have um the wording and council member Marcing was kind enough to email
and we have discussed that. So I think if you if we approach that one first.
» Okay. >> And then any additional after that?
» We will do it afterwards. >> Y thank you.
» Okay. And then council member Popkin, do you have a um question on the amendments
that council member Marcen has presented?
Yeah. Not so much a question as a comment, but discussing that specific
amendment. Yes. >> Okay.
» Okay. Um I I appreciate the spirit of what council member Marcing is coming at
with this. I think we actually had this conversation somewhat at length at the
the last time we discussed these rules and procedures. And I I worry that we
are in in our quest already to re reapproach
one of the the perhaps uh boards most in question of why we're making some of
these changes. I worry that we're overcorrecting here and disempowering
our all of the other boards that are really putting in their time and spirit
and to council member PTO's comment earlier today that are volunteering
their time and energy and passion um for for uh service to our community and
city. Um, so I I I don't think uh council member Marc is intending to
disempower anyone here and I think he's just trying to kind of put in some
guardrails which is commendable but I don't think they are necessary and I
think the guardrail that we put in place by having the council liaison be part of
the interview process for each of these is a new is an update and a guardrail in
of itself to some of the very concerns that council member Mars adequately and
aptly um has raised. So I think we actually addressed some of that. I I
worry about disempowering a board on an advisory
role anyway when we are truly the beall endall decision maker on who gets
appointed. That's all I have to say. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, do we have
any comments, questions, or are we ready to vote on amending the language?
Okay. So, the motion was made to amend rule 27
section F. I think that was the only >> F2 and I think
» F. Yep. F2. >> F5
» and F5 and F5 >> and add F6
» and add an F6. Um, okay. And the motion was made by Council Member Marcy,
seconded by Council Member McCoy. Let's go ahead and vote.
Okay. And that carries 5 to2 with council members Popkin and Prietto in
opposition. And then um go ahead. I think did you have a
second >> motion? Council member.
» Okay. Um Council Member Chris, go ahead. So I would move that we [sighs]
change the text on section F3 to read be recorded with video and audio
that is made available for council review and I did send this text to
Michelle. >> Okay. Um do we have a a second on that
amendment? >> Clarifying question. Um, okay. Well,
I'll second it and then let's open it up for discussion.
Um, and um, Mayor Pro. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, [snorts] Council
Member, uh, Christ. Um, there are occasions where things don't work, and
that's my concern. It's not that I don't completely agree with you on this. I
mean, we've got uh that, but occasionally, you know, once in a while
we see it here at council where something doesn't go right. Correct,
Dallas? And uh and uh and you can talk to Sergio at Longmont Public Media would
also agree it's a little bit beyond their control. Uh I kind of felt like
that was the intention of of this. It wasn't like they were going to be like,
"Hey, this week we're not going to do it." It's it's like if something goes
wrong, u you know, then we we wouldn't be uh in violation of our
own ordinance sort of thing is my only thinking. And
it's not that I don't see your point. I do. I think it's a very valid point. But
it uh uh and I think most of them all are. But then we just also went into
this thing of how we are contractually agree working with Longmont Public Media
who does a lot of this recording and it's not I don't do this part. Okay. Um
» because I'm trying to think. Okay. So >> it wouldn't have an effect on that.
Okay. I just didn't didn't want to be one of those situations where it's like
someone's sick, didn't get the to this board or commission to record that.
» Sometimes things don't work. You are absolutely correct, Mayor Prom.
» And I guess maybe if there's some sort of way of of not having us in violation
if if something doesn't go right, I I'd like that to be
considered. >> Okay. Might I ask a question of council
member Marcing? >> My laptop died.
» Otherwise, I'd look at this. >> Could you read the additional wording
section six that we >> Do you have that in front?
» Yeah, I do. >> I I my thinking was that that covers the
addition that >> the one we passed a second ago?
» Yep. >> Okay. What you had and this um
related to this tech issue or related to the one we just passed, right? that all
what you we just passed >> all application all applications and
interview materials for all eligible applicants including interview
recordings score sheets or other documentation shall be forwarded to city
council but the board shall not make a formal recommendation
» and if I >> and that includes interview recordings
» and it says recordings I thought we added recordings there so I was
wondering if that did not >> cover the motion you're trying to make
here or >> maybe maybe council sorry is it okay
mayor if I because this was going to be my if I'm recognized or no.
» So, um, you're still recognized. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah. I just had a
question for council member Chris. I wonder if we could
» uh Yeah, go ahead. >> potentially make this simpler and just
strike whenever possible. >> So, do you have a friendly amendment for
that? >> Yeah, a friendly I if you would accept
that as a as an amendment to strike whenever possible from 27F-3.
So, we just take out that whenever possible language so that the clear
intent of the policy is that >> be recorded with video and audio.
» Yep. Yeah. Okay. >> Yes, I would agree with that amendment.
» Okay. So, we have an open >> motion to amend
um F3 and strike the language whenever
possible. Okay. So, seeing no one else in the
queue, let's go ahead and vote.
And I had seconded it yet. >> Okay, there we go.
» Okay. And that carries unanimously. And now we're on to actually the main,
right? or is it >> so because it's consent agenda so just
like a procedural question do we need to vote
on item D as it stand >> to approve the amend the changes to
council rule of procedure as amended >> as amended yes
» as advisable yes item D as
» as amended >> as amended second okay so I heard him
like a hair hair second sooner so Um the motion to approve um amend the amendment
to rule 27 with amendments has been made by Mayor Prom McCoy and seconded by
council member Marcine. Um did you have one more quickly?
» Oh yeah. >> Thank you mayor. I just wanted to thank
this council for a lot of sausage making that's gone on here and we have proven
we're very bad at that. But I actually think we got to a really I no I think we
got to a really good place here where the boards remain empowered to carry out
this process and provide input and we are enforcing accountability. I
appreciated council member Popkins thoughts last time around around um
board process. So I just I was I'm I I want to just thank everybody for working
through it because I I know editing lines and language is not always easy.
So I just wanted to thank my council teammates.
» Thank you. Um, Council Member Popkin, and then we'll vote.
» Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate the discussion, too. I think
these were some uh good conversations tonight. Um, I think we have a problem,
and before we vote on this, I wanted to flag it here. Here is where I understand
the process is now. We are now asking boards to do all the work, to review all
the applications, to come up with the interview questions, to do the
interviews that are recorded, and then to synthesize information for us. but
not to offer any recommendations. >> Yeah.
» And that gives us just their information from doing all of the work. We've cut
out, we intentionally cut out our role in this process from interviewing them
last time for efficiency and because we thought we were going to have the
council leaison kind of oversee some of this just to make sure that there wasn't
any funny business. And and now we're in a situation where they're doing all the
work but don't have actually a voice in this. And I think we've created a
problem for ourselves. And that doesn't sit well with me. I I I'm I'm not sure
how to solve this because we just voted on an amendment there and um and
it just it just we're we're trying to respect and attract and recruit more
volunteers from different parts of our community and now we're in a predicament
where we're stripping them of their say of who is working with them on
these boards. I I appreciate council member Marcing's concern about an echo
chamber, but we've seen to my knowledge like one instance of that, maybe two in
like the last decade. And if if if that is a bigger problem than I
know about, please correct me. But um I think we're actually addressing the meat
of it with some of the separate work that we're doing. And I think we're
creating a situation where our current board members don't actually have a
voice in this. So, honestly, I love so many of the changes we just made to this
process, but I don't like where I don't like what the sausage is going to taste
like now. And and so, I'm going to have to vote against this because I think it
doesn't actually it doesn't help the board members help advise us best. And
that's literally like their intent. So, that's all I have to say. I think we
real problem. Um, so I do want to, you know, I think about I've been on council
since we made the change from the council doing the interviews to the
process that we are now changing. So we do have that option to see is this
working? Is this is this the best format or do we need to go back come back in a
year and re-evaluate this? Um, I am I feel all right with the changes we've
made. Um, but I would like, you know, let's let's see how this how this plays
out because we know the system we were working with did not work. The first few
months that we did it, I gave it a chance to see that it would work and I
you know coming in with an open mind and um you know it was a couple of rounds of
interviews and then we realized okay this is not
it's not working for us and it's causing more of a a consternation than than a
resolution. So um I'm gonna go ahead and pass it to Council Member Prito and
you've spoken twice. >> Spoken once.
» You've spoken once on this. Okay. So, I'll give it to you and then Brito.
» Okay. >> Oh, no. It was Yeah, he was the next
one. >> Oh. Oh, thank you. Yeah. I just wanted
to respond to Council Member Popkins point, which is
» well taken. I I I I just strongly disagree that we're not, you know, that
we're just asking boards to do all our work and then not empowering them.
There's nothing in here that says that they can't that, you know, they shape
the questions. They shape the feedback that we receive. they they shape all but
a formal recommendation. That's the only thing in the code that we've changed is
is to say, you know, we're not going to get on our packets anymore the big
bolded name that says this is the person the board says you should choose. Um I
don't see that as the board doing all of our work. I think it is up to us as
individual council members to do our due diligence to provide and review the
resources that these boards are going to give us and to make good choices that
ensure that the community is well represented where council remains the
appointing authority um rather than the the the rather than I think where yeah
I'll leave it there. >> Great. Thank you council member Pietto.
» Um so I'm going to just I'm agreeing with Matthew here. Um,
council member Marc, I just came off of a board
» and there were nights I was thinking like
I'm putting all this time and effort in [laughter]
and and and there were times where like I felt like, you know, is is my voice
valued even as just a recommendation and then
we're taking that away from them. [laughter]
And that's and those were real conversations that I had with my
husband, with um family just around like my expertise, the time that I'm putting
in. Um you know, I I came we did applications, we screened applications,
it was extra time. And so I'm 100% in agreement with Matthew here.
Again, I'm I'm coming from somebody who served on a board most recently for the
last I don't know 3, four years. um having felt like even you know in some
of the language like even how they would put it just like it is just a
recommendation like you guys don't you know even some of that language felt
kind of like okay well then then can I be utilizing my time somewhere else
where I feel maybe I have more impact and say and so you know I know it
doesn't seem like that to you um council member Marcen but it very much is that
um and I and I and I can't speak for all board members and neither can you,
right? You can only speak from your perspective. But what I can say as a
board member is I felt like that many times where I questioned my value on
that board and whether it could be, you know, I could be utilized somewhere
else. And so I'm going to be denying this. Um I feel like the recommendation
piece is huge. I just argued with mayor pro [laughter]
about the voting and the say and member, you know, with the the the board
appointment because it is that much it is that important to me as a person
[snorts] to have a say to know that my voice is heard to know that the time and
effort that I'm putting in is actually going toward
it's moving something even if it is just a recommendation. And so I just want you
to understand it from that aspect and I'm hoping the other council members see
it from that perspective as well. Hear it from someone who just served on a
board for a really long time. Hear it from someone who put that time in and
and vote against this as well. So >> Okay. Thank you.
» And just a last note, we're dissolving the airport board. Yeah.
» So I don't I don't know why the extra and additional changes are being made at
all. >> Thank you. Um, I think it was looking at
the process of a as a whole, not necessarily one one board. Council
member uh Kulkoffer. >> Thank you, mayor, and uh thank you,
fellow council members. Um, there's a lot of great debates tonight and my mind
is uh spinning a lot and for one minute I think I I know where I stand and then
somebody else speaks and then I'm kind of on shaky ground again. Um, I also
just came off of a board and we recently did interviews and you're right, it was
empowering and I felt proud to do the recommendation. Um, but I don't know the
boards would still do >> the ranking and provide their input.
Correct. They're just not formally saying, "Hey, these are the people."
» So, they are still ranking it and ranking the candidates. and we can see
where they're leaning towards >> to say like, hey, like this person we
think is a strong fit. They're just not formally highlighting names to say these
are the people we want you to select. >> But how do you say that? So, I I think
what what my understanding was, and I'm going to interject in here, my
understanding is when that cover letter comes to us, and correct me if I'm
wrong, but that they would have a list of, you know, all the applicants that
they interviewed with, you know, first, second, third, fourth in that order.
» What clarification like >> that? Hold on, hold on. So, I'm going to
let Don answer first and then I'll come back to you. hold on to your
certification. >> Thank you, mayor. Think the way I
understood that kind of in my mind, how I was seeing that was we would give you
all of the materials. Yes. >> And there would no longer be a cover
letter. >> Okay.
» That that recommendation sheet goes away.
» Um but you would get the application, the recordings, the score sheet, and and
of course your recommendation from your >> leazison who participated as well. um
and and use that information to arrive at your conclusion.
» Okay. >> You would still get in your packet the
list of vacancies. Yes. >> And the list of applicants and and
notations that Michelle does about >> if somebody's applied for two different
seats or, you know, if they're a returning applicant, those kinds of
things. >> Those kinds of things would still
provide that. >> Yes.
» But the the letter from the board that says we recommend Bob.
» Yeah. >> Okay. So I I guess I was thinking and I
don't know if maybe it got lost in the conversation because I think of our
conversations were pretty >> pretty heavy but I thought there would
be just a list of you know we've interviewed these people and then just
have their in order all the way from the beginning to the end. Um,
» okay. >> So,
» now, yes. Um, Council Member Popkin, >> I guess I'm trying to understand where
where we are, and it builds on what you were just getting at, mayor. Like,
» my understanding is there was no recommendation made on candidates from
the board. That was the language that was voted on before as an amendment. A
ranking to my mind would constitute a recommendation. And so I wanted to
understand is that like what is I think Don just clarified it maybe but just for
for the entire council's clarity here is there a ranking that's provided is there
any normative judgment that is made through this process based on the
current language >> sorry not
» so
» yeah I thought that there was a but isn't there a rubric that they fill out
like I'm going back to when we did our when we took over doing all the board
appointments We actually had a rubric that had the rankings. So, will we be
able to see those? >> You would get all of the materials that
that were used when they interviewed. Right. Okay. So, the the rules say rule
F5 says talks about scoring sheets. >> Yes.
» So, there would be scoring sheets. >> It's just it's not going to be laid out
that but we can analyze. Oh, they rank this individual higher
» and issues with this >> and then they Yeah. So, we would be able
to see the notes that they took. >> Correct. like an interview pro I sort of
view you all as HR in the interview process. Yes.
» Where we're required to give you all the things we used. Okay. To interview those
applicants. >> I guess that's where that ranking piece
came to me. It would be coming from the scoring sheet. So we would be able to
see how the inter interview interviewers ranked the interviewees. Yes. The
applicants. So then we can >> be an analysis. It wouldn't be an
recommendation letter or anything like that. It would just be the raw tool.
» The raw tool. Okay. Um so, Council Member Prietto and then um Popkin,
» just a quick comment. Um >> so,
so they don't provide recommendations to us for board appointments, but they
provide recommendations on everything else
like applica like funding like so I just served on housing human services,
» right? and then they they recommend these are the agencies
we fund. So >> So we're saying you can recommend
» everything else but you can't recommend board appointments. So I just wanted to
point that out. >> That is a good point. two.
» Yeah. um
» gota give credit where credit is due >> as far as um
» the the verbiage like so if it is not a rec I want my council members who are
for this to say that in a sentence to a board member without sounding
demeaning like I don't know how how would you how
would you say so we're going to have you guys do the interviews this is the
process and then you're going going to rank people and then we'll send it to
council is that like so just so I'm just trying to also think of like the
language of how we're going to explain that to board how staff leaison are
supposed to explain that without seeming you know taking that power or seeming
demeaning but I just wanted to raise those two points is how is that going to
sound in a sentence and if they're able to recommend everything else to us why
are we taking their power to recommend an appointment um and I would like to
vote no on this and move along. [laughter]
» Okay. So, um very good. Yeah. Um Council Member Popkin, is this your second time?
» This will be your third time. Yeah. >> On this topic. No, I think
» Well, no, not on this the final, not the final in the amendments. Go ahead.
» This is this is quick. Just building on what council member Prito was just
saying. Um, now I'm understanding this to mean they are scoring individual
applicants but somehow just not providing a summary of how they scored.
Like I is that where we are at now that they are using a rubric to score
applicants and now just not saying well here's the list of how they scored in
this order. Like is that is that what we're being handed? I am now very
confused as to what we're getting of information and how it is materially
different from a a scoring and a recommendation or or from an overall
recommendation and and it just it feels like we're trying to solve a problem
that does not exist consistently across the board pun intended.
» Thank you. Um uh Mayor Prom >> I have Thank you, Mayor. I absolutely
disagree that it's you there's this perception that uh uh it's not across
the board in many boards and commissions it it is the case and what you're having
with some of these boards um is uh where they all rank them and then
they all come together and say well these are the top two that we want and
that's the ranking opposed to just having the people that interview them,
score them, and uh and when they're done, uh the board doesn't give a
recommendation uh at all. It's just uh you can look at
their scoring from an individual point of view, the the council leazison and
maybe two uh other members of the board. But what was happening is even though in
some cases we never saw the real ranking part of it, we just saw the end result
of the the uh of the board's recommendation. Often times that was a
uh a recommendation that uh uh may have or may not have been consistent with uh
with high uh high you know evaluation scoring. So, and I really want to make
it very clear there's some sort of bizarre thing going on here that you
there's folks thinking that somehow uh this one isolated situation
is somehow going to be some sort of cascading waterfall of change of all
kinds of boards which is absolutely positively unequivocally not the case at
all. We have a situation where we had to take
something in hand and I just am really shocked and surprised that people can't
grasp that that we absolutely had to take a situation uh with the board in
hand. We're not doing that across the board with anything else and it's not
the sort of uh uh situation where we're uh you know picking winners and losers.
We had a situation that had been decades in the making. Decades. Not just not
just a one meeting, one sort of one off. It was decades in the making. And and
I'm tired of hearing it's somehow acting like this is some sort of universal
thing because that is just a disconnect with reality.
» Okay. Thank you. I'm going to call the question. I feel like we've people have
made up their minds. Um and we're going to go ahead and vote.
Okay. And so the motion carries um four to three with council members Christrist
um Popkin and Prito in opposition. Okay. So now we're moving on to
general business. Um, let's see. Citizen initiated land
development code text amendment referral to allow contractor shop to be a
permitted use within the mixeduse employment MUE zoning district and a
conditional secondary use within the neighborhood professional employment NP
zoning district. Uh, thank you for your patience.
Good evening, council members. My name is Nathan Jones and I'm one of the
principal planners with the planning and development services department. As you
mentioned, the first item that I'll be presenting this evening is a citizen
initiated code amendment uh to land development code regarding contractor
shops.
Uh by way of background, city staff met with the applicant in September of 2025.
So last fall, we met with the applicant uh to discuss um generally contractor
shops, where they're allowed by right, um what rules and regulations uh go into
um adding new contractor shops in other parts of town. Um the applicant
expressed some interest um in uh expanding that use and um better
understanding the process to uh amend the land development code uh to again to
allow the use to be allowed in different zoning districts. Um as we'll discuss a
little bit more uh further on in this presentation, the uh use is only is it
it's considered a conditional use um in only one zoning district, the mixed use
employment zoning district. Um and we also walk the applicant through the text
amendment um process. The land development code allows private parties
to initiate um LDC text amendments. The first process in that is a referral. Um
so an applicant will first submit an application for referral that will be
forwarded on to the city council. The city council will then direct staff to
um use uh city resources to uh review the request, develop a recommendation,
uh take it through any uh boards and commissions that need to take a look at
it uh and then bring it back to city council for ultimate approval. Um so
after we met with the applicant, uh they submitted a formal request to begin
these proceedings in October of last year. Uh due to the timing of um the
application being submitted, uh we made the determination to wait till the
earliest available uh council meeting in the new year. Uh and so that brings us
to this e this item this evening.
Uh to summarize the request, it's fairly straightforward. Um, it is to allow
contractor shops as a permitted use in the mixeduse employment zoning district
and to add it as a conditional secondary use within the non-residential primary
uh uh employment zoning district. Uh, land development code does have existing
language related to contractor shops. Contractor shops are defined as an
establishment that provides a trade service including but not limited to
plumbing, carpentry, glass glazing, welding, sheet metal, electrical and
roofing surface services. The term contractor shop includes construction uh
contractor's offices. As I mentioned earlier, um it's only allowed as a
conditional use in one zoning district that is the mixeduse employment zoning
district. It does include two use specific standards. Uh the first use
specific standard is related to um any property that's adjacent to um
city-owned greenways. Uh this standard applies to many of the different uses in
the land development code and it's not particularly relevant to this case. The
second standard does relate to outdoor storage. Um, and it uh includes some
additional regulations uh related to the height, size, and location of outdoor
storage for contractor shops. And that's really what um gets us into the
differences between a contractor's shop versus other um office uses. Um due to
the type of trades that are uh defined as part of a contractor's shops, those
trades oftentimes need um additional outdoor storage uh to store um equipment
and materials uh sometimes fleet vehicles. Um so there are uh some visual
and noise impacts that are associated um with the contractor's jobs that makes it
a little bit more intense of a use um than a standard office use. Um when the
land development code was adopted in 2018 and the mixeduse employment zoning
district was established, it was established to uh provide a mix of
various types of non-residential and residential uses so that they could um
kind of coexist and uh create this whole mixeduse um approach. Um as part of
that, the contractor's shop was allowed as a was included in that zoning
district as a as a conditional use. Uh the mixed use zoning district allows for
two different types of residential uses. It allows for single family attached. So
that's your standard uh townhouse style development. It also allows for multif
family which can be um stacked forplexes or up to your uh standard uh apartment
complex. Um the mix zoning district if you look at a map of the zoning
districts across town um are primarily located along um industrial older
industrial corridors. There are some areas where um the MUE zoning district
is immediately adjacent to residential single family zoning districts as well.
Um and again so the conditional use piece here um is considered a major
development application under the land development code. Um major development
applications including this are uh ultimately decided by the planning and
zoning commission. It allows the planning and zoning commission to uh
look at cases or uh proposals on a case- by case basis and on a siteby-sight
basis to um add different conditions uh to the use to try to mitigate the impact
uh that could potentially arise if it is an immediate uh adjacency to other
quoteunquote non-compatible or incompatible uses such as uh different
residential type uses. Um so that's the existing code language as of today.
Um, which brings us to our council options and the staff recommendation.
Um, the first recommend the first option is to direct staff to proceed with an
amendment to the land development code regarding contractor shops. The second
option is [snorts] uh to direct work to cease uh direct staff to cease work on
any future amendments related to uh the request as I outlined uh here on this
slide and um go through in the staff report. staff is recommending at this
time not to move forward with um with the request. Um standard as part of our
typical process when a referral is made uh we do not um go into very much detail
in ter of a detailed analysis in terms of potential future impacts of what the
change could include. Uh so we have not fully vetted or uh researched the item.
However, at a very high level, we have identified some concerns. I was kind of
hinting at it earlier when I was talking about the type the impact and the
intensity of contractor shops and the adjacency um to residential development
uh in the MUE zoning district. There are some concerns that we have about
allowing it um as a permitted by right use versus a conditional use.
» [snorts] >> Um, as part of any uh future uh if the
staff or if council were to direct staff to move forward with the request, um we
would need to analyze the code, try to identify any conflicts that could arise
throughout the code uh if we were to change the table of allowed uses to
allow um these two uses. We would need to make sure that everything aligns
appropriately. And then we would want to um do some level of stakeholder
engagement uh where we could go talk to members of the community uh both
residential neighbors and members of the business community to try to figure out
where they are with uh requests such as this whether or not they support it or
have additional concerns. Uh we would then take all that information uh
develop our own recommendation that would go to planning and zoning
commission. Um they would then vote on a recommendation which would be forwarded
on to you all um as the final decision-making body. So without having
any prior direction from city council on this item, um we are recommending at
this time not to move forward with this request. That does conclude my
presentation. I tried to keep it short and sweet. Um however, the applicant
does have a quick presentation as well. They are here. Um they will be available
to answer any questions on a technical level. I can address any questions that
you may have about our recommendation as well. So I'll hand it over to uh the
applicant at this time. >> Okay. Can we hold questions until after
the second presentation? Okay. Just keep your keep your mics on.
» Hello. Thanks so much for hearing me out. Longtime listener, first- time
caller. My name is Annie Lner and um I'll talk while he's working on the
presentation. You guys see this presentation in your screens? Okay,
cool. Um yeah, so I'm a resident of Longmont. I'm a commercial broker, so I
work on sales and leasing deals with landlords and tenants.
» Um >> which one is it?
» That one. >> Sorry, this one.
Um, sorry, I don't want to fuss too much with it. And, um, in my work in
particular, I represent a lot of small business owners as tenants. So, um,
first off, I guess I want to just Yeah, thank you so much.
One, two, three. Just this is what I use. Sorry. No, I don't know how to use
this. Um, I want to acknowledge the planning
staff. Um, I understand why the recommendation is to not move forward at
this time. What I'm asking for does require some staff resources and um
without clear direction or prioritization from council, maintaining
the status quo is reasonable from a staff workload perspective. This is not
about criticizing staff and what they do. They work really hard and we
appreciate it. Um, but what I am here to do is report from the field on how our
land use code adversely impacts our community in practice.
So, as you each know, um, the zoning district allows certain uses, and Nathan
did a good job explaining that. So, that's to say the type of business that
you operate, your use, right? So, like a storage warehouse, a retail shop, or a
gym has has different uses that are categorized by our land use code. So,
you have to put your business where the underlying zoning code allows you to
operate. Even if a building you like makes perfect sense for your business,
if the zoning doesn't work, you can't be there. When it comes to commercial uses
and especially industrial uses, mixeduse employment is the most permissive zoning
district in Longmont. It allows many different uses by right like R&D
companies, office users as was mentioned and um certain light manufacturing, but
mixeduse employment, which he mentioned is a mixeduse zone um zoning district,
is the only one where we can do any of the industrial type of uses. We don't
really have industrial zoning in Longmont anymore. So we are left with
these mixed use areas where all of those heavier uses have to try to find space
and be compliant with some of the use standards. So uh my application mentions
two zoning districts. Uh but I especially want to focus on mixed use
employment. That's the the bigger my bigger bugaboo. Um and the other one
that was mentioned is there's an error in the executive summary. It's uh
non-residential primary employment. Maybe I'll come back for another day to
talk about that one because it's fun. But um if you look at the zoning map
that I have in front of you, mixeduse employment is the light gray areas
mostly clustered around um areas around like Weaver Park Road out by the Sugar
Mill kind of out there. And then in central Longmont uh near Ken Pratt and
like Sherman in that area and um those those are the ones that especially have
a lot of the um higher concentration of multi-tenant flex industrial buildings.
Some of these other areas that you see farther out are newer and have bigger
spaces that maybe are better for like R&D and some of the adv advanced manu
manufacturing, excuse me. So the smaller, more affordable and older
industrial flex spaces are concentrated in those big areas that have kind of
circled. Um that is also in industrial uh leasing and sales. That's the
tightest segment of the market. That's where we see the lowest vacancies and so
it's really competitive. It's hard to find these small spaces in multi-tenant
flex spaces um where a lot of our small businesses go into and I'll get into
that in a minute. Um so I don't know how to switch this. There we go. Um if you
look at our table of allowable uses right here, this is our land use code.
the use category, contractor's shop, which I didn't define, but it's
basically HVAC companies, plumbers, electricians, the guys that are coming
in at 2 a.m. and fixing your burst pipes, um are allowed in one district.
You can see it there, one district. And in that, they are not allowed by right.
Um, as Nathan pointed out, um, they are to be allowed there and to be compliant,
notably, they must complete a conditional use review before they
occupy the space. So, what I'm requesting is that we amend the code to
allow that use by right rather than by conditional use review. So, just a
little bit easier to go occupy space in these areas. And here's why I think this
is justified. I have five points and I'm going to try to go through them fast.
The current process as it is creates timing barriers that are incompatible
with small business leasing realities. So most small contractors are likely to
lease a space not purchase. Once they actually identify a space with the right
zoning that's actually affordable and that is small enough they have to
negotiate lease terms before pursuing even getting to pursuing this uh
conditional use approval. And the reason they do it, the reason we do it that in
that order where we start with lease term negotiation before we get to
conditional use approval is because the application for the conditional review
involves a lot of hard costs like site plans, documentation, and professional
services that you have to hire. You don't want to spend more money on a
space before you have even come to terms on your deal. And also, it's of note
that landlords in these very competitive markets, in these competitive spaces,
are not going to hold a space off market for you for two to four months while you
go and try to do your conditional use review. So, as a result, many tenants
lose the space before they can even be secured.
Two, conditional use review is processed as a major development application. I
know this has been kind of thrown around. It came up earlier in the public
comment and it came up uh before. So, this is a big deal. This is This is the
» I apologize. I'm gonna have to interrupt for procedural.
» Oh, shoot. Sorry. >> Um, go ahead. Um, Council Member Marcen.
» Thank you, Mayor. Not your fault at all, Annie. We just have your fault at all.
» No, you're all good. I move that we extend the meeting beyond 11:00.
» Okay. So, the motion has been made to extend the meeting past 11. We do.
Otherwise, we're we're shutting everything down. Yeah.
» Um and it so it was moved by council member Marcy and seconded by um council
member Kulkuffer. All those in favor or let's vote.
» Please vote no. We can do that. >> Please vote no this time.
» Okay. That carries unanimously. We have extended past 11. Go ahead.
» Sure. Sure. Okay. So, uh it's really important to understand why this is such
a big deal. major development application. Um, even when no site
changes are proposed, the conditional use review application follows the same
procedural framework used for reszonings and annexations, really big projects
that take a really long time to do. Now, in theory, we should be able to move it
through faster, but that's not really happen sometimes in practice, especially
for these small contractors, which is where I'm focusing today, who are
leasing 1,500 to 3,000 foot spaces. This level of process creates uncertainty in
time, cost, and outcome that most cannot absorb.
So, as the real life example, as you heard from a um a public comment
earlier, I also included here an application submitt. This is for a
recent conditional use review that we did. Um that was Sentinel Property
Management, Corey Cash, who you heard from earlier. He's sophisticated and
knows what he's doing, but he was trying to lease a space on Weaver Park Road.
So, out there in MUE, they were looking to subleasase a space out there. uh to
stage their operations. It was already a very complex deal that took months, I'm
not kidding you, months to negotiate. And then we learned that Sentinel as a
property manager is considered contractor shop. That was a little bit
of an oversight on the early end of things. And um but we were just kind of
surprised and they needed a conditional review. So after everything had been
teed up um between three parties, CFOs, brokers, attorneys, architects, all
kinds of people all over the country, we had to step into a conditional use
review at that point. Um most people might have just gone under the radar and
not done it, but he had permitting to do and everything else. And so, you know,
you got to you got to follow the rules. Happy to. The only reason that it did
not fall apart is because Sentinel is sophisticated and they can handle the
process and they can hire architects and they can deal with everything that was
required. So, I just wanted to show you in my presentation here.
Boom. Uh, this is this is his checklist. This is a checklist for a conditional
use review for no site plan changes just to occupy the space. I'm just going to
kind of go through some of this. Alta survey, mineral rights disposition,
ownership and property incumbences report, statement of expected utility
needs, wastewater classification survey, concept design, it keeps going. All of
those check marks are required. legal description. That seems pretty easy.
Here we go. Some more fun things. Phasing plan.
This is This is all real. This is his application checklist just to go in and
occupy space and make no changes. He was doing internal changes only, interior
changes only. So, uh yeah, I wanted to just point that out. No outside storage.
So, there was no impacts on the outside and there were no changes to the site
plan. It took us four months from the first inquiry to our PNZ conditional
approval. So this lease that we all had teed up ready to sign had to just sit
there. We all just had to wait. We had to hold it from giving an option to
anyone else in the market to lease it. And we did it because it just we had to
at that point. But that's a unique anomaly situation. This deal should have
fallen apart and it would fall apart in most normal situations.
Okay, moving on. Um, hang on. I want to make sure I didn't
miss anything. I didn't. Mixed use employment already, this is a really big
point, already allows for several potentially more intensive uses by
Wright. Um, uses like vehicle repair, bars, and nightclubs, and large recycle
collection facilities are already permitted by Wright in MUE. You could
argue those have some pretty significant impacts, as was spoken to earlier, um,
on all of our potential, you know, residential uses in in the same zoning
district. So meanwhile, a small electrician or plumber shop triggers
discretionary review. This raises the question for me of proportionality
between actual impact and just procedural burden on our small
businesses. Number four, residential adjacency concerns can be addressed
through objective standards. And what I mean by that is if the concern here is
outdoor storage and screening and noise and vehicle counts, hours of operation,
etc., These impacts can be managed through clear performance and use
standards rather than a full discretionary review process. So all I
mean is that we can be there by right. We can have a P with an asterisk and say
there's a bunch of use standards that you have to adhere to, but you can still
go occupy it without having to do a major development application, which is
significant and you saw the checklist for that. Like no small plumber is able
to do that. It's just not a possibility. It's not a reality.
Um yeah, my last point there is that it
would just help protect the nearby neighborhoods while providing
predictability for our small businesses. Finally, um let's talk about the broader
economic concern. And I think I've kind of said this, but I'll just drive it
home that the large well- capitalized companies can navigate these extended
review timelines. And we saw it happen with Sentinel. That was the exception.
And he's not even that big. I mean, he's a totally locally bred, you know,
business, but small local contractors often cannot. What I see in my
day-to-day is that the structure of the code unintentionally favors large users
and disadvantages the small trades businesses that serve our community
daily. If we design our design zoning in a way that prioritizes R&D, tech, clean
manufacturing, but we make it difficult for the very trades people who build the
homes that those jobs create and who wire those R&D spaces and who fix the
infrastructure to operate here, we will hollow out the ecosystem that makes our
city function. These are not fringe uses. They're the businesses that
sponsor little league teams and that employ local residents. They respond at
2 am when you need them. And if they can't find space here, they will go
elsewhere. And I'm watching it happen. We lose them to neighboring markets
where the red tape is less thick. Happens all the time. And almost
happened with Corey. So my request is not to remove guard rails, but to
explore whether contractor shops in mixeduse employment could be permitted
by right subject to this defined um performance and use standards. And I
think this would better align with actual impact and reduce some of
unnecessary barriers for uh local small businesses. So, I really hope you'll
consider directing staff to work on this. I think it's a priority and really
important and a bit of an oversight in our maybe not even an oversight, but in
2026, I see it as a problem in our land use code.
» All right, I'm done. >> Okay. Thank you.
» Yeah. Um, Council Member Prito,
» I don't I don't even know why that's on, but I'll talk. I'll talk.
» Yeah, go for it. >> No, I think that you drove home a really
a lot of good points. Um um my husband, he's a handyman and and
he's one of the small tradesmen and I live next to a small business who
unfortunately is trying to grow. They're very successful, but they're having
difficulty finding another space to be in. So, I hear your argument and we
don't want to cause businesses not to be able to grow
and and move into bigger spaces or uh meet their needs and and contribute to
our little economy here. So, um I am going to
» Yeah. And I was going to say maybe this will help jog your memory because you
had your name in the queue from the staff presentation as well. So, I don't
know if it was something in regard to that or is it gone? That's okay. You did
such a great job, by the way. I was like, "Way to drive it home."
» Um, you could have stopped midway and and I was sold.
» Um, I I am for it. I know I'm a little bit I was a little bit hesitant coming
in as far as taking off the conditional use. Um, but with some of the points
that you brought for other um, businesses being able to come in by
right, I think that's a really good point. Um, and also as far as the uh NPE
conditional secondary use, I'm also I'm also interested in looking into that as
well. >> Um, because I feel like
» district >> sometimes you get companies that go into
big spaces and could lease a small piece of it to maybe a plumber or an
electrician or a handyman. And so I think if we're wanting to really help
our small businesses here, uh, we really have to put our money where our mouth
is. So I'm going to be for this and yeah, thank you for your presentation.
» Yeah, thank you. Um, Council Member Coloffer,
» thank you for the for the presentation. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I am all for this
almost everywhere except for where uh residential meets these these areas. Um,
I do want us to be business friendly. Um, I want us to make sure that
businesses want to come here and operate here, but I want to make sure that if we
do move forward with this, that those conditions have weight to them. Um,
because, you know, we are affecting a bunch of residents on some of these
edges. >> And I want to make sure that there's
teeth to these so you're not affecting quality of life of our residents. We
have two jobs here, residents and businesses. M
» and I want to make sure that we're protecting our residents but also
promoting uh being businessfriendly because I've been talking to a lot of
businesses lately and not not because of us but because of outside influences as
well death by a thousand cuts and I want to make sure that we make it as easy to
open a business in Longmont um that we can make it at the same time protecting
the quality of life for the folks who live next to a shop.
» Um, so I don't know what we could do to make sure that those conditions have
teeth. >> Um, and I'm I'm for it if if if that is
the case. Um, but I don't want to have a shop that is, you know, doing CNC, um,
that is vibrating everything and causing, you know, neighbors to have
noise complaints like we're having with the airport or somewhere else. I want to
make sure that we're protecting our residents as well. So I don't know if
staff can help me with that and if the conditions would protect residents as
well and if they are if the business is violating something you know what would
happen.
You >> go first.
» Okay. Um so I guess I should take a step back also and explain next steps. So uh
if the council directs us to move forward with this uh we will review um
the pros and cons of uh your deci what will ultimately be your decision. Um
there is a review fee associated or there's an application fee associated
with this. So I believe the review fee is about $850. The applicant would have
to um pay the review fee to initiate the formal application. Um and then we would
begin the process of actually picking apart um all the different questions and
issues that you've raised. I think um at a high level again uh there are some
pros and cons. It is only allowed in one zoning district. it is a uh only allowed
as a conditional use. Um there are some pros and cons associated with that. Um
and I think as staff goes through the review process, we would uh identify
appropriate use specific standards that could potentially apply. Um we would
then propose those to the to the planning and zoning commission. Um
and ultimately we may go through this whole review process and still come back
and say uh we still recommend uh denial of the request or we could come back and
after engaging with the members of the community and actually researching this
a little bit more in detail maybe we can find ways to uh address our staff
concerns. Um, a big part of our job here is to present you all with the
information that you need to be able to make a determination and to at least
give you a starting point, to be able to set the policy and then we will um, you
know, we'll provide you with recommended language or conditions or standards that
can get you to where you want to ultimately be. Um but again without
having prior specific direction on this particular issue and then looking at our
um list of to-do items uh both from the planning zoning commission and the city
council over the next year. Uh we were concerned about timing and staff
capacity. Um um so that's kind of where we where we structured or where we
landed with our with our recommendation. So
» yeah, I think the answers that you're asking for will
come with the process. And I think the piece on this from a
staff capacity is, you know, they obviously talked about all the issues in
front of us. And so I think from a council standpoint, you know, there will
have to be some prioritization in terms of what do we move forward on, what do
we not move forward on? And so I think the challenge
if council directs us to do this, I think the question is going to be when
do you want it? And then how do we adjust other priorities?
» Yeah, >> that's really the crux of the issue.
» Mhm. Okay. Um, Council Member Marcy, >> thank you, Mayor, and thank you for
that, Harold. I I I know we all up here appreciate the work that staff is doing
and trying to balance the the competing priorities often that change um somewhat
suddenly. Uh, so I I'm sympathetic to that. I also think as as policy makers,
at least as a policy maker, the thought I have is how do we support our small
business community and how do we make it easier for long for longers who want to
work for want to thrive here and open up businesses here for that to happen. So,
um I I do have some questions just generally for staff. First of all,
Annie, great job. Big fan of the podcast. Thanks for being here. Um just
to be clear, you know, moving option one tonight
doesn't approve it. doesn't you know we're going [snorts] to go through the
process and and it directs staff to do that just to be totally clear. Okay.
» Um what and I know you walked through it a bit in your presentation some of the
general idea but what are the major specific impacts that staff is most
concerned about. >> Um I think again just the uh outdoor
storage piece. Um again the type of outdoor storage and I think the example
was given about a CNC machine. Um technology is changing. There's a lot of
different trades now uh that are diff a lot of different uses as Annie pointed
out that could be um included or captured under that uh contractor shop
definition. Um we would need to you know we would want to look into all of that
but um I think at a high level it is the outdoor storage piece, it is the uh
vehicle and fleet maintenance piece. Um that's all kind of captured also within
the outdoor storage and it's the adjacency uh to existing established
residential neighborhoods. um those are primarily as as I pointed out in the
presentation if you take a look at the zoning map the majority of the MUE
zoning districts are within our more established industrial corridors.
However, there are areas where especially around um around the St.
Brain Creek area where um it was intentionally zoned MUE with the ability
to have additional residential uses in there uh with an eye towards future
redevelopment of those areas. And so, um, again, when you take a look at all
the different types of uses that are permitted, um, we would just want to
make sure, again, that there's no conflicts. I think if we were to move
forward with this, we would end up recommending use specific standards
related uh to try to heavily mitigate some of those impacts. Um, but that's
yeah, I think those are the main concerns.
» Thank you. I I I think I personally would like to see those youth specific
standards and where that winds up from from a planning perspective and have
that conversation. So, I'm actually gonna go ahead and make a motion. Mayor,
if it's in order or you have other folks, Last I looked, there was nobody
in the queue. Yeah, cool. They're all here. Uh, Council Member Popkin.
» Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, I >> and and thank you, Annie, for a
thoughtful presentation after midnight. Oh, nope. Sorry, after 11. Sorry, I'm on
central time. Um the uh I I appreciate [clears throat] the the thoughtfulness
and and how you broke down the different issues because I think sometimes we hear
about challenges facing small businesses but can't always put like a name to what
the actual issue in the process is. And so I think you did an excellent job of
breaking that down. Um I I I heard from Nathan and from Harold a little bit
about kind of capacity issues and timing. And I'm just was curious if um
either either of you or anyone else on staff could speak a little bit more to
the broader to-do list and kind of how this fits into staff capacity.
» I'm not in a hurry. >> No, Annie, you don't have to. [laughter]
» Take all the time you want. >> So we have
» So there's there's going to be a few of us that jump into this. So
» Okay, >> Grant, why don't you start with
» Sure. Good evening. Grant Penland Planning and Development Services
Director um reticent to give any specific timing etc. But uh of course
there's a lot of projects that I think council is aware of um both that have
been you know discussed previously um and otherwise and I think shortly you'll
see kind of the the broader work plans that we've put together. Um you know
typically we would look at a pro process like this and expect that with uh
community engagement you know 6 nmonth overall process uh depends on the amount
of research etc that we'd have to do. Um so as Harold indicated the expectation
is we probably have to shift some things around in order to you know get back in
front of council if you said you know you want to see it quarter two or
quarter three versus the end of the year.
» Okay. >> Yeah. I think that's
» that's really the issue. I think I've said it before is if you if you put an
aggressive timeline, we're shifting things. But if we have more time where
we can kind of step back and evaluate workload and figure out how we fit it in
it, that's an easier process for us to go through. So when we talk about what
are the issues in front of us, um obviously council's directed the MUIR
work that we're doing. we have the the first and main work that we're doing.
Um, you know, there have been conversations, you know, we talked about
it earlier, sugar mill and and so it's when you think of the broader scope
because in that the planning department's heavily involved in all of
those projects. So I think the answer is if you tell us we want to do it, we want
to do it second quarter, third quarter, we're we're shifting priorities and and
I will tell you there's a challenge if we have time to work through this. I
think it's easier for us to move through it and then make sure we're not missing
that community involvement piece because where this could go south just for
everyone is if we're trying to compress it in a too tight of a time frame and we
miss the involvement component of this and that's where the unintended
consequences start slipping to some of your questions. Have we thought about
where is you know where are the conflicts? What do we need to do? So,
it's really about more if you want us to do this, how quickly you want us to do
it will drive the answer to the capacity question.
» Thank you. Um, Annie, a question for you. Is there a specific timeline that
you were hoping for here or did you were you coming here really to flag a kind of
increasing attention for your clients? >> Yeah, I work I work with planning
through these things and I know how long they take. So, I buckled up for the long
haul. But case in point, this is exactly why we want to kind of make some of
these things like let's put some rules in place and then take some of the
burden off of planning so they can focus on things that are more important and
not be doing these reviews. >> Yeah. No, thank you for that. Okay. Um,
I'm not going to make a motion because I don't know what the Q looks like, but I
have a suggestion here for this group, which is we have a retreat in a month
and that's partly where we're going to talk about a number of priorities and
we're going to talk about um kind of some of the other goals and and ideas
and frankly I have a few thoughts on other potential code or zoning updates
we can make that are adjustments and I've emailed staff about them, but again
that takes time and so maybe there's a little batch uh situation we can like a
little bit of a a minor uh planning main uh code update package that we can put
together um that pulls a few of these together possibly in more of the spring
if we have a sense of our priorities after retreat and some of the bigger
things that we were just talking about might have more clarity on in two months
versus right now. So my suggestion I'm not making a motion right now because I
don't know who else wants to speak >> there's still others. Yeah, my
suggestion would be maybe that we table this until uh either like the end of
April or the beginning of May um when we have a clearer sense of some of our
priorities and how this fits in and how we can maybe do this efficiently as a
package. >> Okay. Um Council Member Christ.
» Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Miss Lner, and thank you, um
Mr. Jones Meyer. Uh it seems to me that um making things more efficient would
ultimately help the planning department and having you know people having to
come in and and go through this long process to get into an MUE pos um
um zoned facility seems like um seems like it's
as much a burden on staff as it might be on the on the um business owner. And I
very much appreciate um Miss Larnner, you bringing this information to our
attention in a way that we need to support businesses and we're always
wondering how can we be better at that. So thank you for bringing that to our
attention. I I just want to point out when we're talking about um time frames,
if we're talking six months, that puts us out to August. So, you also have to
be considerate of, you know, when would people be looking for new places to set
up their business and it would probably probably most likely be easiest for them
in the summer. Um, and that maybe sometimes when you have a
task list, if you do the I don't want to say the easiest, but the thing that you
can accomplish fastest first, it clears the road for a lot of other
bigger projects, which I know I know what those big projects are, and they're
going to take a while. So um so I would be in favor of uh option
number one u to bring it back with uh an amendment. I think probably
the complexity here is with the use standards as we're talking about, you
know, how do we how do we deal with residential areas? Probably I'm just
throwing this out because I don't know the jargon, but a setback of some kind
might be useful when it comes to setbacks from residential, setbacks from
certain other, you know, child care and what have you. uh particularly if
there's some noise, vibration, you know, you know, all the ones that people are
going to complain about. So, um so anyway, I'm in favor of of bringing it
back. >> And um I'm interested in hearing what my
other counselors have to add to conversation.
» And this is this is a question for staff.
» Would putting in amendments right now be an appropriate time because we haven't
even engaged the public. So I would really like to I you know I don't want
to put the cart before the horse but um you know I I getting a consensus that
people are supporting to move forward but I
» well through process I yeah so I want to see
what staff comes up I don't want to put burden we do have big things coming down
the pike so I do want to be cognizant >> of the work that we've already put on
staff what our goals and objective objectives
are for this term and you know as we come together during
our council retreat you know re-evaluate some of these priorities but I mean I
know we have things on the docket right now so I'm going to pass it over to
council member Koffer >> mayor can I jump in real quick
» yes go for it >> I think the question today before
council is do you want us to work on this I mean in its most simple form
» yes >> the next question then is when do you
want us to to bring the deliverables back to you?
» And I think the challenge is ju just to be clear that the large projects that
we're working on >> the load's going to be within the next 6
to 8 months >> on on those projects in terms of what
we're trying to move through. That's I think what they're alluding to in terms
of the capacity. council could make the decision to say, "Yes, we want to move
forward on this." And then we could have that as part of the priority
conversation in the retreat. >> I um and really kind of lay that out in
terms of where it sits in terms of all of the other projects. But the simple
question is, do you want us to work on it? Then we can add that then into part
of the retreat conversation in terms of timing.
» Yeah. And we don't need to to table. We're It's not necessary to table. It's
not going to save us any >> as long as you don't tell us we want it
in the >> Exactly. Exactly.
» Where we're now starting to jam, I think we can bring that in to have that
conversation. >> No, that's good. Go ahead, council
member. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move to direct staff
to go for option one with staff's timeline on when they can fit this in,
making sure that we do not move any of our other priorities. So on your own
timeline, >> um, bring this back to us.
» Second. >> So,
» yep. The motion was made by council member Koffer. Seconded by many, I
think. [laughter] >> Yeah. Um, I
» go ahead. Um, council member Christ. >> Um, thank you, Councilman Coffer. I I
would actually like to have the discussion during our retreat which is
at the end of March to discuss what our priorities are. I think that's a good
discussion to have but we may still end up in the same place. I would just like
to have that discussion about what priorities are are
are the bumps in the road that we need to deal with
» I think it's just useful all the way around.
» Okay. >> Yes. Can I can I add that as a friendly
amendment to what you're >> So you have made the motion to direct
staff to um move forward on just researching and just reviewing this
process. We have an active motion on the table.
It was made by council member Kuffer, seconded by I like a millisecond
mayor prom. [laughter]
So um are you wanting to make an amendment? I am I'm asking if you would
accept a friendly amendment. >> Okay.
» I think I'd like to keep it as is and then if we decide at the retreat to move
priorities then we can make the decision then and then we can direct staff at
that point to rep prioritize. >> Okay.
» If that's okay. >> No. No.
» It's okay. [laughter] >> Yeah. Yes. Okay. Um, Council Member
Prito, >> I I would like staff to come back and
let us know what they're thinking as far as the timeline because I don't want
this to get lost in the the chaos and the busyiness of everything. just to
kind of be transparent with our small businesses
um to our presenter tonight who's worked so hard in getting this to council and
then just for us as council so we can speak to it to constituents and you know
um different things like that. So I would like
» you guys to come back at some point and just let us know like
» like an a quick update. >> Yeah, just an update just letting us
know like hey this is where we're at with our projects. This is what we're
thinking. This is when you can expect to see it.
» Thank you. Yeah. >> Yeah, we can we can do that as part of
the process. Okay. >> And frankly, that may be part of the
retreat conversation. >> That's Yeah, that's what I was thinking,
too. Okay. So, are we ready to vote? Oh, I see a hand. Okay. Council member
Popkin. >> Yeah. I was just wondering if we could
if I could get clarity on what the proposed motion is again.
» Option one. >> Option one.
» Okay. Just to adopt option one. Okay. Yeah. Um
I'm a little bit here with council member Christrist on just like I'd love
for this council which we really haven't had a chance to really discuss our broad
portfolio of priorities to discuss that first. I don't actually think it changes
the timeline much if we wanted to move forward. That's my slight preference in
this process is let's agree on priorities and then work to implement
that both as a council and staff. Um I I don't think it re from what I'm hearing
it doesn't slow much down because that's a month away. Um and this wasn't going
to be solved in four weeks. Um, so I don't know if it changes much other than
gives us more clarity and more vision into a lot of different work plans and
things that are going on. So if if council wants to just move forward with
this and direct it, fine. But um, I I think it would actually be more
strategic and and more intentional if we have a conversation about priorities
first and then worked to work to implement those. It's no it's no
disrespect in any way, shape, or form to the applicant tonight um, or her
presentation and and the challenges that she raised. Okay. Um, so I I think what
to um what council member Prito had said that we don't want it to get lost in the
shuffle. I'll be supporting it tonight because I want to make sure it's
bookmarked. I I don't want it to get lost. Um, so Council Member Marcy.
» Yeah, just very quickly, I think we can do the, you know, we can have the
broader issue conversation about priorities at the retreat or or wherever
that conversation takes place. I think either way, you know, Miss Larner is
here and has gone through this process and we're dealing with a specific
element of our code tonight that's in front of us that I think there's general
based on the conversation, there's general consensus. So, I appreciate the
thought from Council Member Poppy. I I I would say let's just go ahead and move
forward and start the process and see where we go.
» Okay, let's go ahead and vote. >> Just a point of clarification for my
ownification. >> Wait, hold on. So, [laughter]
okay. Did you you've already spoken twice?
» No, I've spoken once on this topic. on this topic. I have it marked down twice.
» Oh, then clarification. When does the when does the applicant pay?
» Good question. >> Uh I believe there's some flexibility in
the code, but typically an application review fees are due at the time of uh
formal application submittal. We can work with the applicant on timing and
everything for every for all that. >> Yeah. because I think the re, you know,
there are still other pieces that need to happen before
» That's correct. >> We start collecting dollars. Okay, let's
go ahead and vote.
» Yeah.
» Are we waiting on you or >> I don't know.
» Okay. It says waiting, but it's okay. >> Yep. No, that you're fine. So, the
motion carries six to one with Cal Council member Popkin in opposition.
Okay. So, now we are on to Yeah, thank you. Um, and I feel like
Annie, you will not let us let this go either. So, [laughter]
so I don't think it'll get lost in the shuffle. Um, okay. So, Nathan, stay
close. Zero reading on proposed land development code. Amendment related to
drive-thru uses adjacent to Main Street.
» Good evening. Good evening once again. Uh my name is Nathan Jones and I am the
next item I am presenting this evening is a zero reading of a proposed uh
another set of proposed amendments to land development code. This time related
to drive-through uses on Main Street. Uh this item really goes back to 2019 and
the Main Street corridor plan. So, the main street corridor plan was accepted
by city council um in 2019 as a visioning document and uh really set the
future land use goals for the main street corridor um up and down
throughout the city. Um the real intent of the uh one of the main intents and um
outcomes of this planning effort uh was really to try to find ways to transition
the corridor from an autodominated um corridor to more of a
pedestrian-friendly multimmodal corridor, something that's more human uh
quoteunquote human scale. Um and as part of that uh planning effort, it did
identify and propose some limitations on uh autoor oriented uses along the along
the corridor. Um following the 2019 um acceptance of the corridor plan, city
staff began working on code amendments um that would implement that uh long
range planning effort and brought back a set of code amendments in 2022. Um,
these land development code amendments uh were particularly uh they were
specific to limitations on permitted uses, parking lot design, and the
location of uh drive-throughs along Main Street, uh, which is the item that, um,
I'm going through right now. Um, and specifically, um, it included a
limitation and a prohibition on new drive-through uses along Main Street.
So, it was very clear that um as part of this uh the staff report and as part of
the discussion that was surrounding this that new drive-through uses uh would be
prohibited along Main Street. Um however, the actual co adopted code
language um put that prohibition under one of the specific uses, the retail
sales. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Um but the code
adop language that was ultimately adopted applied that restriction to only
one of the many different uses that are allowed in the along the corridor. Um
between 2022 and today, city staff have uh through working with um applicants
and members of the community identified a gap between what we believe the intent
of the code amendments was in 2022 and what we believe the intent of the uh
corridor plan in 2019 was to do which was again to uh prohibit new
drive-through uses along Main Street and what the actual code language actually
reads. So, in an effort to further clarify our requirements and processes,
um we are proposing some code changes this evening um uh to to go through the
existing conditions of uh the land development code. So, new drive-through
uses are already prohibited in the mixeduse downtown zoning district. So,
that's going to be everything between essentially 1st Avenue and 9inth Avenue
along Main Street. So, already new drive-through uses are prohibited along
that section of Main Street. Um, however, what as I just explained, um,
new drive-through uses are only prohibited for retail sales between 9th
Avenue and, uh, Highway 66. Um, the existing code does not include specific,
uh, prohibitions for drive-throughs for restaurants, personal services, banking
institutions, and other types of uses. These are uh the type of uh type of
applications that we've been fielding and questions that we've been fielding
from members of the community about whether or not that code provision
actually does apply to these other uses. Um and then lastly, uh it doesn't the
existing code doesn't explicitly define what we mean when we say drive-through
uses. So when are we talking about drive-throughs as an accessory use
somewhere just on site or is it use that is act is the drive-through actually
connected uh to the physical building in some way. Um so once again we've kind of
identified some gaps in how our code is written um and have uh brought forward
uh some uh proposed code amendments to try to address that uh that issue. There
are five pieces to uh the proposed code amendments. First, it would allow retail
sales or add retail sales with drive-thru as a conditional use uh
primarily in the mixeduse zoning districts. It would allow drive-throughs
as an accessory use again within mixed use zoning districts. It includes use
specific standards for drive-throughs. It clarifies the prohibition for new
drive-throughs on Main Street along the entirety of the corridor uh related to
restaurants, banking institutions, personal services, and retail sales. Um
and finally, it includes the definitions that I was describing earlier,
definitions for drive-through uses, and retail sales with drive-throughs. Um as
part of the backup material here, we did include some red lines to the land
development code that goes into more detail on those items. I can answer
those if you have questions. I can answer any questions if you have uh any
I can answer any questions about those items if you would like. Um but to wrap
up my presentation here uh once again we have two recommendations. Uh in this
case uh staff is recommending that you move forward with these items primarily
because of the previous planning efforts that uh have already been conducted on
this particular issue and the stakeholder engagement that has already
taken place um and because we've kind of already done the work of identifying the
gaps in code. So, um, the recommendation is to move forward with option one in
this case. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, where'd you go? I
thought eight was up. Okay. Council member Koffer.
» Thank you, uh, mayor. Um, so this would eliminate drive-throughs on Main Street.
But what if they were on the corner, let's say, of 15th and Main Street?
Could they have a drive-thru on 15th, just not on Main Street?
» I believe the prohibition applies to lots adjacent to Main Street. I know.
» So, um, so yeah. So, part of the part of the issue that we've been, uh, running
into is really where does that prohibition begin and end?
» Um, and how does it apply to some of these, um, kind of nuance cases? If you
start to look at, uh, the built environment between 9th along the
mixeduse corridor zoning district between 9th a and uh, highway 66,
there's uh, quite a bit of undeveloped parking lot space. And so, um, again,
once again, when you look at redevelopment for those parking lot
areas, how they can be reconfigured, we've been fielding a lot of questions
about whether or not new drive-through uses would be allowed. Uh, once again,
these these um code provisions would clarify that. It would not allow any new
drive-throughs. That doesn't affect existing drive-throughs. We have a whole
other standard related to non-conforming uses that would uh apply. So, if there
is an existing drive-through use, that would be allowed to continue. Um, could
also be the case that it doesn't have to be the same user. It doesn't have to go
from like a McDonald's to a it could go from a McDonald's to a Starbucks or vice
versa. As long as the um use is not expanding and as long as the um there
are no real changes to the impact of of the drive-thru, it would still be
permitted. So, >> um so this would 100% eliminate
drive-throughs or they would have to the applicant would have to come and say,
"Hey, I would like a conditional use to allow a drive-through or just
» prohibit it." So as opposed so the land development code table of uses includes
three different types of permissions prohibited allowed by right or
conditional. We also have secondary uses which is slightly different um but in
this case it would prohibit new drive-throughs. So um they would have
that if somebody wanted to propose a drive-thru uh they would have to um
I uh believe they would have to reszone the property. Um, and we've also
structured these um, we've also structured the prohibitions to apply
specifically to the use. So, yes, the it's a long answer to your question.
Yes, it would prohibit any new drive-throughs. So, um I am not for curb
cuts because I want us to be um more multimodal and I think drive-throughs
can there's a coffee shop on Main Street that sometimes you get stuck because the
drive-thru line is so long it's going into Main Street and that causes uh
congestion and people driving around them and it causes hazards for the
drivers and the pedestrians u block sidewalks for ADA issues. Um, I am I am
my transportation hat is coming in hard on this one, even though I'm very
businessfriendly, too. Um, but it creates so many issues when you have
curb cuts on a major road that I'm wanting to say no more curb cuts because
I want us to have the space for multimodal and I
don't want us to also gum up transportation when it comes to vehicle
traffic on a major road in our town. >> Um, so I I think I'm going to be for
option one. Okay, thank you. I think that's I
thought that's where you were going with this. Um, Council Member Marcen,
» thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick questions. Thanks for the presentation.
Um, you've mentioned several times that there are like some practical examples
of where this has run into conflict with applicants. Can you just give me a sense
of give us a sense of like where what those have been, who those applicants
are, what the confusion has been? Are folks wanting to open drive-throughs and
they're confused about what the prohibition is? what's been the like
practical implication here and I'm asking that partly because I'm a little
worried about opportunity cost in this to some degree about about like what
like it I agree on a lot of points but I'm just curious about practically what
we've run into. >> Sure. Um and I guess I should take a
step back. We did believe that the part of the impetus of all this was we did
believe it was the intent of the original 2022 code to apply this
prohibition throughout the entirety of the corridor. Um, so setting that aside
to answer your question without using specific business names, um, I think
primarily restaurants with drive-throughs. So that would be like a
drive-through coffee shop or a drive-through restaurant, um, banking
services. So a bank with a drive-thru and um, things like that.
» And I know it's probably I probably you probably can't disclose it, but part of
me does want to know what the specific business, you know, organizations that
we're talking about are in terms of scope and scale, but um, yeah. Okay. I I
appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Prito,
» just some thoughts that I'm having. Um, thank you for your presentation. Um, one
of the thoughts just for my council, my fellow council members. Um, is kind of
just like what is our vision for North Maine? Um, you mentioned 9th Avenue to
66 and what's the feedback from the neighbors and yeah, do we want a bunch
of drive-throughs? like is that what that neighborhood wants to see, you
know? Um is that what is that what they're wanting? I know that they talk a
lot about like downtown and how come we don't take kind of that aspect of
downtown up north kind of in your your area, Susie.
» Um and so yeah, I mean I would I would be for um not having more
drive-throughs. I don't think that's the vision I have. Neither have I heard
that's the vision that constituents want is just a bunch of fast food drive-thru
kind of places. Um so that was that's one of the thoughts I had. Um another
question I had too and I'm blanking here. Um
was oh the so the current like so let's say McDonald's on 19th Avenue uh shuts
down. Could another place come in and use that drive-thru that's already set
in place? Okay. So, >> I think there's some technical issues
there. So long as the use is not um considered abandoned for a long period
of time. So, if it's three or four years between like um renovation, then it
would be considered covered under our code.
» Okay. And and this doesn't impact kind of like our food trucks and and uh
businesses like that. >> Food trucks are considered mobile food
vendors. uh and not the same as a >> drive-thru. Okay. I just want to make
sure that this doesn't have like unintended, you know, consequences for
some of those business owners. >> Okay. Yeah. I would I would go for your
recommendation. I I don't like I said, I don't think my vision for North Main is
a bunch of drive-throughs. [laughter] I do see eventually my hope is that we
can take what we have going on downtown and and move it up north. So, [laughter]
» thank you. Thank you for your presentation. So, um, just for
clarification, so I'm I'm thinking about some of the drive-thrus like Starbucks
near 17th. >> Sure.
» So, that's not coming. It doesn't You don't enter it. You actually go into the
parking lot to go through. So, would those continue to be permissible
» under this code [clears throat] change? >> Once again, if it's an existing
drive-thru, it's allowed to continue um for any site design issue. So, anytime a
new building, if we're talking about a new construction of like a new
Starbucks, right? >> Yes. A new Starbucks.
» There are some other site design issues. So, through the site development review
process, our engineers are going to look at um traffic circulation, not just off
of the main roads, but also onto like within the actual parking lot itself. We
have different regulations related to uh the spacing between curb cuts. Um so, we
wouldn't permit a driveway spacing that was too close together. Um and it's uh
as you guys may have been aware of through the traffic impact study and
traffic impact analysis uh we also have to look at if there's these queuing
lines that go on forever and ever does that stop up everything down the line.
» Um so that is those are all things that we normally review as a standard site
development plan. Um and >> so all that to say if um like under
existing conditions if council were to say we don't want to move forward with
this at all. We want to allow new new drive-throughs for restaurants. Um,
» it may be the case that there may be some still some other site design issues
that are insurmountable for certain parcels um or certain certain lots along
Main Street. Um, but once again again um from the corridor planning effort that
was done in 2019 >> and and I I keep going back to that
because that did have a fairly robust stakeholder engagement process and did
set the policy for future actions. Um that's again once we started to realize
or notice that uh identify that there was this gap that's why we um made the
determination to bring it forward to clarification for clarification from
this council >> and that's kind of when I onboarded onto
council and it was like some of this looks familiar and I was like wait
didn't we pass something like this already [laughter]
» and and not to to belabor the previous point I think the previous conversation
as well we were talking about time and unintended consequences because this is
as you're if you're pushing these things through
» these These are the things we need to be careful with if we're try if we're
pushing things through pretty fast. >> Got it. Okay. Um, Council Member Popkin.
» Yeah. Thanks, Mayor, and thanks, Nathan, for the good work on this. Um, I I
support the direction on number one, and I'll just leave with that. Um, the the
other context I just wanted to share with my fellow council members. Um about
I guess it was about a year and a half ago, the planning and zoning commission
started a conversation about the future of drive-throughs in our community
overall. Um we had seen three come in in different places that were more intended
to be kind of regional centers, pedestrian uh plaza, pedestrian
oriented, multimodal oriented um areas according to Envision Longmont and our
code going forward. And so PNZ started that conversation. I don't think there
was any formal recommendation from PNZ yet. Um, and I emailed with staff a bit
in advance of this meeting to understand if this was the right time to bring some
of those forward. Um, staff advised no, not not for this one. That was too
different materially from this Main Street corridor update, but I just
wanted to kind of telegraph like that is a conversation that's already been had a
little bit in the conversation about the future of drive-throughs in multiple
parts of our community. Um, I'm for advancing part one here and I hope that
we can have a conversation about kind of making some uh code adjustments uh for
what allowed uses uh regarding drive-throughs more broadly.
» Okay. Um, Mayor Prom, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, Nathan.
I I appreciate this. I wanted to just kind of echo what uh Council Member
Koffer was uh pointing out earlier about uh ADA and and that sort of thing, but
also um you know when I was I remember a study that I was uh helping with with
Dicky Lee Haulinghor and uh and Ron Stewart uh when Ron was a county
commissioner and they were trying to trying to slow down um uh trying
stop or, you know, figure out what we're doing about cars idling in a in a
drive-thru. and um and the impact of that and I think a little bit about uh
that uh and and I think that uh uh we have to think that there's so many
aspects of this that are negative to our community that the ones that are there
and the exceptions that we make down the line here uh will uh uh will be
exceptions that are are really um uh major exceptions, not not some sort of
like, hey, you get one and everybody else gets one down the line here. So, I
I want to stress that uh that I think um where we're going with this is uh you
know, maybe we don't know what the the game plan is for, uh every part of
Longmont or how things might change, but and here's the butt. the the butt is
that uh we can always make exceptions if we absolutely have to because there's a
uh to council member Mars point there a costbenefit analysis that actually
uh helps everybody hey call it [laughter] hey you know what don't claim
I wasn't listening buddy okay >> thank you [laughter]
um Council Member Christ >> thank you mayor um thank you Mr. Jones
Meyer. Um, how many applications do you have for
drive-throughs right now on Main Street? >> On Main Street, none. Because we've
interpreted that code to apply to all drive-throughs.
» Okay. Um, then if I were choosing
how to spend your time, I would rather you spend your time on the mixeduse
employment issue than reworking the code in this regard right now because I think
my main street's kind of full. I don't think we're going to have a lot of new
applications. >> I guess I should clarify my answer then.
We have received several pre-application meetings for requests for
drive-throughs. Okay. >> So, between 2020 2022 and today, we have
received several requests to initiate develop drive-thru developments along
Main Street. Um, we have denied them or told them that the use applies to that
that prohibition applies to their use. Uh, and again, these cleanup efforts, we
we see these as cleanup efforts. Um, again based off of prior discussions
that were that had previously happened. So um,
» so how much time will this take for you to do?
» I believe we've already done the red lines and we would bring these back the
next available council meeting for uh, I believe we indicated that we would bring
it in next available council meeting for determination.
» Okay. Because I have also noticed that and I'll this is to councelor Popkins
comment. I have noticed that planning and zoning has flagged these for us um
for the last three times that they've had this. Um so um then okay, I'm on
board with number one. >> Would you like to make a motion?
» I move >> that we direct staff to proceed with the
proposed land development code amendment and schedule a public hearing.
» Second. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made um by
um Council Member Chris, seconded by Council Member Marcine, and the third um
disembodied voice >> um council member Popkin. [laughter]
» I couldn't see him. I just heard the voice. [laughter]
» Okay, let's go ahead and vote.
» Nope.
» Marcine
» [laughter] >> Yeah, give us another problem.
» Give us another problem. >> Okay.
» And so that carries unanimously. Thank you. Um, thanks for putting up with us.
» Thanks, Joe. >> Uh, okay. We are on to the 2026
legislative bills recommended for city council position.
» That one's the one we're pulling because >> Oh, that's the one we're pulling. Never
mind. That was so many pages ago. That is never mind. So we are now
» almost yesterday. >> Yeah, that was almost that was yes. No,
almost yesterday. Um so we are now at final call public invited to be heard.
Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. And now we are at mayor and council comments.
I can wait. [laughter] >> Okay. Yeah, I'm tired. That's that's my
comment. Um, okay. We are now on to um no city manager remarks. Does the
city manager have any comments? >> No comments, mayor, council.
» Thank you. City attorney. >> No comments, mayor.
» Okay. >> Okay. Motion has been made to adjurnn.
Seconded by council member Christ. All those in favor?
» I opposed. Okay. We we are adjourned. >> Thanks for the
» [music]
[music]