[5:10] [music]

[5:31] You know you [music]

[5:40] are you.

[6:25] Hey,

[6:32] [music] hey, hey.

[6:40] » [music]

[6:46] [music]

[7:09] [music]

[8:14] [music] >> Heat. Heat.

[8:32] Heat. Heat.

[8:42] Heat. Heat.

[8:59] Heat. Heat.

[9:44] Heat. Heat.

[9:59] » [music]

[10:07] » Huh?

[10:52] » [music]

[11:12] [music]

[11:21] » Hey,

[11:31] hey, hey.

[11:58] Heat. Hey, Heat.

[12:01] Heat.

[12:19] Heat.

[12:29] » [music]

[12:35] [music]

[12:41] [music]

[12:47] [music]

[12:51] » Heat. Hey, Heat. [music]

[12:56] [music]

[13:04] [music]

[13:10] [music] Heat.

[13:15] [music]

[13:34] Hey. Hey. Hey.

[13:51] » [music]

[14:01] [music]

[14:26] » Do

[14:39] you

[14:48] [music] feel

[14:53] you?

[15:05] » [music]

[15:42] » Mhm.

[15:52] [music]

[16:02] [music]

[16:10] » [music]

[16:26] » Heat. Heat.

[16:32] Heat. Heat.

[17:38] Heat. Heat. [music]

[17:52] Heat. Heat.

[18:02] Heat. Heat.

[18:38] down. Come around.

[18:43] Heat. Heat.

[19:16] » [music]

[19:25] [music] >> Huh?

[19:42] » [music]

[19:50] » Hey.

[20:01] Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey,

[20:24] hey.

[20:40] Do we have everyone here? Okay. I would I would I now would like to call the

[20:47] February 24th, 2026 Longmont City Council regular session to order. The

[20:52] live stream of this meeting can be viewed at the city's YouTube channel,

[20:56] longpublicdia.org. org/watch

[20:59] or on Comcast channels 8 or 880. Uh, can we start with a roll call, please?

[21:07] » Um, Mayor Hogering, >> present.

[21:10] » Mayor Prom McCoy, >> present.

[21:13] » Council member Christ, >> present.

[21:15] » Council member Colulfer, >> present.

[21:17] » Council member Marcen, >> here.

[21:19] » Council member Popkin, >> here. And

[21:21] » council member Pto. >> Mayor, you have a quorum. Great. Let's

[21:25] stand for the pledge.

[21:28] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[21:34] republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[21:40] justice for all.

[21:53] In accordance with the council's rules of procedure, the rules for public

[21:57] comment are as follows. Only Longmont residents and employees of the city of

[22:02] Longmont may speak during first call public invited to be heard. You must

[22:06] provide your address at the signup sheet before the meeting or I will not call

[22:10] your name. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. Anyone may speak on

[22:15] second reading or a public hearing item and you are asked to add your name to

[22:19] the speaker list for the specific item before the meeting. Anyone may speak

[22:23] during final call public invited to be heard. Well, this one's several pages.

[22:29] Okay. Members of the audience shall refrain from disruptive, vulgar, and

[22:34] abusive language, applause, heckling, or other actions that interfere with

[22:38] orderly function of the council. Um, may I have a um motion to approve the

[22:43] February 10th, 2026 regular session minutes? Okay. The motion has been made

[22:48] by um Mayor Prom McCoy. Do I have a second?

[22:51] » Second. >> Okay. And so that's been seconded by

[22:54] Council Member Marcen. Are there any questions

[22:58] or comments? And I can't see Popkin on mine. Where is he at?

[23:03] » Oh, yeah. I see it. >> Okay. Well, then let's go ahead and

[23:06] vote.

[23:14] Are you going to have to do a verbal vote?

[23:16] » I'm a yay. Let's do a verbal. >> Okay. So, all those in favor say I.

[23:21] » I. >> Okay. All those opposed. So, the motion

[23:25] carries uh unanimously. Um now we're on to agenda revisions and

[23:31] submissions of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add agenda

[23:36] items to future agendas. Um, do we have any agenda revisions for tonight,

[23:41] Michelle? >> Yes, mayor. Um, items 9A and 9B had

[23:45] revised council communications added at 12:20 today. Um, and then item 12 C is

[23:51] going to be removed from tonight's agenda. Uh, we have a ill staff member,

[23:55] so that will be brought back next week. >> Okay,

[23:59] that Okay. And then before I start calling folks, I do have an item I would

[24:05] like to bring forward. Um, this is in regard to the airport advisory board.

[24:12] Um, I've been having some reservations and I'm even thinking about how I'm

[24:15] going to play this out. Um, just thinking about impacts to transportation

[24:22] if we um, we we had previously made a motion to um, have TAP

[24:28] take on the airport advisory board. um in kind of mulling that over the last

[24:34] week or so as well as watching the last few um airport advisory boards, I uh

[24:41] meetings, I just I just feel like, you know, we're

[24:45] looking for an outcome before we really had a chance to

[24:50] to weigh in all the options to really identify what is the ongoing issue, what

[24:56] what would be the best approach. And something that I've always appreciated

[25:00] during my tenure on council is having very thoughtful council people who

[25:07] who we you know before we just jump to an outcome that we are actually working

[25:11] through the process and really defining what is it that we're trying to solve

[25:15] what's the pro the issue that we're trying to resolve and really looking at

[25:19] best approaches. So that being said, [laughter]

[25:24] um you know, so that in an effort to define what the outcome should be, um I

[25:29] would like to make a motion that we as a city council assume the responsibilities

[25:34] of the airport advisory board. Um for the time being, [laughter]

[25:39] um do I have a second? >> Second.

[25:41] » Okay. And so the motion has been made by me and it has been seconded by Mayor

[25:44] Prom. And I'd be happy to speak more to it if anyone had questions. Go ahead.

[25:50] Um, Council Member Marcen, >> thank you so much, Mayor. I appreciate

[25:54] the motion. And I think in the spirit of what you're trying to do, if I'm

[25:57] understanding it correctly, is is take, you know, some some of the issue off of

[26:02] TAP and put it onto us, right, as we try to navigate what is frankly a difficult

[26:06] situation that that that we're in. And you know, I will speak very briefly

[26:10] about the last airport advisory board meeting um and my um

[26:16] frankly how how uh really difficult that was um for uh to to watch as a as a

[26:23] community member and how unfortunate it was to see a member of that board um

[26:27] make the choice that he did to publicly um mock another public official. That

[26:32] was not something that I think is is within the professional standards of the

[26:36] boards that we expect. So, as we consider the best practice, I think

[26:40] » dissolution and moving forward with this on us, yes, as we navigate next steps

[26:45] makes sense. So, I'm going to be supporting this motion.

[26:47] » Okay. Um, yeah. And so, thank you for bringing that up. Um, you know, and it

[26:52] was actually that individual's comments that brought this to me. You know, one

[26:59] of the comments that was made was um that there's not really a sense of

[27:04] direction coming from council to the airport advisory board. So, that really

[27:08] spelled out for me that you know what, this issue isn't going to be resolved.

[27:13] uh we're not going to be able to to meet the needs of the airport without having

[27:18] defined us as a council really definitive um what we want, what our

[27:23] goals and objectives are and how and have us be in the forefront of looking

[27:28] at the master plan and um you know and just even looking at at what our um code

[27:35] says, you know, what are the roles and responsibilities? Are those what we want

[27:40] to continue with? do we need to clarify and um and change language in there? And

[27:46] I think this would really give us the opportunity for us to delve deeply um as

[27:51] a as a group to be able to to discuss and determine the direction moving

[27:55] forward. Um council member Christ and then between Chris and Koffer Popkin had

[28:03] his hand up. So okay, go ahead. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um,

[28:10] can you give me a sense of what practically that will look like? Are we

[28:14] going to just become the airport advisory board on the days that they

[28:19] meet? Are we going to just have discussions as a council? Um,

[28:25] » to go forward, >> we would have a separate we would have a

[28:27] separate set meeting. So, I I'm envisioning how we meet as a Longmont

[28:32] Housing Authority. We meet on a separate a separate day, a separate time. Um,

[28:37] » and then these would be with with the public so that they can still come and

[28:40] talk. >> Yes. So it basically just

[28:44] advisory board. >> Yes, we would be the airport advisory

[28:46] board. It in an effort to to really delineate what is it that we want, what

[28:50] are our goals and objectives and what what what do we expect from our um

[28:54] volunteers? I mean they are volunteers and I appreciate you know and I have a

[28:58] couple of people who are friends of mine and so it's it it is a hard decision

[29:02] » but I'm also looking at what's the best interest of the whole

[29:06] » as well as the airport as an as an institution itself.

[29:10] » Yeah I like the spirit of this and that I think you know it means we need to

[29:14] collaborate more and be be better leaders with our volunteers and we

[29:18] appreciate our volunteers heartily. Um, so the it usually meets is it the first

[29:23] Thursday of the month and so that's something we would add to the calendar.

[29:26] I'm just I'm asking a practical question here.

[29:28] » Not necessarily. I mean we can look at um maybe we're meeting quarterly to

[29:35] start or maybe we're meeting monthly to start. I you know that's

[29:39] » um >> depending on issues and

[29:41] » depending on issues public demand. Yes. Yes.

[29:44] » Okay. >> All right. Thank you.

[29:45] » Uhhuh. Of course. Council member Popkin. Thank you, mayor. Um, I think this is a

[29:52] I understand where you're going with this motion and I too had some

[29:56] reservations about kind of the impact this would have on the transportation

[29:59] advisory board, but I did think that the merits of the of Mayor Prom McCoyy's

[30:04] motion uh last week deserved to be discussed and figure out the optimal

[30:07] solution here. So, I appreciated his motion. I appreciate yours. I

[30:11] » I guess where I'm getting a little hung up on this is just building on council

[30:15] member Chris's comments. So we we wouldn't can you clarify like

[30:20] effectively what I'm hearing from you is we would dissolve the airport advisory

[30:23] board and council would just take the responsibilities of overseeing the

[30:26] airport which we already do if I understand kind of our role because AAB

[30:30] advises us >> and so like we wouldn't be actually like

[30:34] serving at concurrently as AAB members because then we'd be advising ourselves.

[30:38] So am I understanding correctly? >> Yes, we're not advising ourselves.

[30:41] [laughter] The so the practical effect of your motion is we're going to uh

[30:44] dissolve the airport advisory board right now and let council come up with

[30:47] the next strategy to provide clearer direction and structure that would

[30:51] support the effective uh operations and strategy of the airport. Is that

[30:55] correct? >> Absolutely. Yes.

[30:58] » Great. Okay. And then I think the only other question I had for you at this

[31:01] moment which is it would is you know when when do we start having these

[31:06] strategy discussions because I think that will be the conversation that uh

[31:10] community members will come and and start asking us is like hey when are we

[31:13] starting to do this? Is it going to be on the same cadence as AAB or do we want

[31:16] to appoint like a smaller task force from council to focus on this for a bit

[31:21] so that it's not maybe taking up all of council's time as as much and then kind

[31:25] of reporting back. Um, do we want to add this to our retreat agenda? Just a few

[31:29] kind of tactical questions to to I would I like your idea of the retreat agenda

[31:34] as an opportunity to discuss the formatting of what that would look like

[31:39] um and just have it be a brief conversation as we're looking going to

[31:42] be discussing um our LEA our roles as liaison. Anyways,

[31:48] um I I envisioned that we would just meet

[31:52] either quarterly or every other month, preferably on the nights of the airport

[31:58] advisory board, but I think that that's up for this body to to decide and

[32:02] determine what what's the best schedule. Um I it would be pretty much effective

[32:10] immediately and you know when our board meeting would be we can I think we

[32:18] can kind of look and determine a schedule moving forward.

[32:23] I hope that answered your question. I'm trying to

[32:25] » No, it really does. I I would I would encourage this group just so that there

[32:29] isn't like a lost in space situation. >> Yeah. No, no, no. And that's what I was

[32:33] now I remember the task force issue that was the other one. So and then we could

[32:37] determine if >> I would like for us to meet at least the

[32:41] first time as a whole body if we decide as a group that the best way moving

[32:46] forward would be to have a subcommittee of us serving on that. I would be happy

[32:51] to entertain that. Um, but I would like for us as a body to have a fuller

[32:57] discussion on what we want to see moving forward as we step into this role of

[33:02] airport advisory board. >> Thank you. Just add that our retreat is

[33:06] about a month away. >> Yeah, it is about a month away. So,

[33:08] » so it's actually not that far off and we did want to dedicate, you know, 60 to 90

[33:12] minutes there to actually hone up a vision from this group. So, just wanted

[33:15] to put that on the table. Thank you for your motion.

[33:16] » Okay. >> So, mayor, if I can jump in. I think

[33:19] technically based on where council's going

[33:23] um we've been talking about a cadence. So

[33:29] » there there are different issues involved in this. So things like

[33:34] um rates and chart I mean so if you look at what the airport advisory board's

[33:38] supposed to do >> it's supposed to advise on things like

[33:41] rates it's it's delineated within the the structure of the ordinance creating

[33:47] the airport advisory board. >> Those are items that could just come to

[33:52] council directly in a normal meeting. >> Yes.

[33:55] » And then the the other piece is a conversation of what what it looks like

[33:58] to get there logistically. I think what we're going to have to do

[34:03] if council goes in this direction is we'll have to bring an ordinance that

[34:06] dissolves the airport advisory board. >> Then the council can

[34:16] um add an additional meeting if you wanted to sit a cadence in terms of

[34:20] determining what does the future of the airport advisory board look like. And

[34:25] that can include everything from um composition of the board. Um

[34:31] uh the council actually did this a few years ago when uh they became the

[34:37] housing authority board where they said we want a board that looks like this and

[34:41] we want certain types of expertise >> and other things. So that could be

[34:45] something you could consider in terms of what you want the board to look at. That

[34:50] can be another piece and that conversation could then happen in this

[34:54] other meeting that you're talking about. But in terms of the business items,

[34:58] » those don't necessarily have to >> go through that. We can bring those

[35:02] directly to council. So >> if council moves in this direction, I

[35:06] think we're going to need to do a couple of things.

[35:08] » Yes. >> One, we have an existing motion on the

[35:11] table from the previous meeting that I think you'll have to reconsider. Mhm.

[35:16] » Um and then once you go back to the point before that motion was made, then

[35:21] you're going to need to make a motion to direct staff to bring an ordinance back

[35:25] dissolving the airport board. >> And then I think that sets the course

[35:30] for everything that you're talking about.

[35:31] » Okay. >> Did I miss anything? Eugene,

[35:33] » that's it. >> That's it. And so those so I you know

[35:37] depending on the outcome of this this ordinance you know we will be having to

[35:42] resolve the previous motion for direct not ordinance the um motion

[35:47] » I think you'll need to have a motion to reconsider

[35:50] » yes after >> no before

[35:52] » before this okay >> then that takes you back to the point in

[35:56] time before that

[35:59] » this is where that procedural timeline I had my charts and everything

[36:02] » and then you would have to make your motion to then direct staff to bring an

[36:08] ordinance back dissolving the airport board.

[36:13] » Okay. And that would be tonight, correct?

[36:15] » No, we would have to bring something back to you all.

[36:17] » Back to Okay. >> Correct.

[36:19] » Got it. >> You could make the motion tonight to

[36:21] direct staff to bring back an ordinance to dissolve the

[36:24] » Yes. >> AB, which is what I heard the

[36:26] conversation. >> Yes. Uh what I was having issues or

[36:31] struggles with was council assuming the duties when we have an existing airport

[36:37] advisory board ordinance. >> And so I think the first step is to

[36:42] dissolve the AAB >> and then council could and then council

[36:47] could assume those duties once the AAB no longer existed.

[36:50] » Okay. Okay. >> So you need

[36:52] » that's that's right. So then um trying to think. So let me

[36:58] No. Oh, well, hold on. Um, I'm gonna pass it.

[37:02] » Do you want to go ahead and >> Sure.

[37:04] » Okay. So, um, Mayor Prom.

[37:10] » Let's see. I'm trying to get it. There we go. Did it work? Nope.

[37:17] So, to keep this clean, I'd like to uh resend. Is that what we determined would

[37:25] be the >> You need to make a motion to reconsider.

[37:28] » We cons reconsider. >> Okay.

[37:30] » My previous motion in regards to the >> Okay. So, I do have an open motion. So,

[37:37] um I could >> revoke

[37:39] » revoke this right now. >> And your second says yes.

[37:42] » Yes. Okay. And my second said yes. >> And then now go ahead. And so

[37:49] the the language needs to be that we need to I I move that we reconsider

[37:55] uh my previous motion from uh two weeks ago about the airport advisory board

[38:01] specific language would have to be added in there.

[38:06] » Okay, >> that's sufficient motion to reconsider

[38:10] the prior >> Okay, there's a second.

[38:13] » Yeah, go ahead. Second. >> Second. So, council member Marcine has

[38:16] seconded that. Okay. So, let's um are I'm assuming that the names

[38:23] in the cues are for the main motion, not the reconsidering.

[38:27] » Can you just clarify? >> Yes.

[38:30] » Yes. Here. Can you put your And then

[38:36] go ahead. Can you restate? >> Can you re um can you state which motion

[38:40] you're reconsidering? >> So, at our last Was it regular? It was a

[38:45] regular >> two weeks ago.

[38:47] » Two weeks ago, we had a um motion brought forward by Mayor Prom to have

[38:53] the airport advisory board be um combined with TAP, the transportation

[38:58] advisory board. So, we are voting now to reconsider that motion so we could

[39:03] » Okay. Revoke it. >> Okay. Okay. So, let's go ahead and vote.

[39:14] Um, Marcine.

[39:28] » Okay. And then um there we go. And that um carries

[39:33] unanimously. So now that um motion has been

[39:39] » removed and we are back now. Mayor and Council, if I could just explain where

[39:44] you are. So, now you're >> at the point in time before you voted on

[39:49] McCoy's motion two weeks ago. >> Okay.

[39:52] » So, from what I'm hearing, not to say this is exactly what you should do.

[39:55] Yeah. >> McCoy could withdraw, have a clean

[39:58] slate, and then you can make a motion. I think where council was going is to

[40:03] direct staff to bring back an ordinance to dissolve the AAB.

[40:08] So yeah, we are at the point to bring back an ordinance to dissolve the AAB

[40:12] » right now. McCoyy's motion is still pending.

[40:14] » Is still pending. So he needs reconsidering it.

[40:18] » So we reconsidered. Now you want to now we have to vote on

[40:22] » No, he can withdraw it. >> Oh, you you can withdraw it now.

[40:25] » So you made the motion that you can >> Would you like to withdraw? So we Yes,

[40:32] we >> I get it. Time travel. That's what you

[40:35] got. Now I understand. Here's my Harry Potter moment. I would I withdraw that

[40:39] motion. [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you.

[40:44] Yeah. So, this is where I was so caught up procedurally of tearing through my

[40:48] book and it was like, okay, what's what comes?

[40:49] » So, now you have a blank state. >> Now, we have a blank slate. So, now I

[40:52] would like to um make a motion to direct staff to um

[40:57] » amend the ordinance or devise the or ordinance that dissolves the airport

[41:01] advisory board. Do I need to have that city council in that ordinance? Do we

[41:07] need to have that city council will be um serving as airport board capacity?

[41:15] » Uh if you would like to add that direction, I think that would be

[41:18] helpful. >> Okay. Yes, I would like to add that.

[41:21] Okay. So, I've made the motion. It has been seconded by Mayor Prom.

[41:28] Um now we can go back to the queue. Council member Koffer. Thank you, mayor.

[41:33] Um, just just for clarification, we would assume responsibilities

[41:37] temporarily and then eventually we will we will learn in the process, determine

[41:42] what we want this board to function in the future.

[41:45] » Mhm. >> And then do we know when we're planning

[41:49] to give it back to the public or that's to be

[41:52] » I mean that's really to be determined. This is this is where my teacher comes

[41:56] in and design challenge and STEM thinking problem solving is we are going

[42:01] to be the ones that decide which direction this is to be going. So that's

[42:07] why I didn't put too many too much con cons you know constraints on this is

[42:11] that we would come up >> in what is the best interest of the

[42:15] community the airport itself >> um sustainability viability

[42:19] » with the intent to give it back >> eventually at some point

[42:22] » at some point. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.

[42:25] » Yes. Okay. Um, Council Member Christ.

[42:31] » Oh, thank you, Mayor. Uh, [sighs]

[42:36] I'm just thinking about timing because March 3rd is a study session. So, we

[42:40] would be um having our second vote on this right before

[42:45] our retreat. And I'm wondering if we maybe could just suspend airport

[42:51] advisory board activity during March and have our retreat where we could more

[42:57] openly collaborate on this and have a full plan before we have an ordinance.

[43:03] Otherwise, there'd be a lot of discussion um about the authority to do

[43:08] that.

[43:19] Mayor and Council, what I'm thinking is one, I don't know that I have to go look

[43:23] at their bylaws. I don't know how the agenda is set.

[43:27] » Yeah. >> Um,

[43:29] you know, there there is an existing AAB ordinance. I always say council

[43:36] doesn't have a magic wand, but it does have two readings. So if you want to

[43:41] change what's in the code, it takes two readings.

[43:44] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[43:46] » No, I don't think we should bypass the process.

[43:49] » And well, and I'm also wondering if we brought the ordinance through and then

[43:53] had our retreat, you know, if we scheduled it in such a way that we were

[43:56] actually having our last vote after we had some collaboration on it. But I

[44:01] think we have a lot we have to iron out in terms of when would we be meeting and

[44:04] does that work with our other board commitments and also just to get on the

[44:09] same page in terms of what we're expecting with boards which we're

[44:12] discussing at the retreat. >> So I would hate to have a discuss a

[44:15] lively discussion there that then changes our ordinance and we've already

[44:20] had our second reading on it. So if we could schedule it so that the second

[44:25] reading comes after the retreat I think that would be helpful.

[44:30] Logistically, are there enough days in March to do that?

[44:39] I don't think so because we have NLC. We're gone one of the weeks.

[44:45] » Yes. So, we have pretty full agenda. So, if you could

[44:50] » if you take this direction, then what we would do is look at when we can set it

[44:55] in place to dissolve it. And it may be that it naturally happens on that

[45:00] cadence anyway. >> Um I'm trying to think through the

[45:05] upcoming agendas. We have some pretty big topics coming.

[45:09] » So it may make sense to do the introduction after.

[45:14] » Yeah. >> After the retreat.

[45:16] » After the retreat. Okay. >> If that's okay with council.

[45:18] » Sure. >> Okay.

[45:20] » Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. And then um I had to write this

[45:24] down. Um, Council Member Popkin had his hand up. Um, next, so,

[45:30] » thank you, Mayor. Um, I I just want to clarify two things here. So, on the

[45:33] timing here that we're discussing and >> there just we wouldn't we could still

[45:38] have this disc regardless of exactly when the ordinance would come through.

[45:41] We could still have this discussion at retreat in part or in full. Yeah.

[45:45] » On kind of vision and direction, we wouldn't have to wait for that ordinance

[45:48] to pass. We can still have have a productive conversation there. So, I

[45:52] just want to clarify that for my colleagues regardless. And then secondly

[45:56] here, building on the conversation that Council Member Koffer had with with you,

[46:00] Mayor, um when we're talking about structure and giving it back, my

[46:04] understanding of your motion, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that we

[46:08] would be dissolving the airport advisory board in its current form entirely. We

[46:13] would then as council have the prerogative, as we do in general, to

[46:16] create a new board, to create a new structure altogether, to figure out

[46:21] whatever future structure we think makes sense. Yeah.

[46:23] » So just for council member Koffer's clarity and maybe others in the public

[46:28] there there wouldn't inherently be any give it back. There would be a

[46:31] restructuring in some way shape or form on what uh approach this council and and

[46:37] this city think m or what approach this council thinks makes sense for the

[46:42] city's uh future around uh the airport and management around.

[46:47] » Yeah, thank you for that clarification. I just interpreted it as we're not

[46:51] assuming this until the end of time. So that's

[46:55] » it's not a long term. It's not a long hash. [laughter] It's not a long-term

[46:59] exactly. It's that perpetu structure and direction going forward to then take

[47:04] this back off our plates >> going forward. [clears throat] Is that

[47:06] correct? >> Yes, that is. Okay.

[47:08] » Thank you very much. >> Uh um council member Marcine.

[47:11] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, couple of questions really for staff and I thought

[47:16] I saw our airport manager come in, but I see Jen is here as well. Um,

[47:20] operationally on the timeline we're talking about

[47:24] in terms of what because I I think what how long how many AAB meetings between

[47:29] now and when a dissolution ordinance could be passed. Are we talking about

[47:32] two? >> One,

[47:34] » maybe two. >> One or two.

[47:36] » Okay. I that I I don't love that. um for a lot

[47:42] of different reasons. Um and I, you know, certainly respect the

[47:47] time of our volunteers. I think we have some very real challenges to work out

[47:51] there. I I'm curious about staff's perspective operationally

[47:56] on the work that that that board is looking at over the next two months and

[48:00] whether I mean >> we can manage it.

[48:04] » We can Okay. I I'm just thinking about all sorts of things, but Okay. Um Okay.

[48:11] Uh whether whether we whether they're needed necessarily in that conversation

[48:14] over the next two months. >> Yeah. Really the main issues that tend

[48:18] to come forward um are really the leases.

[48:22] » Yeah. >> Of which ultimately council has to

[48:24] approve those leases. >> I think the work that we have undergoing

[48:28] is the rates and charges study. But that's just starting. Correct.

[48:34] » Good evening. Jen Newton, uh assistant city manager for external services. I

[48:37] guess that work is just starting. There's also uh an evaluation of the

[48:42] voluntary noise abatement program that we're doing with consultants, but that

[48:46] work wouldn't um come to the airport advisory board in the ne it that process

[48:51] will take uh 90 days. So it will come back beyond the time uh outside of the

[48:57] ordinance if you uh move forward with this tonight. So what I'm hearing is

[49:00] practically speaking the work that that ultimately the airport advisory board

[49:04] would would advise us on is going to come to us anyway.

[49:09] That that's kind of the one challenge I have is do we need additional meetings?

[49:12] Do we need the additional structures? And that's an US conversation maybe for

[49:14] the retreat of do we have to do that? Um >> okay I I I think that's

[49:21] » that is my question. I'm still comfortable with this. Okay. Thank you.

[49:25] » Very good. Council member Prietto.

[49:29] All right. Surprise, surprise. I'm in opposition of this.

[49:33] » Um, just a couple things I'm thinking. Um,

[49:39] I don't see [snorts] the point of dissolving and then reestablishing.

[49:44] It [clears throat] just seems I just I'm thinking forward and it just doesn't

[49:48] make sense to me. Um

[49:53] also we rely on our board um volunteers who

[49:59] many are experts in the field. Um I last time I checked I don't believe any of us

[50:04] are pilots or aviation experts. And so um as far as I'm aware folks who

[50:11] participate in boards have that expertise and put that time in to really

[50:17] give that advice. Now granted, whatever

[50:22] sequence of events have that recently happened um to cause kind of friction,

[50:29] mistrust, miscommunication, whatever you guys want to call it. Um I

[50:35] don't feel like dissolving the board is the answer. Um and so I just I just

[50:41] wanted to point out that I'm I'm strongly in opposition of this. I feel

[50:45] like there can be other solutions coming to the table that don't involve just us

[50:51] dissolving the board and taking the power. I think as a as a council have um

[50:57] a lot on the agenda coming forward and and when we have dedicated volunteers,

[51:04] future volunteers too, because I mean it's not a full board yet.

[51:08] » We haven't let the process run through. We haven't got our new appointments in.

[51:14] um and really tried to reestablish those relationships.

[51:18] Um I just I'm I'm not I'm not loving this motion right now and

[51:25] I think I'm the only one that feels this way. Um, but I feel like

[51:31] it's council's

[51:35] responsibility to reestablish those relationships,

[51:39] working relationships and and and communication and expectation

[51:44] uh to get the board that we want versus us just taking that into our own hands.

[51:50] And I might be missing something here. I had a family emergency. I've been for

[51:56] the most part on the emails, but I just I coming from a human aspect, looking at

[52:00] how we've done things historically, looking really taking into consideration

[52:06] um the human capital that can serve us in

[52:11] that board. I'm I'm yeah, I'm in opposition of this today.

[52:17] » Okay. Um Council Member Marcen, last time.

[52:21] » Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to take this to a 10,000 foot level very quickly cuz

[52:23] I know a lot of folks out here in the audience wanted to talk about the the

[52:27] why and and for public invited to be heard and you're all like what is

[52:29] happening? Why why are we talking about the airport? I I I get it. So I want to

[52:32] just take this to a 10,000 foot level and in doing that try to address what I

[52:36] hope are are some of council member Prito's totally reasonable concerns. We

[52:39] rely on our volunteers a great deal for our boards. I think the challenge that

[52:43] we have had um in the last right that we are kind of continually having um with

[52:49] this one specific conversation is um uh trying to be very delicate in how I

[52:56] discuss this. I know >> um is a board that is actively in in my

[53:01] opinion often working against the direction of council has gone as far as

[53:08] as was published in the times call recently one individual member um making

[53:13] u unprofessional to say the least comments about their council liaison and

[53:19] you know we have you know there's uh some evidence out there of concerns

[53:24] about open meetings law violations and other

[53:27] Um, I think the time and to answer Council Member Prito's question about

[53:31] why dissolve the board, I think a reset, >> a reset,

[53:35] » a reset in membership, a reset in focus, and giving us as a council the chance to

[53:40] reestablish this board with clear direction, clear guidelines, and a clear

[53:44] community focus is the only way to establish a clean slate moving forward.

[53:48] Um, I don't like this. I really wish this was not where we were. I will speak

[53:54] personally that I had problems with the motion that was brought up two weeks

[53:57] ago. I got there because of I think the process elements. I think what has

[54:01] occurred and what occurred specifically for me speaking for me um in the last

[54:06] AAB meeting at the end of that meeting was um I was

[54:12] emotional for me because that's not the expectation that I have of our board

[54:15] members. Um so for me I think the moment for a clean slate, a reset, a

[54:19] reestablishment, move forward together is now. That's why I'm voting for this

[54:23] motion. >> Um, thank you for the use of the word

[54:25] reset. I actually had that in my notes and I overlooked it, but it it it is

[54:29] really it's taking that physical just a reset. I've seen this

[54:36] ongoing my entire tenure on on council and it has um happened, you know, long

[54:42] before I was ever even considered running. Um, so there were several

[54:47] several concerns and I think you know just the the final straw for me were

[54:52] were the comments that were made at the last board meeting and

[54:58] and just Yeah. And I I think that

[55:03] having them the person speak out on council they feel that council is not

[55:10] given clear direction or expectation of what they want. That's where I felt, you

[55:14] know what, we need to bring it back to us right now and set those those

[55:19] expectations and set them firmly and clearly so that going forward we can

[55:24] have a fresh slate and um and then we can we can work to build build

[55:30] relationships with this new council and just the reset that was Thank you. Um

[55:36] okay, um Popkin, last one and then we're going to vote. Um go ahead. Thank you,

[55:41] mayor, and and thank you, Council Member Mars, for the 10,000 foot level kind of

[55:44] uh context for folks who maybe haven't been following this as religiously as um

[55:49] some some some folks. Um, there was one other thing that I just thought might uh

[55:52] enhance this discussion and and I can't see who's sitting at the table for

[55:56] staff, but um Harold or Assistant City Manager Uten, can one of you speak to

[56:03] the air air monitoring system, the AMS um community engagement process that is

[56:09] is starting to be uh moving forward? And the reason I just asked this, it's not

[56:13] it's not gerine to the structure of the motion, but it does speak to the fact

[56:17] that I I do believe that we will be getting continue to get volunteer and

[56:22] community input even as we're figuring out the structure to the advisory board.

[56:26] And I just wanted to maybe clarify that for the public as to kind of what else

[56:30] is happening that can help inform our decision-m. Again, I can't see who's

[56:34] there, so I'll maybe open it up and see if Harold or Jen, you guys want to just

[56:38] add a little bit of context there. Okay, go ahead, Jen.

[56:43] » Good evening, Mayor. Um, councelor Popkin,

[56:46] we are uh just starting the process to have AMS do this evaluation of the VNAP,

[56:53] and that includes looking at a number of kind of data and metrics, but it also

[56:59] includes having conversations with pilots and other stakeholders and

[57:04] neighbors. um and we don't yet have that engagement strategy back from them

[57:08] because we've just gotten underway. And um I intended to send you an email today

[57:14] to give you some insight to that process and certainly we'll send it um soon. And

[57:18] we also intend to have a communication that will be in um the next city council

[57:23] packet with more information and hopefully there'll be some um already

[57:27] identified timelines for when those meetings will happen with the public.

[57:32] Um, I think that answered all your questions, but if it didn't, please let

[57:35] me let me know. >> No, that's stellar.

[57:37] » Okay, thanks. Let's go ahead and vote.

[57:53] » Oh. Oh, yeah. It was seconded by Mayor Promp. I was like, no.

[57:58] » What? You can't throw a monkey ratch on here.

[58:03] Okay. Okay. And that carries five to two with

[58:08] uh council members Christrist and Prietto in opposition. Okay. So, we are

[58:12] moving on. Oh. Oh, yes. We've got another. Okay.

[58:17] [laughter] Council member Koffer. I forgot.

[58:20] » I promise this is super quick. Thanks, Mayor. Um

[58:25] Oh, yes. think I can't see my my motion, but um I'm going to be traveling for

[58:29] work on April 14th. Um this will add uh a second remote session for me. Um this

[58:36] is a work trip that unfortunately I cannot schedule around. Um so I'm making

[58:41] a motion so I can do remote participation for the April 14th

[58:44] meeting. >> Seconded.

[58:46] » Okay. So, um, the motion to, um, approve remote participation for council member

[58:51] Koffer for April 14th has been made by Council Member Koffer and seconded by

[58:56] Mayor Prom McCoy. Um, any discussion? Okay, great. Let's vote. [laughter]

[59:20] Um, oh, yep. On the other screen. Yes. And the that carries unanimously.

[59:32] Okay. So, we are now on to uh city manager report.

[59:37] » No comments. Mayor, council. >> Okay. Um, special reports and

[59:40] presentations. None. So, we are now at first call. Public invited to be heard.

[59:44] And we do have 22 names on the deck. So, um, when I go through, if you find that,

[59:52] you know, when you that you've heard or that you see, you know, I'm looking at

[59:56] it's pretty much the most of the list, all if not all on the YMCA. Thank you

[1:00:02] for coming and being passionate about it. Let's see all those hands that are

[1:00:05] here for the um the Y topic. Okay, there we go. We got to listen. [laughter]

[1:00:11] So, um, as you come up and if you hear individuals that are saying the same

[1:00:15] thing, you know, rather than just repeating the same language, you know,

[1:00:19] if there's, you know, you can choose to my my topic was already discussed or

[1:00:26] just kind of minimize a little bit, we'd greatly appreciate that. Um, but I'm

[1:00:31] going to go ahead and start by calling four people up at a time. Uh and then so

[1:00:36] the first person on my list is um France Francois Neter and then Mike Ariano is

[1:00:45] the second Esteband Ryos and Marie Klene. So if you four can come up to the

[1:00:52] front. Uh and then

[1:00:58] » and you have three minutes and you can say

[1:01:03] » my name is Francois Neter and this is the first time at the council. So yeah,

[1:01:08] I'm talking about the YMCA. I want to first just establish my credibility

[1:01:13] personally and professionally. I've been a fitness instructor, a yoga uh teacher,

[1:01:19] movement therapist for almost five decades. And I've worked all over uh the

[1:01:25] US, Hawaii, Canada, Mexico, and Europe. And I was very established in

[1:01:32] California. I've worked at the most prestigious spas and clubs and gyms. And

[1:01:38] in 1999, I moved from Northern California, where I was very well known,

[1:01:43] uh, to Boulder and taught at all the clubs, including the YMCA in Boulder and

[1:01:49] trained teachers there and instructors as well. In uh, 2017, I left, went back

[1:01:55] to California and did all of this work in San Diego and then came back right

[1:02:00] before COVID and moved to Longmont. And it was a very very dark period. Uh

[1:02:07] to make that period even darker, I got hit by a car while walking in December

[1:02:13] of 2022. Uh before uh in I would say probably in

[1:02:19] 2020, I became a member, not an instructor, not a trainer of the YMCA in

[1:02:25] Longmont. And it was a very inclusive part of my healing not only physically

[1:02:33] but emotionally and mentally. And I want to say that I have been to so many clubs

[1:02:38] and wise all over the world as a professional and personally but there is

[1:02:45] nothing like the YMCA in Longmont. And if there's any way and I'll I'll talk

[1:02:51] about that how how I have one more minute. So it is not I know a lot of

[1:02:56] people talk about it as community. It is so much more than that. It is a place in

[1:03:01] this time where we have so much divisiveness, so much unkindness

[1:03:06] that there is such caring between the staff and the members. And there's a

[1:03:11] reason why so many people who have disabilities and who are older go there.

[1:03:16] It's because it's a safe environment not only to heal the body but the mind and

[1:03:23] the heart. And today we need places like the Y. I also volunteer at growing

[1:03:29] gardens and I see the people here and it has been a place of safety and grace and

[1:03:36] light and we need that in this world more now than

[1:03:42] ever. So thank you so much. >> Great. Thank you. Um, Mike. Oh, I'm

[1:03:47] sorry. No applause. [laughter] >> Order.

[1:03:50] » Hi, my name is Mike Oriana. >> Yes.

[1:03:53] » I appreciate the opportunity to talk in front of you. Uh, today I want to talk

[1:03:56] about the Y membership. I want to talk about the staff and I want to talk about

[1:04:01] CEO Corker, right? Um, the the the membership at the Y is a very diverse

[1:04:09] group of people. It's professionals that provide services to everybody in this

[1:04:14] room. There are teachers, there are medical professionals, there's emergency

[1:04:19] service personnel, there's there's business owners, people that you bump

[1:04:24] into. So that community, which is over 3,000 strong, has been displaced, right?

[1:04:30] Um when when CEO Corker when he came to talk to the Y um I'm trying to be

[1:04:38] diplomatic here. He was less than honest about what he discussed. He talked with

[1:04:43] staff members about opening the pool. He talked about staff members um that he

[1:04:49] had been communication with you to to keep the Y open. None of that was true.

[1:04:54] Absolutely none of that was true. when he was called on it by the people in

[1:04:59] this room, he was pretty pretty dismissive and he was pretty angry with

[1:05:03] everybody. He he left shortly after that. So, um

[1:05:10] it's it's frustrating for me. Um the other thing is I want to talk about the

[1:05:15] staff, right? Because uh the staff is exceptional. This is not 18 or 20 year

[1:05:21] olds at their second job. Um the two instructors that I work with

[1:05:25] specifically, they have 25 and 30 years. CEO Corker, right? When he he talked to

[1:05:32] these guys, um he let them believe that they were going to have a job. That

[1:05:36] wasn't true. They were dismissed and the most disgraceful passion

[1:05:42] way possible for everybody in this room. If you had 25 years or 30 years and you

[1:05:47] were dismissed like that, it would be horrifying, right? And nobody let these

[1:05:53] they they didn't do anything for these guys. These instructors, by the way,

[1:05:57] provide livestrong. They take care of the entire community there. You have a

[1:06:03] facility that was opened in the 70s that was closed in two and a half weeks by a

[1:06:09] CEO that just didn't want to deal with anything. So, I have a specific request

[1:06:14] of you. I would like an independent study done of the financial u gaps and

[1:06:22] again that's very polite failures of CEO Corker. I would like to see an

[1:06:27] independent review of that an independent review of the facility

[1:06:31] because again the 3,000 members in your community, right? They take care of you,

[1:06:37] they take care of your children, they take care of everything. Um he has been

[1:06:43] less than honest. um everything in the paper. The last thing I'm gonna say is

[1:06:49] he makes he hired his wife, he hired his kid.

[1:06:53] » Thank you. >> They make half a million dollars.

[1:06:55] » Okay. Thank you. Um Estavan, come on down.

[1:07:06] » Good evening, city council members. My name is Esteean Rayos and I'm speaking

[1:07:10] tonight not only as a board member of the growing gardens. Um but as someone

[1:07:14] who participated in his programs when I was young um as a kid I remember coming

[1:07:18] to the farm putting the hands my so in the soil and harvesting food I had

[1:07:22] helped grow. That experience changed my the way I saw food. It wasn't something

[1:07:27] that I just helped grow. Um it was the experience that changed the way that I

[1:07:31] saw food. Um it wasn't something that just appeared at the grocery store. It

[1:07:35] was something connected to the land, the people, and the community. Um, today the

[1:07:40] same experience is happening every week at [snorts] the food project farm at the

[1:07:43] Lashley YMCA site. Um, since 2016, Grand Gardens has grown and donated over

[1:07:50] 108,000 pounds of fresh produce, about 90,000 uh meals, supporting families

[1:07:56] directly and partners like the OUR Center. Uh, at the same time, hundreds

[1:08:01] of the Timberline students visit the farm each year. um for hands-on field

[1:08:05] trips. Uh this farm is not just about vegetables. It's about uh belonging.

[1:08:10] It's about health. Uh it's about giving young people uh the same opportunity I

[1:08:14] had um to feel connected to their food, the land, and each other um with the

[1:08:20] current agreement ending in 2027 um and the future um uncertainty. I

[1:08:25] respectfully ask you to consider a path um forward that allows growing gardens

[1:08:29] to continue its work um in partnership with the city of Longmont. I'm here

[1:08:34] because the program um matters to me, mattered to me, and I know it matters to

[1:08:38] the next generation uh too. Um thank you for your time and thank you for your

[1:08:42] service. >> Great. Thank you. Um next person, uh

[1:08:47] Marie Klene, and then if we could have Bonnie Prushnook,

[1:08:51] uh Dean Leman, Dale Lannon, and Tim Villard. If I said that correct, if I

[1:08:58] made a mistake, I apologize, but if you can come forward.

[1:09:02] Okay. Um, good evening. Um, I'm speaking mainly on the part of the citizens, uh,

[1:09:08] the senior citizens of this community. I realize there are many stakeholders in

[1:09:13] this. Why seniors are a valuable part of this community. We shop locally. We dine

[1:09:19] locally. We volunteer and support many Longmont agencies in business, notably

[1:09:25] the symphony. As was stated at the coffee with

[1:09:30] council, the uh life of the centennial pool is limited, perhaps 3 to 5 years.

[1:09:37] Um knowing that keeping the Y, refurbishing, getting it back and

[1:09:43] keeping it in operation is very prudent and wise so that we don't have another

[1:09:48] problem in the next 3 to 5 years. We know that you did not create this

[1:09:54] problem. We are lobbying as much as we can with Mr. Coker and the board. But

[1:10:00] while you did not create this problem, we do expect you to be part of the

[1:10:04] solution. And we thank you for all of your

[1:10:08] attention to this. on two other points that I've heard are being discussed by

[1:10:12] council regarding the redesign of the flag with everything else that is being

[1:10:18] uh discussed and needed and also the history of the flag we have now. I think

[1:10:24] that's not necessary at this time. Also, this idea of charging for the 4th of

[1:10:29] July, um if your plans are that big that you need to charge, then I suggest you

[1:10:34] scale back because that's a ridiculous idea. Thank you.

[1:10:39] Thank you. Um, Bonnie. Yes. >> Um, good evening. I'm here be

[1:10:46] » And can you restate your name? >> Uh, Bonnie Prashnak.

[1:10:48] » Prnak. Okay. Thank you. >> I'm here because I'm concerned about the

[1:10:53] » Can you move the microphone close to Yes.

[1:10:55] » I'm concerned about the decisions that aren't being made by the people in

[1:10:59] power. And um this this Y in this city is a

[1:11:07] very loved and supported why. And um it's a place where mothers can go with

[1:11:14] young children to get time to for themselves. is where uh elderly people

[1:11:21] feel safe to go and they can sit and have a cup of coffee and talk with their

[1:11:26] friends which is which is mentally stimulating and helpful.

[1:11:33] Um there are 10,000 YMCA across the country

[1:11:39] and four of them are in the northern part of Colorado.

[1:11:44] uh Boulder, Lafayette, um Johnstown, and Longmont, but Longmont is the only

[1:11:52] one that's being closed. And I think it would be a terrible

[1:11:58] tragedy to lose something that's been here since

[1:12:03] 1969 has has uh taught many children to swim

[1:12:10] that live here has uh has uh instilled in them

[1:12:17] great core values. I was impressed by what the men uh talked about with the

[1:12:23] gardening. I think this is a wonderful uh program,

[1:12:28] but I hope that the council I like the idea since since you could just take

[1:12:33] over the airport, maybe you could get a a group to take over the Y until we get

[1:12:41] uh better management because if management is a problem,

[1:12:45] let's change the management because

[1:12:50] [clears throat] a why is something that brings people to communities

[1:12:58] from. And you you people have approved massive amounts of building

[1:13:06] and all those people are going to need to go somewhere.

[1:13:11] You're building from the rec center all the way down to county line one.

[1:13:17] They're not here yet, but they will be here.

[1:13:20] And um our Y our comm our citywide has 50,000 square ft

[1:13:29] and they're able to accommodate large classes which have been filled on a

[1:13:36] regular basis and I have to agree with the other

[1:13:40] people the staff is phenomenal. There's nobody that learns everybody's

[1:13:47] name. [laughter] >> Thanks. Thank you. Um Dean.

[1:13:58] » Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um my name is Dean Leman. I'm at I live at

[1:14:04] 2313 Lake Park Drive in Longmont. Um, I'd just like to say a couple of words

[1:14:11] about the why and uh I don't want to repeat all the people here what they're

[1:14:16] saying, but u this this has been a tremendous community effort and um I

[1:14:22] think everyone knows that it it shouldn't be lost. That pool should not

[1:14:27] be lost and um there should be a path forward.

[1:14:33] Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Dale

[1:14:41] » Dale Lannon 1018 Ponder Circle and um yeah I'm in support of the Y remaining

[1:14:50] um operable. Um I would like to see the city take over and um not lose the u the

[1:14:59] comp the uh the strength that the Y gives [snorts] the community.

[1:15:05] Um, it allows me to regain my strength. I feel like I have to try to sideswipe

[1:15:12] the world into keeping the earth alive. And I need to be strong. I need to be

[1:15:17] not put off by a little heavy lifting or, you know, whatever getting things

[1:15:23] done or speaking up in council. I need to bravely go and speak up for the

[1:15:30] trouble and the places that are at war and not a little bit. Ukraine has been

[1:15:37] unbelievably attacked. Europe is standing strong in their defense and our

[1:15:43] nation is falling flat on its face and there's a state of the union which won't

[1:15:48] be correctly given tonight. And I want strong people, a strong community, and a

[1:15:58] place to do that and to speak with our with our neighbors. And the why is it

[1:16:04] and it's a big big strong um

[1:16:12] place to heal and and get ideas of what what works and what doesn't. Uh thank

[1:16:19] you very much. Have a good evening. >> Great. Thank you. Um Tim and then I'm

[1:16:24] going to call the next four people. Um and I do have an address lions. So um I

[1:16:30] we would be happy to hear you at the end of our city council meeting u for final

[1:16:35] call. Uh so Diane Harlon, Michael Schmidt, Scott Stewart, and

[1:16:42] Corey Cash, if you can make your way to the for forward.

[1:16:50] What? All right. Uh, good evening, city council members and mayor. Uh, my name

[1:16:54] is Tim Ard and I'm here representing Growing Gardens. First, I want to begin

[1:16:58] with gratitude. Growing Gardens has had a strong and meaningful partnership with

[1:17:02] both the YMCA and the city of Longmont for many years. Uh, we're deeply

[1:17:07] appreciative of your support and the shared commitment to the well-being of

[1:17:11] our community. Uh since 2016, Growing Gardens has operated the Food Project

[1:17:16] farm at Lashley at the Lashley YMCA site. And for 10 years, this small but

[1:17:21] mighty farm has served as both a food access hub, an outdoor classroom, and a

[1:17:25] gathering space for community of all ages and backgrounds. Through our

[1:17:29] partnership, the YMCA has provided land access, water, electricity, restrooms,

[1:17:35] and some financial support for farm operations.

[1:17:38] That collaboration has made significant impact possible.

[1:17:43] Over the past decade, the farm has grown and donated more than 100,000 pounds of

[1:17:46] fresh produce that has been distributed to Longmont residents directly or

[1:17:50] through community partners such as the R Center. This is fresh, nutrient-dense

[1:17:54] food grown here right in Longmont for Longmont residents. But the farm is more

[1:17:59] than food production. Uh it's an educational space that serves Timberline

[1:18:03] PreK through 8 students with bilingual hands-on nutrition and gardening

[1:18:07] education. Each class across every grade receives two field trips each year. Over

[1:18:12] those 10 years, um we've provided approximately 300 free field trips

[1:18:17] serving an average of 450 students annually. That's thousands of young

[1:18:21] people that have gone to the farm, planted seeds, harvested vegetables,

[1:18:25] tasted fresh food, and learned where their food comes from. Experiences that

[1:18:30] shape lifelong health and connection to the environment. In addition, the farm

[1:18:34] serves as a gathering place for English and Spanish speaking community members

[1:18:37] and farm volunteers, many of whom uh have been investing in this space and

[1:18:43] this project for years. Many of our farm volunteers have found us through their Y

[1:18:47] memberships. Um other groups not affiliated with the Y such as Bhula

[1:18:52] Kumitaria come weekly during the summers who work on the farm and then prepare

[1:18:56] meals together using produce grown on site. The farm builds connection and

[1:18:59] belonging alongside food security. So, we're here tonight to respectfully ask

[1:19:04] city council to consider establishing a similar agreement uh if possible between

[1:19:08] the city of Longmont and Growing Gardens so this work can continue uninterrupted.

[1:19:12] This farm represents 10 years of trusted relationships, proven outcomes, and deep

[1:19:17] community investment. Losing it would mean losing not only food production,

[1:19:21] but education, partnerships, and a vital community space. We believe this work

[1:19:26] aligns strongly with the city's priorities around food access, youth

[1:19:30] development, public health, and climate resilience. And we would welcome the

[1:19:33] opportunity to explore how we can continue serving Longmont together. Uh

[1:19:38] so thank you all very much for your time.

[1:19:40] » Great. Thank you. Um so Diane,

[1:19:47] » hi. My name is Diane Harland. I'm a little nervous here. Um, I found out I

[1:19:53] had Parkinson's disease a year ago. I had a physical therapist, an

[1:19:59] occupational therapist who both said to me, "Diane, find a support group." I was

[1:20:06] so scared. And so they said, "Check out your YMCA."

[1:20:13] I did. the only place in Longmont that has um exercise program. There's a

[1:20:22] wonderful physical therapist that's willing to talk to us if we need

[1:20:28] questions answered or anything. There's about 30 people who I walked into that

[1:20:35] room, I knew none of them. Now we all know each other's names. There's always

[1:20:41] a smile. And when I leave that place, not only do I feel great because I just

[1:20:48] got a good hour of exercise, which is so important,

[1:20:53] um, my confidence just soarses after I do that class. Um, it's the only place

[1:21:01] in Longmont that has someplace for people with Parkinson's to go. So to

[1:21:08] have that stop would be such a loss to all of us. We are all valued citizens in

[1:21:17] Longmont. And I want to say another thing and then I'll stop. You know

[1:21:23] something in that group. I've been with them probably five months, two days a

[1:21:28] week. You know, never has the word Parkinson's disease come up. Nobody

[1:21:35] talks about it. We get in there, we go to work, we do our aerobics and love

[1:21:41] every minute of it. We leave saying have a nice week or have a nice couple days

[1:21:49] and it's just a terrific program. So, I hope that is considered when decisions

[1:21:57] are made. Thank you. >> Thank you,

[1:22:01] Michael Schmidt.

[1:22:06] Yeah, my name is Hope my voice is good enough tonight.

[1:22:11] Uh, my name is Michael Schmidt. Um, I live in the Sasquatch House.

[1:22:19] Do you know where the Sasquatch House is?

[1:22:25] » I didn't know I was going to be speaking tonight. I wrote my name down there.

[1:22:31] Uh my wife died about four years ago and um

[1:22:39] quite coincidentally I found myself without uh without a a social life

[1:22:47] and uh my primary care physician said uh you need [clears throat] to work

[1:22:54] out. my a my A1C was up near the diabetic

[1:23:00] level and uh my diet wasn't the greatest

[1:23:07] and [snorts] uh he said you need to exercise and change your diet

[1:23:13] and uh my A1C is way down right like a low pre-diabetic level

[1:23:23] and uh I've made a bunch of friends that I wasn't expecting.

[1:23:29] And uh I also may be slightly below the uh

[1:23:36] uh [snorts] main age

[1:23:41] at um which is extraordinary. I only thought that happened at Swallow Hill.

[1:23:48] So um I like everyone else. What much time I got?

[1:23:56] I do know how to fill the time up. >> You don't have

[1:23:59] » um

[1:24:06] Well, that's probably enough. Give somebody else some more time.

[1:24:09] » There you go. >> Uh I hope uh

[1:24:12] I hope we can come to some uh agreement. Thanks.

[1:24:16] » Thank you, Scott Stewart.

[1:24:22] Mayor, members of council, Scott Stewart, 229 Grant Street. Um,

[1:24:27] I don't actually go to the Y, so uh, I'll talk about the airport. Um, I

[1:24:32] greatly appreciate the conversation earlier about the attention that's, uh,

[1:24:36] being given to the airport. I think it's, uh, long past overdue. Um,

[1:24:42] please be aware moving forward, there's, uh, two main organizations, the AOPA and

[1:24:46] the, uh, CPA, u, Colorado Pilot Association. Um, these are advocacy

[1:24:52] groups. They're not experts. They're they're advocacy groups. Uh, AOPA sends

[1:24:57] out information to their um to their members uh stating things like

[1:25:03] uh notice of proposed construction or alteration and filing and developments

[1:25:07] inside of 20,000 ft notification area of the airports with runways. That'd be

[1:25:12] like more than three and a half miles from the airport. They're telling their

[1:25:16] members that uh the city needs to uh file with the FAA for any um

[1:25:22] modifications within that range. What they're doing is they're misleading

[1:25:25] their group. Um if you read the FAA uh there's there's more to it if you read

[1:25:30] the FAA uh grant obligation. Um at one point the um

[1:25:40] we ran into a problem with the uh the leases when the 30 years came up because

[1:25:44] people were doing this like hanger number six uh

[1:25:49] what do we got 65H. Um this was done in 2021. Uh signed up for a 30-year lease.

[1:25:57] This is done as uh it was not a mature lease yet. they wanted to get into the

[1:26:03] 30-year lease. So, they shortcut their lease and they asked for a 30-year term

[1:26:07] in order to shorten the the uh in order to take advantage of the

[1:26:11] 30-year thing because they saw the opportunity and nobody was paying

[1:26:14] attention to. That rate was 35 cents 35.7 or 3576

[1:26:22] per square foot. That was done in 2021. Um I think council member Chris was

[1:26:28] questioning some of the numbers. That was 2021. And there is no 3% increase in

[1:26:32] what you're signing on to today in what was done 5 years ago. Um,

[1:26:39] at that time it was an issue. The airport manager said, "Hey, we're going

[1:26:43] we're doing a lease review." It wasn't a rates and charges study. It was a lease

[1:26:47] review. That lease review has never happened or has never become public.

[1:26:51] Rates and charges study since I'm running out of time. Rates and charges

[1:26:54] study. Um, it should include what the airport would look like financially if

[1:26:59] the airport were to operate without future FAA grants. That should be part

[1:27:03] of your study. The saturation policy, we don't need a saturation policy. You just

[1:27:08] need to for pilots to follow our pattern policy. Pattern policy is a half mile or

[1:27:12] 3/4 mile turn left wind turn downwind left turn downwind at that. If you can't

[1:27:19] fly in that, it's just like a kid driving a car. Don't put them on the

[1:27:23] interstate if they can't follow the rules. Thanks.

[1:27:25] » Thank you. Um Corey, and then as Corey's making his way up, um Lance Whitaker,

[1:27:31] Kim McReynolds, Paty, um Men Menor, and Steve W, uh Whed.

[1:27:41] » Good evening, council, mayor. I'm here to uh show support for 12A

[1:27:47] uh the consideration of a contractor shop being evaluated as a zoning

[1:27:52] requirement. Uh I have several businesses and recently went through the

[1:27:57] zoning process for an existing building uh that I did not modify the outside of

[1:28:02] at all. It was a four-month process literally from the day I started uh with

[1:28:08] the contact of planning to the day I got board approval. I've been a commercial

[1:28:13] property manager upwards of three and a half million square feet in Boulder

[1:28:16] County, a significant amount in Longmont. And if I didn't have that

[1:28:21] background, I would have walked. I would have gone to f some other community to

[1:28:25] do business. So my uh support is evaluating the requirements of a

[1:28:31] contractor shop and uh that is not necessarily a major development

[1:28:36] application. [clears throat and cough] Picked quite a

[1:28:39] night to come. >> [laughter]

[1:28:41] » I didn't know about the airport issue. Um, just to speak on that for a second.

[1:28:46] I was president of the airport board some 20 plus years ago. Um, disappointed

[1:28:51] in hearing the news um, with couple businesses. I'm too busy to pay

[1:28:55] attention to all the issues in the community. So, I didn't hear anything

[1:29:00] about the struggles that have been happening. Um, maybe just to put out

[1:29:04] there u because of my experience in aviation uh, business.

[1:29:09] Feel free to reach out to me at any time. I know several of you have my

[1:29:12] contact information. Have a good night. >> Great. Thank you, Lance Whitaker.

[1:29:25] » Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Lance Whitaker, 1750 Collier Street,

[1:29:30] Longmont, Colorado. I'd like to give a special shout out today for Elaine. Keep

[1:29:36] pushing that iron. You're getting stronger every day.

[1:29:39] Um, today is National Trading Card Day. It is also National Tortilla Chip Day.

[1:29:46] George Thoroggood and Steve Jobs both share the same birthday today. And that

[1:29:51] is the short list for today. Thank you and have a good day.

[1:29:55] » Thank you, Kim

[1:29:59] Mc Reynolds. >> Good evening. Um, I'm Kim Mcrenolds. I

[1:30:04] live at 1372 Whiteall Drive and I would say I've been in Longmont. My husband

[1:30:09] and I moved out here to help my sister take care of our mother and this is the

[1:30:14] first time after joining the Y that I've really felt at home in eight years. It

[1:30:19] takes a while to recreate community. So I know there's people I've met who've

[1:30:23] been at the Y for 40 years. Their children were there. They were there as

[1:30:26] children. But for those of us who have also arrived within the last decade,

[1:30:31] it's been a special place. So, I want to thank the staff. They're they've been

[1:30:36] remarkable. It's just the kind of place that the YMCA of the US would like to

[1:30:42] highlight because the programming that's been created there, you really can't

[1:30:48] just, it doesn't just happen. You create it intentionally. And I think to be able

[1:30:53] to serve seniors so broadly as well as families and children, um that's truly

[1:31:00] the mission of the Y. And it's also what this city needs. And I think I've been

[1:31:05] exceptionally disappointed with the YMCA and having had a history with them where

[1:31:10] I used to live, it's been very disappointing to see the leadership. So

[1:31:15] at this point, what I would want to ask of you is that you insert yourselves and

[1:31:22] be active leaders in this process. You didn't ask for it. this arrived on your

[1:31:28] doorstep, but that's what it means to be on city council and to be the mayor. Um,

[1:31:33] I think the city has the resources to help sort through the crisis that the Y

[1:31:38] is in. And I think the public and all the people who've donated to the Y over

[1:31:43] the years, they deserve an accounting for what has happened. They need to

[1:31:48] understand the true finances of this Y. it's part of a broader umbrella umbrella

[1:31:54] organization and I think people feel um a little duped. They feel like the Y

[1:32:01] has not been transparent with them. So we will we know that I don't believe the

[1:32:07] membership alone will be able to fully understand what is happening with the

[1:32:11] property with the services with the programming.

[1:32:15] And that said, I would also ask the city to consider the timing of this work. Um

[1:32:21] it's hard to hear that you think it might take $5 million in years to come

[1:32:26] to a decision about what comes next. If there are ways to stage the programming

[1:32:32] and not lose the value of all the people that are coming here now, I think the

[1:32:37] community would truly appreciate it and we would love to hear your ideas along

[1:32:42] the way or to ask for our input as you move forward with this process. So,

[1:32:48] thanks for listening. >> Thank you. U Paty,

[1:32:57] » good evening. My name is Paty Meyer. I live at 1113

[1:33:02] Signature Circle. Um I is that okay? Okay. [laughter]

[1:33:08] I got a late start. I just wanted to um mention and it has

[1:33:13] been mentioned before that I've been a member of a YMCA for over 50 years. not

[1:33:18] here but in Minneapolis and I taught classes there and also in Rhode Island

[1:33:25] in Middletown Rhode Island, Newport, Rhode Island and um I've been a member

[1:33:31] of the Y here for 15 years since we moved here and everywhere the Y is

[1:33:37] community and it it exudes community through the people who work there and

[1:33:43] through all of the members you it is a smaller group than any of the other the

[1:33:48] rec center centennial also they're wonderful places but you feel more of a

[1:33:54] part of a community when you're at the YMCA and I just wanted to I know that

[1:33:59] it's been said many times and so I'll be very brief but I do want to hope that

[1:34:06] you can help out to keep that community together because community is important

[1:34:13] especially after living through COVID and having community just completely

[1:34:19] dispersed. It's something that's important for us to have a community and

[1:34:24] the YMCA is definitely that. >> Thank you.

[1:34:29] » Thank you. So, Steve and um as he's making his way over, uh Dan March, Peter

[1:34:35] Watson, Marilyn Voboos, and Maria Lena Rico to speak.

[1:34:42] » Uh my name is Steve Wedell. I live west of Hover on Princeton. So, it's quite a

[1:34:46] ways from the Y. Um, I [clears throat] like Peter Schmidt, Michael Schmidt, did

[1:34:52] not know I was going to be speaking. So, I'm here to support all the other

[1:34:56] members that have asked you to do whatever you can to preserve this great

[1:35:00] community resource. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan.

[1:35:10] » Hi, my name is Dan March. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My wife and I are

[1:35:14] new residents to Longmont, having retired here two years ago from out of

[1:35:18] state. Prior to moving to Longmont, I was a CEO and executive director of

[1:35:22] several retirement communities in other parts of the country. And in that

[1:35:25] capacity, I discovered the vital importance of active aging and creating

[1:35:30] communities where older adults may stay physically uh active and socially

[1:35:35] engaged. uh having a convenient wellness facility where it was easy and enjoyable

[1:35:40] to exercise and meet others was an important priority for us in our

[1:35:44] selection criteria when we decided to move to Longmont.

[1:35:48] Um once we retired in Longmont, my wife and I both ended up having uh back

[1:35:52] surgery and the wise facilities, its uh track and pool and classes were a vital

[1:35:57] part of our rehab. Thanks in large part to those services, we're healthy and

[1:36:02] active and able to engage more fully in the life, our life here in the city to

[1:36:06] spend money at restaurants, go out and shop, remodel the house, and go to the

[1:36:11] community college. Um, we've explored uh the uh the offerings of the rec center

[1:36:17] and the Centennial Pool. We'll probably uh move our membership there. Uh, but

[1:36:22] the Y is an intergenerational oasis for wellness and socialization. Its closure

[1:36:27] leaves a great void for hundreds of families and individuals who depend on

[1:36:32] its services uh for staying healthy physically and mentally. Uh I strongly

[1:36:39] encourage you to uh you know look carefully at the the the the benefits of

[1:36:45] that this facility offers. If you've uh been to the Y, you've seen how you know

[1:36:50] there's hundreds of people who go to those classes. so many active older

[1:36:54] adults who are uh you know being able to stay healthy physically and mentally

[1:36:59] because of the uh services of that facility. Um you know according to the

[1:37:06] uh uh the uh envision Longmont statement uh expanding recreational services,

[1:37:12] leisure pursuits, supporting healthy and active lifestyles and offering programs

[1:37:17] that affirm diversity and cultural inclusivity. you know, operating this

[1:37:21] facility uh just seems to fit hand and glove in that mission statement. So,

[1:37:27] there are hundreds of families who are going to be left out in the cold when

[1:37:30] the Y closes next week. I know it'll take time for you to do your due

[1:37:34] diligence to uh you know, look at the capital replacement costs and come up

[1:37:38] with a a budget, you know, looking at the operations and the income and

[1:37:42] expenses. Uh but uh I strongly encourage you to think about finding a way to keep

[1:37:47] the facility open because it's consistent with the mission of Longmont.

[1:37:51] It's consistent with the goals of the city long term to keep, you know, have a

[1:37:56] healthy, active, engaged uh population. So, thank you very much.

[1:38:03] » Thank you, Peter.

[1:38:10] » Hello, Pet. Peter Peter Watson uh 731 Kubat Lane. Um

[1:38:18] thank you for allowing us to speak tonight. I'm going to be brief um

[1:38:22] because there have been so many wonderful comments made. Um the only a

[1:38:26] couple things I can add is that um nutrition and exercise are the two

[1:38:32] most important things as we age. And it's a wonderful full facility that's

[1:38:37] open like 12 hours a day. I also learned how to swim at a Y and how to play

[1:38:43] basketball at a Y and um it's a very important facility and I encourage you

[1:38:49] to do everything you can you and your staff to uh help us solve this problem

[1:38:54] and keep the Y active. Thank you. >> Thank you Marilyn

[1:39:04] » Marilyn Vobos 10671 Forester Place. Um I'm just want to say I guess a quick

[1:39:09] story. So, I've been a Long Me I got to Longmont when I in 2006 and I've been a

[1:39:14] Y member since 2008. The gym is not my strength. Um, often every time I I've

[1:39:20] gone through a lot of different gyms and I always find myself back at the Y. Many

[1:39:24] of the times that they ask you what are your goals and I'm like coming to the

[1:39:27] gym. That's literally my goal. And the one thing is that I've always managed to

[1:39:31] go back to the Y because it's a great community that I've started. I've went

[1:39:36] through high school here. I was part of um you know the Longmont Youth Center,

[1:39:40] the Longmont City, the youth city council. I was part of all that and I

[1:39:43] always was part of the Longmont YMCA. I think one of the things that is super

[1:39:47] important is to have that place of community, that place where I went off

[1:39:51] to college, I came back, I went back to a random class, signed up again, and all

[1:39:56] the instructors knew my name. Welcome back. We're happy to see you. We're

[1:39:59] happy that you're here. you know, um I remember my first class that I was able

[1:40:04] to go during the day was a silver sneakers Pilates class and I thought I

[1:40:07] was going to do great and I didn't. And the only reason why I stayed there was

[1:40:11] because all my fellow members were doing great and I was like I need to I need to

[1:40:15] finish this. So I guess what I'm getting at it is a place of community. is a

[1:40:19] place where people have gone for rehab, where the pool is available, where

[1:40:23] there's so much um just like support, not just like in terms of, you know, a

[1:40:29] place to work out. I think that's the difference. It's a place where you go,

[1:40:32] where people um tell you that you can do better, where people push you to be

[1:40:36] better. Um so when I heard about this news, it was it was really devastating.

[1:40:41] So I just hope that something can be done to continue this community. And

[1:40:45] yeah, thank you so much. Uh, thank you Maria Lennena.

[1:40:54] » She left. >> She left. Okay. So, seeing no one else

[1:40:57] on the list, I will now close. Public invited to be heard. And, um, Oh, yeah.

[1:41:04] So, and actually before I call you, um, Council Member Marcen. So, in 2019, we

[1:41:09] had a ballot measure for rec center did not pass. 2023 we had a ballot

[1:41:14] [laughter] measure for a rec center that did not pass. Next time something comes

[1:41:19] up, vote for it [laughter]

[1:41:23] » and we'll do what we can do. Go ahead. >> Thank you so much, Mayor. Just quickly,

[1:41:28] I I know it's a little bit out of the the ordinary to to discuss after public

[1:41:32] invited to be heard, but I just wanted to know um and get an update from our

[1:41:36] city manager for the folks that are here. Um, you know, we had a very

[1:41:39] productive Mayor Pro Tim McCoy and I count coffee with council. Over 120

[1:41:43] folks showed up, I think, to to share your heart and I know that um a lot of

[1:41:49] folks are hurting. So, Harold, can you just a question? Can you update the

[1:41:53] community, update us about where things are at, about how we got where we got? I

[1:41:58] think folks came out tonight hoping to hear something and um and what can we

[1:42:03] share. >> Yeah. And what our role is.

[1:42:05] » Yeah. And how this landed. >> How is this? Yeah. City and and how that

[1:42:09] Yeah. >> Um, yeah, I'd be happy to. So the first

[1:42:15] and I'd like to start off by saying one, we definitely I think the council and my

[1:42:19] conversations with the council and as we've talked about it with staff

[1:42:23] completely understand where the community is coming from in this process

[1:42:27] and can sympathize um with their frustration

[1:42:32] um um hurt, you know, all the emotions going through this process.

[1:42:38] Um, I think the first point that I need to make is that the city does not have

[1:42:42] control of the YMCA. Um, and it is a separate organization.

[1:42:49] Um, so in terms of the council's authority over the organization, there's

[1:42:54] very little. For example, I know there was a request to audit the Y. Um the

[1:43:01] city can only audit areas where we have a contract that gives us the authority

[1:43:05] and it's really focused on that specific area. So um do we have a contract? Yes,

[1:43:10] we do. For early child care, we're limited contractually by what we can do.

[1:43:15] So I think your question is why are we here today? The Y approached the city of

[1:43:20] Longmont about a partnership. However, um in reviewing that, we did not want to

[1:43:25] get into an ongoing contractual operation with the Y. There was um a

[1:43:30] discussion about potentially acquiring the facility. We said, "Sure, we're

[1:43:34] interested. We'll we'll have some conversations, but the key piece to that

[1:43:38] is that we needed to go through our due diligence process to ensure that it's

[1:43:41] financially viable." During the negotiations, the Y became

[1:43:46] anxious based on um the pace that we were moving through our process and and

[1:43:52] really stated that well, do we just need to put a for sale sign on the open

[1:43:56] market? Uh that was a conversation with Mr. Fzner.

[1:44:01] Um also during the conversation, um they really pointed out that that the the

[1:44:06] cost of the location was really based on the value of the property in terms of

[1:44:11] what its commercial value was. So, what I mean by that is when you look at

[1:44:16] property, um, you can value it based on the assets that are on it or you can

[1:44:20] value it based on what it could be if it was converted to something else. And,

[1:44:25] and that's the key piece in this is, um, converting it to some type of other type

[1:44:30] of development. [sighs] So, based on all of that,

[1:44:34] unfortunately, we're here today because of the information that was sent out to

[1:44:38] the staff and members of the Y in this process. Um you know we have evaluated

[1:44:44] the purchase price of the building. Um we have brought in um architects,

[1:44:50] engineers and others to evaluate it. And in that detailed evaluation we've we've

[1:44:56] definitely um highlighted some significant issues that um are

[1:45:01] associated with that property. Um, specifically, I think we've talked about

[1:45:06] the roofing structure over the pool and some other areas in terms of its

[1:45:10] capacity to handle wind and snow loads. So, so for us, there's safety issues.

[1:45:17] Um, you know, um,

[1:45:22] we also have communicated that if we were to purchase the building, um, we

[1:45:26] were very clear we'd have to close it down to make those, um, repairs, the

[1:45:32] necessary repairs and improvements. And, um, as indicated, we did say it could

[1:45:36] take up to two years. One of the challenges with doing it incrementally

[1:45:40] is if you know there's safety issues, you really can't open the building. Um,

[1:45:45] but more importantly, it adds to the cost of renovations when you parse it

[1:45:50] out. We've unfortunately experienced that on our own facilities. Um,

[1:45:56] and then we've evaluated um, and we're, you know, I had a another briefing on

[1:46:01] refining ongoing and operating maintenance cost. Um, and so we're

[1:46:05] finalizing that as we speak. Once we do that and and we pull it together, we'll

[1:46:10] make a recommendation to the council in terms of how we see it as staff. You

[1:46:16] know, unfortunately being in this position, I think one of the things um

[1:46:20] that is fundamentally my responsibility is to tell council what you need to

[1:46:24] hear, not necessarily what you want to hear. Um when we're looking at um these

[1:46:29] types of situations, the one piece that is important for me is I have to ensure

[1:46:36] that we're not taking on someone else's problem that we're putting on the back

[1:46:41] of the entire community. And so that's the due diligence that we're going

[1:46:45] through because what we don't want to do is negatively impact our recreation

[1:46:51] operations and potentially negatively impact the general fund as a whole. So

[1:46:55] it is a significant issue for us as we evaluate that. You know, we've also

[1:47:01] talked last on on Saturday about the fact that if the city were to assume the

[1:47:04] Y, it would have to be operated in the same way that we operate our other city

[1:47:08] facilities. Um it couldn't necessarily be operated in the same way just to be

[1:47:13] fully transparent. At the end of the day, ultimately the

[1:47:18] why controls what the facility will cost and it really depends on their

[1:47:22] particular interest and what they're trying to achieve. If it's about

[1:47:26] financial gain and really looking at the maximum amount you can get for the

[1:47:30] commercial value, um that's the wise decision. It's not the city's decision.

[1:47:37] Um, but ultimately they control that. If they're interested in keeping the

[1:47:42] location as a public asset, as stated in the letter to the members and staff, you

[1:47:47] know, they can choose to negotiate based on the cost of making making the

[1:47:51] necessary repairs, but at the end of the day, the Y controls that.

[1:47:56] » We don't. So, um, that's kind of the update where we're sitting. We're still

[1:48:02] um finalizing those details. Um and and honestly information still coming out

[1:48:07] that we have to track down to determine are there other issues that are in play.

[1:48:13] Um and um so it seems like when we get to a point where we think we know it,

[1:48:19] new information comes out that we have to track down. So I hope that answers

[1:48:23] your question. >> Thank you

[1:48:28] and thank you all for coming out. I think this is important discussion. Um,

[1:48:33] so now we're on to, oh, seeing no one else, now we've closed public hearing or

[1:48:37] I'm sorry, um, public comment and now we are on to consent agenda and

[1:48:41] introduction and reading by title of first reading ordinances. Can you please

[1:48:47] um read the consent agenda to for the record? Oh, sorry.

[1:48:53] » I was going to do the consent agenda first.

[1:48:59] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good. >> Yes.

[1:49:04] » Um, item 9A, resolution R, 202612, a resolution of the Longmont City

[1:49:10] Council approving the tax increment revenue agreement between the city of

[1:49:14] Longmont and the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority for the Twin Peak Small Urban

[1:49:18] Renewal Area. Item 9B, uh, resolution R, 202613,

[1:49:25] a resolution of Longmont City Council approving the tax increment revenue

[1:49:28] agreement between the city of Longmont and Longmont Urban Renewal Authority for

[1:49:32] Southeast Longmont Urban Renewal Plan. >> Okay. Um, hold on, Michelle, I'm sorry.

[1:49:36] I'm going to interrupt. Um, can we have So, we're we're trying to conduct our

[1:49:40] meeting. So, if you all can exit quietly, please, we'd greatly appreciate

[1:49:44] it. Um, continue. Item 9 C, resolution R, 202614,

[1:49:50] a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for

[1:49:53] economic development services with the Longmont Economic Development

[1:49:57] Partnership. Item 9D, amend rule 27 of council's

[1:50:01] rules procedure for regarding board interviews. Item 9E, approve the

[1:50:07] appointment of Longmont Tourism Improvement District LTI Director. And

[1:50:12] [snorts] item 9F, approve three capital improvement program amendments.

[1:50:17] » Uhhuh. Thank you. Um, does anyone want to pull any items?

[1:50:23] » Council member Marcine. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to pull uh to

[1:50:26] pull A and D. >> Okay. So, items A and D. Anyone else? I

[1:50:33] think that was Okay. So, can I have a motion to approve the or move forward

[1:50:39] the consent agenda minus items A and D? >> Okay. So, the motion has been made by

[1:50:45] Mayor Prom McCoy, seconded by council member Christ.

[1:50:50] Okay. Let's go ahead and vote.

[1:50:58] Okay. And that carries unanimously. Um,

[1:51:02] so before going on to ordinances on second reading,

[1:51:07] um, would do we all need a break? >> Five minutes. Okay, we're going to take

[1:51:11] a five minute break.

[1:51:22] Heat. Heat.

[1:52:35] » [music]

[1:52:42] [music]

[1:53:04] [music]

[1:53:52] » Oh, down.

[1:53:56] Heat. Heat. N.

[1:54:34] » [music]

[1:54:45] » Heat. Heat. N.

[1:54:55] I found.

[1:55:20] [music]

[1:55:39] » [music] >> Heat. Heat.

[1:55:48] » [music] >> Mhm.

[1:55:58] [music]

[1:56:07] [music]

[1:56:15] » [music]

[1:57:28] » Heat. Heat.

[1:57:50] Heat.

[1:58:01] Heat.

[1:58:10] Heat. Heat.

[1:59:17] Okay. Are we ready to reconvene?

[1:59:23] » And Council Member Popkin, I see you. Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

[1:59:27] Is it possible that someone adjusts the podium camera so I can see the gallery a

[1:59:31] little bit better? It's a little pointing at the ceiling situation.

[1:59:34] » Oh, yeah. It's always like that. Can Can it be moved?

[1:59:38] » Thank you. Lawyers to the rescue. Thank you, Eugene.

[1:59:41] » I don't know if it'll pop back up. Okay. Nope.

[1:59:44] » That's great. Close. Appreciate it.

[1:59:48] » Is that helpful? Okay. So,

[1:59:54] okay. So we are now on ordinances on second reading and public hearings on

[1:59:59] any matter. Um the first item is ordinance or O2026-03

[2:00:06] a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses

[2:00:10] and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January

[2:00:14] 1st, 2026. Um are there any questions for council?

[2:00:20] Okay. Nope. Nope. and is there's no presentation or staff. Okay. So, I will

[2:00:26] now open the public hearing on U ordinance 2026-03.

[2:00:32] Um I see no one on the signup sheet. Is there anyone who would like to speak to

[2:00:37] this matter? Nope. Okay. So, I will close public hearing

[2:00:44] and um may I have a motion to pass and adopt ordinance 2026-03?

[2:00:49] » So moved. >> Okay. Okay. So, the motion has been made

[2:00:52] by Council Member Christ and seconded by Council Member Marcen. Let's go ahead

[2:00:57] and vote.

[2:01:11] » Jeopardy song. >> Okay. So, we're going to do a hand vote.

[2:01:16] All those in favor? I raise your hand. Okay. and nobody in opposition. So that

[2:01:22] carries unanimously. Uh we are now on

[2:01:27] um ordinance 2026-04, a bill for an ordinance authorizing

[2:01:33] authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance

[2:01:37] Brand Municipal uh airport hangar parcel H33,

[2:01:42] the premises to Dennis Tracy and Dwayne Root tenant. Um, are there any questions

[2:01:48] from council? Okay. Um,

[2:01:54] so I Yeah. Um, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? I do

[2:02:00] see a name on here. Scott Stewart and you will have three minutes.

[2:02:09] » Mayor, members of council. Scott Stewart, 229 Grand Street. Um, I brought

[2:02:13] this up a little bit earlier and the public invited to be heard. Um, I think

[2:02:18] what we've got here is a um a failure to update um rates as as we go along. We

[2:02:25] were uh we were told two weeks ago that um

[2:02:31] the lease um the lease template, we kept referring

[2:02:36] to it as a lease template, lease template, lease template. Sounds like

[2:02:39] the lease template was autofilled with a rate that's at least five years old.

[2:02:45] um the rate schedule and charges that is on the city's website actually reflects

[2:02:50] that. So this at some point should be reviewed. I don't know if this stops,

[2:02:55] you know, slows anything down at night or what have you. And I'm not sure that

[2:02:58] it should, but this is the type of oversight that we need that's not that

[2:03:04] has not been happening for the last five years or so. Um

[2:03:10] yeah, I that's that's basically it. It's it's 2021. It is the same lease rate as

[2:03:18] the one you're signing today. Um, that being said, new construction stuff

[2:03:24] and development of the airport, all of that. That's you guys got a you got a

[2:03:28] document for that. They got a they got a little flyer here at airport land

[2:03:33] development stuff says you guys can you know the city can actually

[2:03:38] change terms and do all kinds of different things as far as in order to

[2:03:43] you know encourage development at the airport. Um you guys got a lot of power.

[2:03:47] you're just not utilizing it in in we're taking shortcuts. And for somebody to

[2:03:54] for for management to hand you a lease that doesn't have an appropriate rate on

[2:03:59] it that hasn't been adjusted, you know, we're starting from the base every year.

[2:04:03] Now, if somebody signed this in 2021, I pretty much guarantee that that person

[2:04:08] has got the 3% increase every year. That 3% increase should

[2:04:14] maybe I'm crazy but it should apply to the base number for every year and it

[2:04:19] should be adjusted every year. Doesn't look like it's been done in at least the

[2:04:23] last five years. So we got some figuring to do.

[2:04:29] » Thanks. >> Great. Okay. Is there anyone else who

[2:04:31] would like to speak? Okay. So with that I will now close um public hearing. Um,

[2:04:38] may I have a motion to pass and adopt? And then when we second it, I'll open it

[2:04:42] up for final discussion. Um, >> so moved.

[2:04:45] » Okay. So, the um motion to adopt um ordinance 2026-04 has been made by

[2:04:51] council member Christ. Do we have a second?

[2:04:56] Okay. And council member Kulka seconded it. Um and

[2:05:01] mayor prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Harold, can you uh

[2:05:06] uh talk to what uh uh member of the public was just pointing out there? Mr.

[2:05:11] Stewart, >> I'm going to ask uh Jen and Levi to come

[2:05:15] down. I think we went through this >> uh the the

[2:05:19] » discussion. The last time this was on first reading

[2:05:23] » in terms of the um there were some questions also about the term and the 30

[2:05:30] years and how we were handling that in terms of an assignment in the new lease.

[2:05:34] So Levi, can you jump in on this one? >> I can jump in on that real quick. Um

[2:05:39] kind of the way operate the rules and regulations at the airport, we have a

[2:05:42] rates and charges set schedule and that's kind of what we put leases out at

[2:05:47] and that's adjusted ever so often. And if I recall correctly, last time we

[2:05:50] actually updated those 2023. I'd have to check on that to be 100% true, but

[2:05:54] that's actually what we're doing currently with the rates and charges

[2:05:57] study. We'll have all that reassessed and what we should set that moving

[2:06:00] forward to. Okay. Um that was a little bit confusing

[2:06:08] uh because what uh Mr. Steuart was pointing out was

[2:06:13] is that that was the 2021 uh rates

[2:06:19] and >> I know for a fact that we have set them

[2:06:22] since 2021. So whatever rate was set was set at the most current one which should

[2:06:27] be the 2023 I think. again. I'd have to check

[2:06:30] » was actually approved. >> So, should we be holding off until we

[2:06:35] get that that information? Because >> I'm wondering if this is

[2:06:42] » uh updated. >> So, we did we did vet this through the

[2:06:45] city attorney's office and we double checked the rates and charges and it was

[2:06:48] all came back. >> This is the same as 2021.

[2:06:52] Um, it's actually the same as the last time it was approved raising charges,

[2:06:55] which I want to say is 2023, but again, I'd have to check the

[2:06:58] » So, 2023 is the same as 2021. >> Uh, no, they were increased over that

[2:07:04] time span. >> Okay.

[2:07:11] » Okay. Thank you. So, let's go ahead and vote.

[2:07:44] Okay. And so that carries 5 to2 with um council member Kuffer and council member

[2:07:50] McCoy or Mayor Prom McCoy in opposition.

[2:07:57] Okay. So we are now on to ordinance 2026-05

[2:08:01] a bill for an ordinance authorizing the consent to the Vance brand municipal

[2:08:06] airport lease assignment for hangar parcel H14C to book family trust. Are

[2:08:13] there any questions from council and is there anything from staff for us?

[2:08:19] No. Okay. So, um Okay, >> mayor.

[2:08:24] » Oh, there you are. Didn't show up on my screen.

[2:08:28] » Okay. Go ahead, council member. >> Thank you, mayor. I the last statement

[2:08:32] I'm really confused about whether or not we have updated the rates cuz it I I'm

[2:08:40] so confused and if we're going to vote on on three more I I want to make sure

[2:08:44] there's clarity that that they have been updated. Um I'm I'm for renewing the

[2:08:49] leases, you know, if if the rates have been updated because we're already this

[2:08:54] far in the negotiation, but I'm confused if the rates are updated or not. Can I

[2:09:00] » provide it? think a little bit of clarity on it.

[2:09:02] » Um, so as we operate every so many years, we reassess and update the rates

[2:09:08] and charges. The latest incarnation of that was actually asking for a third

[2:09:12] party to do a true rates and charges study for us, which we're currently

[2:09:15] moving forward with. So that's what's happening now. So [snorts] in the past,

[2:09:19] and again, it happens every few years, we have an adjustment to the rates and

[2:09:23] charges. That was actually one of the first tasks when I came here as the

[2:09:26] airport manager. Um, so I want to say it happened late 2002 or early 2003, hence

[2:09:32] when it was officially adopted. Um, and it was adjusted up at that point. So

[2:09:37] there is a set rates and charges schedule for the airport. So if you're

[2:09:41] getting a new lease, we're obliged to go off of that schedule. Now, if you have

[2:09:46] an existing lease yeartoear, the lease itself says it goes up by the consumer

[2:09:50] price index. So it goes up however many% the consumer price index is for that

[2:09:54] year. I should also clarify that via our rates and charges document, it actually

[2:10:00] says on there, here's the rate that it will be unless it's already at a higher

[2:10:04] rate and then it will continue to be that. So that's currently what our rates

[2:10:07] and charges document says.

[2:10:12] » So across the board, you'll see little variances in the rates and charges via

[2:10:16] our own rules and regulations on on how those are set.

[2:10:20] » Okay. Um continue. >> I'm still confused. Clear as mud, but

[2:10:25] Yeah, I I'll I'll pass it on to uh Council Member

[2:10:27] » Marzing. Okay, Council Member Mars, go ahead.

[2:10:30] » I I I was actually just going to echo Council Member Caloffer's question

[2:10:33] because Levi, that was a I don't know if I'm not that bright. I just was a lot of

[2:10:37] words that I don't think answered the question directly was when was the last

[2:10:41] time rates were updated and by how much? >> For for that detailed information, we'd

[2:10:48] actually have to go get the ordinance. And unfortunately, I don't, you know,

[2:10:50] have it fair. >> Yeah. Um, okay.

[2:10:59] » Oh, there you are. Yes, Council Member Christ.

[2:11:03] » Thank you, Mayor. [clears throat] So, I asked a lot of questions of you um

[2:11:08] in last session, um, Levi. And I think [clears throat] the

[2:11:13] conclusion we came to is that each of the leases that we were looking at had

[2:11:17] advanced and um they were being renewed at a at a higher price but not a higher

[2:11:24] rate than they were originally. >> Yep. And we did double check them all as

[2:11:29] before we brought them here last time. >> And then there was some discussion about

[2:11:33] concern about going with a 30-year lease when we are adjusting rates. Um but

[2:11:40] legal counsel advised that that is the template and we have to be um very

[2:11:46] equitable in our application of leases. So that is how this got into second

[2:11:53] reading because after much discussion we decided that we had to go forward

[2:11:58] with what was before us because they were expired. Yep.

[2:12:02] » Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Um, oh, there we

[2:12:09] go. Okay, Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. I actually have less

[2:12:14] issue with this particular one just here because it's a selling of the property

[2:12:19] and it's already in the uh in in that process. And so we're just

[2:12:26] agreeing to let the property owner sell their property to another and changing

[2:12:31] who's on the title. um than I do with the other two where I feel that there

[2:12:38] are there's

[2:12:41] I know we're waiting on the lease uh and uh rates uh study but

[2:12:48] uh I am really concerned when uh people who are just trying to keep a shelter

[2:12:54] over their head in one in some of our um trailer parks in town pay you know in a

[2:13:03] three-month period of time more than these people pay over an entire

[2:13:09] uh year. And I feel that there's a disparagy between the halves and the

[2:13:16] have nots and the and and I'm concerned about that. uh and uh you know maybe

[2:13:22] that'll be you know wled out in the rates and

[2:13:28] charges study but as it is right now I feel really uncomfortable but I also

[2:13:33] feel that we have some leverage here that we need to be looking at in the

[2:13:37] future. Um, you know, there's a lot of folks out here that are, you know, we

[2:13:42] look at Boulder and by the end of the year, they are

[2:13:47] they, according to the news today, they are um, uh, going to require, you know,

[2:13:56] uh, unled gas at their their facility. It sounds like, uh, and I don't know how

[2:14:03] they're doing that, but more power to them. But I know that uh there are a lot

[2:14:08] of community members that are tired of, you know, 60 and 50 year old planes.

[2:14:14] Something that not one of us would commute regularly uh to work uh with uh

[2:14:22] uh but uh that are flying overhead and that the repairs to change them to, you

[2:14:27] know, a unleted gas sort of engine has not been done. And I think people are

[2:14:33] sick of it. I think they're sick of that sort of stuff and uh that that somebody

[2:14:39] always gets a pass. And so then we're letting them have a 30-year lease when

[2:14:45] we should be giving them uh much shorter leases to encourage that that sort of

[2:14:50] capitalist approach to sticking the carrot, trying to encourage people to do

[2:14:53] things either by the stick or by the carrot. And uh and I'm concerned that uh

[2:15:00] uh that that that's the thing that is one of the many things that concerns me

[2:15:06] about what's going on at the airport and it's not a reflection on you. You're

[2:15:10] getting direction uh through Harold through from us. So,

[2:15:16] uh, but, uh, it is a it is a deep concern of mine and that's why I'm I'll

[2:15:21] support this one, >> but I won't be supporting any others in

[2:15:26] the future. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Um, Council

[2:15:29] Member Popkin,

[2:15:33] » thank you, mayor, and thank you, council, for your comments on this. I

[2:15:37] there are a few broad points I want to make here. I think one I want to remind

[2:15:42] everyone that we're focused on a very specific individual hanger lease for

[2:15:46] today's discussion >> and that many of the policy concerns or

[2:15:50] issues raised by my fellow council members um I actually do want to get

[2:15:53] into the merits on but that today is not the time for that. We are discussing the

[2:15:58] specific hanger leases and I would encourage us to stay focused on that

[2:16:01] today so that we can set up productive conversations as the mayor prom and

[2:16:05] mayor helped start kind of over the last couple weeks on the structure and the

[2:16:09] future of airport advisory efforts in the city and how and the future of

[2:16:13] airport management. I would encourage us to keep that. I I also want to remind us

[2:16:17] that we're talking about a fundamentally different market when we're talking

[2:16:19] about hanger leases. We're talking about a different market compared to housing

[2:16:23] and uh Mayor Prom, if we did control uh mobile home parks and the land there,

[2:16:28] I'd say let's definitely have a conversation about the equity there, but

[2:16:31] unfortunately to my knowledge, we really do not. Um and then lastly, I guess I

[2:16:36] have a question for the city attorney here just to kind of maybe pull this all

[2:16:39] together. Uh my understanding is that our airport manager and assistant city

[2:16:43] manager uh Uten have looked at the leases that these have been reviewed

[2:16:47] consistent to our practice and that the city attorney's office has reviewed this

[2:16:50] as well. Are there any reasons to doubt the cons and how these leases have been

[2:16:55] applied um from your legal review uh for our purposes of approval tonight?

[2:17:01] » Uh thank you council member Popkin Eugene May city attorney. Uh, mayor and

[2:17:06] council, I'm looking at resolution 22-186

[2:17:10] approving lease rates for land at uh.3576

[2:17:17] per square foot. That is the rate that's in the lease.

[2:17:23] » I don't think there's any other reasons why I would doubt the

[2:17:30] accuracy of that number. I will say I do not personally review this lease. Uh but

[2:17:35] my attorney works with uh these matters all the time. Uh

[2:17:40] it was a search and I haven't had the chance to look to see

[2:17:46] if there's been a further update, but the 2022 rate um resolution rate appears

[2:17:53] to be the correct one and that's what's in the lease

[2:17:56] » and just uh that was um adopted and signed on January 4th, 2023.

[2:18:04] And so >> so that was the update that was being

[2:18:09] discussed and the number and that rate study matches the number that is in the

[2:18:14] contract >> and and so that's what we're operating

[2:18:18] off of >> specifically uh to talk about airport

[2:18:22] lease rates. um it is a different market. And so if

[2:18:29] you are leasing land on an airport to a non aeronautical use, then you actually

[2:18:36] use the market rate for the lease. If you're looking at an aeronautical lease

[2:18:42] rate, then you're not comparing against lease rates in the community. You're

[2:18:46] comparing against lease rates at other airports. uh and that's within the FAA's

[2:18:53] guidance in terms of grant assurances and and so that's another piece of the

[2:18:59] conversation. And then you have the non-discrimination clause that exists

[2:19:04] within the FAA grant assurances in terms of how um you inherently have to treat

[2:19:10] everyone at the airport in the same fashion. And so it's really those grant

[2:19:17] assurances combined with the lease rate that was adopted, but the lease rate

[2:19:22] that is in the ordinance matches the lease rate that is in the contract.

[2:19:27] » Okay, great. Thank you. Um, >> thank you. Thank you, uh, Eugene. I

[2:19:32] appreciate that. Um the last point I just wanted to make was um you know I

[2:19:36] really I really think this council needs to be careful as we start to pick at

[2:19:40] individual um agreements going forward. If we want

[2:19:44] to have a policy conversation we should absolutely have that but it shouldn't be

[2:19:47] over individual things. That's how we make people make people prospective

[2:19:53] businesses and current businesses doubt like how we are handling this whether

[2:19:57] we're >> public trust as well.

[2:19:59] » Yeah. Exactly. and and so I think we want to be careful as we go forward

[2:20:03] about when we have policy conversations versus when we're approving things that

[2:20:06] are already in our policy and and moving things forward. So I can't tell if other

[2:20:11] people at the mic otherwise I'd call the question.

[2:20:13] » No. Um you know what I still have to do public hearing. So um I'm going to go

[2:20:17] ahead and open up the Oh, never mind. We have one more question. Go ahead council

[2:20:22] member. >> Very quickly. Thanks, Mayor. Um, I the

[2:20:25] the reason I voted no for the first one is because I was unclear if the if the

[2:20:30] rate on the lease was correct to what is in our ordinances. But now that it's

[2:20:35] clear, I'm okay moving forward. But if if it if there was a discrepancy with

[2:20:41] what is in our ordinance versus what is on the lease, then I had problems with

[2:20:45] that. But since we cleared that up, I'm good to go.

[2:20:48] » Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I would like to now open the public hearing for

[2:20:53] ordinance 2026-05. Uh, there is no one on the signup sheet,

[2:20:58] but is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak?

[2:21:05] » Okay, come on down.

[2:21:10] Mayor, members, council Scott, 229 Grand Street. Um, we were told two weeks ago

[2:21:15] that lease rates adjust with the CPI annually.

[2:21:22] Have we not had a adjustment in the CPI for the leases in the last what is it?

[2:21:28] Three years that it's just confusing. We're starting

[2:21:33] at a point that's three years old. Have we not increased any of the lease

[2:21:39] rates? We've got a We've got an airport that's struggling for money that asked

[2:21:44] this council for 50% discount to the administrative transfer fee. That's

[2:21:49] money that should be going to the general fund. We need money in the

[2:21:52] general fund. the airports receiving a discount for services provided by

[2:21:57] taxpayers and we're not doing increases

[2:22:02] as we're supposed to within the

[2:22:07] the airport has great rules and regulations and policies and stuff.

[2:22:13] Somebody got to sit down and read them. I've read them. I'll read them again.

[2:22:18] I'll keep reading them. Anybody wants to have a conversation and correct me,

[2:22:21] please do. We're not doing what we said we're

[2:22:24] doing. Two weeks ago, we were told to adjust with the CPI.

[2:22:28] 3% was the number that was given. The rate that you're getting, I and I

[2:22:33] don't I think you pass this to Council Member Popkins point earlier, this

[2:22:37] should not stop this this thing. Approve it, get it going, but understand you got

[2:22:42] a systemic problem with what's going on at the airport and has been going on at

[2:22:46] the airport. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay. So,

[2:22:52] seeing no one else, um I will go ahead and close the public hearing and can I

[2:22:58] have a motion to uh pass and adopt ordinance 2026-05?

[2:23:04] Um so, council, the motion has been made by council member Kuffer. Do I have a

[2:23:09] second? >> Second.

[2:23:11] » Okay. And council member Christ has seconded it. Let's go ahead and vote.

[2:23:21] Okay. And that carries unanimously. And we are now on to um item D, ordinance

[2:23:28] 2026-06, a bill for an ordinance authorizing the

[2:23:33] city of Longmont to lease the real property known as Vance Brand Municipal

[2:23:37] Airport Hangar Parcel H55, the premises to Lyall Properties LLC tenant. Um, are

[2:23:45] there any questions from council? >> Okay, council member Marcy.

[2:23:50] » Thank you, Mayor. Just very quickly, question for staff generally. How much

[2:23:53] has CPI gone up? Like, if we're basing if we're basing a lease rate in 2022,

[2:24:00] and it's January of 2026, theoretically, what would that adjustment have been? My

[2:24:05] quick Google search gave me a number that is different than 3%. So, I'm

[2:24:07] curious about the staff's Oh, my time's expired. Yeah,

[2:24:12] » appreciate that. Thank you. Um,

[2:24:17] » yeah. >> So, a couple of things. So, I think

[2:24:19] we're we're mixing a couple of So, there's two pieces to this.

[2:24:22] » Yeah. >> Um,

[2:24:24] » help me understand. >> I'm I'm reading the lease right now.

[2:24:30] lease rate by adding an inflationary adjustment which shall be equal to the

[2:24:33] inflationary increases defined by the most current consumer's price index of

[2:24:39] all consumers for the Denver area liquid metropolitan area. So, so that's a

[2:24:45] number that needs to be in there on the annual increase, but the base rate

[2:24:50] starts at the number that's adopted by council in the policy and then within

[2:24:56] the lease it create it increases the lease itself increases by the CPI index,

[2:25:02] not the base rate. >> Okay. And we are doing that within our

[2:25:04] leases. So, theoretically like that number based on my quick Google and

[2:25:08] correct me if I'm wrong would be like 11%ish.

[2:25:11] is that on those >> how much CPI has increased you mean

[2:25:16] » between the time that that rate was established and where we are

[2:25:19] » um I I couldn't say exactly off the top of my head but approximately if I recall

[2:25:22] » okay if it's if that doesn't sound crazy then I'm I'm I'm comfortable okay thank

[2:25:27] you >> so to to the point when you look at the

[2:25:30] standard rates and charges >> um

[2:25:35] so existing lease improvements point or current lease rate whichever is more.

[2:25:42] That's where it catches it. So, the current lease can be more than the base

[2:25:45] rate >> because the current leases increase on

[2:25:50] that piece and that's the nuance in in the details in terms of where you start.

[2:25:54] » Great. That's helpful. Thank you so much.

[2:25:58] » Great. Anyone else? Okay. So, um now I would

[2:26:03] like to open the public hearing for ordinance 2026-07.

[2:26:09] Is there anyone? Oh, we already did public hearing, right, on this one? No,

[2:26:12] we did not. It's all these hanger leases that's all meshing together. Um Okay. Is

[2:26:17] there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this matter?

[2:26:22] » Thank you, Scott. [laughter] Okay. Um so, seeing no no one else

[2:26:28] coming forward, I now close public hearing. May I have a motion to pass and

[2:26:32] adopt ordinance 2026-06? Okay. So, the motion has been made by

[2:26:37] council member Koffer. Do I have a second? Seconded by council member

[2:26:40] Christ. Let's go ahead and vote. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:26:44] » Oh, I didn't see you. There we go. Go ahead. Um, before we vote, go ahead,

[2:26:50] Mayor Prom. >> Thank you, Mayor. You know, I really

[2:26:54] don't want to harm anybody. My votes are more of a loyal opposition

[2:26:59] sort of approach to letting the the hangar owners know that they need to be

[2:27:06] aware that that there's going to be some changes here and uh and that they

[2:27:12] shouldn't have a unanimous vote every time they uh we come up here with a

[2:27:18] uh with an ordinance. It makes me concerned that we do have other uh

[2:27:25] members of the public that feel, you know, distinctly

[2:27:29] uh different about this. that my vote is not intended to make uh uh to harm uh

[2:27:37] it's intended to send the signal that we are in in a a period of change and uh in

[2:27:44] in a situation here where things have to get better and uh and there's going to

[2:27:49] have to be an anticipation of change uh there. So, [clears throat] it's it's not

[2:27:54] intended to make to to go against uh you know, our policy so much as to send that

[2:27:59] message that it wasn't unanimous. It's not always going to be unanimous and and

[2:28:04] uh and that uh we're if members are are agreeing to this, it's because uh you

[2:28:12] know of the contractual side of things. It's not that they necessarily

[2:28:17] um agree uh with uh what's going on or and and I

[2:28:23] think there's many members here on the council that would like to see some sort

[2:28:27] of uh uh change of how we how we do things because you know there's an

[2:28:32] equity issue and things like that. So uh thank you and and Levi thank you for

[2:28:39] trying to answer our questions to the best of your ability.

[2:28:43] » Okay. Um, Council Member Popkin. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. Um,

[2:28:48] Mayor Brom, um, with all due respect, and you know, I have the utmost respect

[2:28:51] for you, sir. Um, I I do want to just note that like if every single person

[2:28:55] here on council took that kind of principled loyal opposition stance, then

[2:29:00] we would be unfair to the people who are following our current laws and policies

[2:29:04] and procedures. And so while I understand the willingness to try to

[2:29:07] make a point with a vote, I would strongly discourage this group from

[2:29:10] getting the habit of that because it does then create these problems where

[2:29:14] multiple people could start to kind of vote on that principle when all the

[2:29:19] people who are when when the folks who are applying for these leases or coming

[2:29:22] to renew are just following our rules. And if they are truly following our

[2:29:26] rules, we shouldn't be penalizing anyone for following our current policy. when

[2:29:30] if or when it sounds like it's a question of when we decide to update

[2:29:34] that. I I fully encourage this group to have a very spirited conversation and a

[2:29:38] very intentional conversation about what we want the future to look like for

[2:29:40] this. But I really really would discourage this group from making a

[2:29:45] habit out of um you know principled votes on a broader policy issue than the

[2:29:49] question uh than the topic in question. >> Okay, let's go ahead and vote.

[2:30:04] Okay. And so that carries 5 to2 with council me council member Marcine and

[2:30:09] Mayor Prom McCoy in opposition. So we are now on to item E.

[2:30:16] » I think that's us. So, um, ordinance 2026-07,

[2:30:21] a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a drainage

[2:30:24] easement located within the boundaries of the fairground marketplace

[2:30:28] subdivision plat. Um, do we have a presentation or any

[2:30:33] update from staff?

[2:30:39] » No. Okay. Um, do we have any questions from council?

[2:30:43] Okay. So, I wouldn't Oh, wait. I'm going to check out our Zoom person. And did I

[2:30:47] lose Popkin?

[2:30:50] » Nope. Okay. No, I Oh, there he is on my on my screen. Trying to Now I have this

[2:30:56] weird thing popped up. Oh my god. Okay, I am having issues on my my computer. I

[2:31:02] have too many tabs open. See, look at what happened.

[2:31:06] » Close that. Okay, there we go. But then I can't see this. God dang it. Okay,

[2:31:12] [clears throat] no that. Okay. So, okay. I just wanted

[2:31:17] to check to see if Popkin had his hand up. He clearly does not. So, Council

[2:31:22] Member Chris, I'm just having all these windows keep popping up on my screen.

[2:31:27] » Oh my god.

[2:31:30] » Turn on. >> Yeah.

[2:31:31] » Thank you, Mayor. >> It's just a comment and this um item

[2:31:36] came before the water board and they did not have any problems with it either.

[2:31:39] So, so that's just to inform that the water board approves as well.

[2:31:45] » Okay. >> Very good. Thank you. And um

[2:31:51] public hearing. I would now like to open public hearing. Is there anyone in the

[2:31:55] audience who wishes to speak on this matter? Okay. Seeing no one, um I will

[2:32:00] go ahead and close the public hearing. And may I have a motion to approve

[2:32:04] ordinance 2026-07? >> Okay. Second.

[2:32:08] » Okay. So, the motion has been made by Mayor Prom McCoy, seconded by Council

[2:32:12] Member Christ. Uh, let's go ahead and vote.

[2:32:22] » Okay, so that carries unanimously. We are now on to um items removed from

[2:32:28] consent agenda. And I believe we had item A

[2:32:32] and that was made by Council Member Marcen. Is that correct?

[2:32:41] Yeah. Items removed. >> Oh, nope. You're fine. Resolution

[2:32:46] 2026-12. >> Okay. Go ahead and put on your mic.

[2:32:53] » Thank you so much, Mayor. Um, and it looks like we have staff here uh to walk

[2:32:59] through a presentation. So, I I mayor I mean Laura's here. Do you want to do

[2:33:03] that? Do you have a presentation, Laura, or do you have Amazing. So, do we want

[2:33:07] to walk through that first and then I can share some thoughts and questions on

[2:33:11] the back end? Would that be because maybe I'll answer it. Awesome.

[2:33:16] [snorts]

[2:33:41] Good evening, mayor and members of city and council. I'm Laura Moody, um

[2:33:46] redevelopment director and the executive director of Longmont Urban Renewal

[2:33:50] Authority. I will be presenting on two intergovernmental agreements. Actually,

[2:33:56] one one was pulled, one stayed on consent um between the city of Longmont

[2:34:01] and the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority.

[2:34:05] So, we'll start with the idea of tax increment financing um tiff. And so tax

[2:34:11] increment financing is the added taxable value of the improvements that of the

[2:34:19] development that that is created by this new private investment. It is generated

[2:34:24] from the existing mill levies imposed by these taxing entities. It's established

[2:34:30] through negotiations with the taxing entities. It has a maximum of 25 year

[2:34:37] collection period. And then what is it not? It is not a new tax and it is does

[2:34:43] not increase tax rates on properties. >> Hey Laura, let me jump in real quick. at

[2:34:48] its base, I think it is not money that we're currently collecting

[2:34:55] uh from the property. And so I think that's the big piece. It's a lot of

[2:35:00] times you will hear us talk about a but for it really is but for the project,

[2:35:06] you don't have the money. And so if the project doesn't go forward,

[2:35:12] » then you're generating no tax revenue. And I will I will get to that in just a

[2:35:18] minute where we we look at the existing um property tax on the existing property

[2:35:24] and then what that will impact uh moving forward. So tax increment financing,

[2:35:29] you'll hear the term base and you'll hear the term increment. And how that

[2:35:34] works is the base is the assessed value of the property without the property

[2:35:40] improvements. And [snorts] the increment is the amount

[2:35:44] of value increase over that base that increases due to the property

[2:35:51] investment. And so the money in that increment is what is invested back into

[2:35:57] the property and the money from the base remains with the taxing entities.

[2:36:04] So some key impacts key impact points that I do want to you

[2:36:09] to have three takeaways before we go into the presentation. One is the

[2:36:15] property taxes generated by the new development is reinvestment reinvested

[2:36:21] in this plan area. The second is for the Hover and Nelson project. This

[2:36:28] reinvestment makes the project possible. Without it, it would not happen. And

[2:36:34] then um the second and Martin project the that that money is then reinvested

[2:36:40] in the southeast Longmont urban renewal plan area and can further other

[2:36:45] developments within that plan area. So touching base on the Twin Peaks Mall um

[2:36:53] plan area for TIFF area 2. This is um just with a with a map we are at 800

[2:37:00] South Hover Street. So, just a little bit of um table setting. This is the

[2:37:06] former Walmart site. The Walmart closed in 2011. The building was demolished in

[2:37:12] 2016 and it's been vacant ever since. So, um I have gotten several questions.

[2:37:19] So, this intergovernmental agreement that we're discussing tonight is between

[2:37:24] the city of Longmont and the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority. The request is

[2:37:30] for 100% of the city's portion of the tiff for a period of 25 years and the

[2:37:37] city then retains for that 25-year period the property attacks associated

[2:37:42] with the base. Now you're also aware of a of a redevelopment agreement that has

[2:37:49] already been approved um between Lura and Hines Longmont 800 LLC. So this is a

[2:37:57] reimbursement agreement of up to 600,000 per year for up to 15 million over the

[2:38:04] 25-year period. So [snorts] only the tiff generated is reimbursed. If it's

[2:38:11] less, less is reimbursed. And then if more than 600,000 per year

[2:38:17] is generated on the property, lura then can keep that excess and lur the lura

[2:38:24] board then decides how to spend that money. So those are the the differences

[2:38:28] in the agreements. So just some more information about the 800 South Hover

[2:38:34] site. There have [snorts] been extensive calls for service particularly in the f

[2:38:39] in the last five years. 375 including trespassing sus suspicious situations,

[2:38:47] um extra patrols, wellness checks, etc. Um and this many people are familiar

[2:38:54] with the car meetup that resulted in the death of a teenager. Mhm.

[2:38:58] » So, I won't go into the 11 conditions of blight, but you will see that um there

[2:39:04] are 11 conditions and you can identify them on the site. Um the map here that

[2:39:11] outlines where the different conditions are and what conditions are found on the

[2:39:16] site. So the site is part of our future land use map and it is identified as a

[2:39:24] regional center in the future land use map within Envision Longmont. It is

[2:39:31] identified in an area of change and what this means is that it is identified as

[2:39:37] an area for potential infill or redevelopment.

[2:39:43] So what does the regional center designation mean? It means that um uses

[2:39:49] can be large format retail, restaurant entertainment or highdensity apartment

[2:39:54] and condominiums.

[2:39:58] There are existing site challenges which make it extremely challenging for retail

[2:40:03] and commercial development. First and foremost is the successful development

[2:40:08] at Village at the Peaks um very close by where we do not want to cannibalize the

[2:40:14] that successful commercial development within the site. There are multiple

[2:40:19] ownerships. There is a reciprocal parking easement across uh the property

[2:40:24] that requires consent for parking. There is limited access off Nelson and then

[2:40:31] there is also awkward access off Bent. So when there are access issues like

[2:40:37] this um it is not appealing to retail or commercial development. So what project

[2:40:44] is being discussed? There is a development project of 256

[2:40:49] units of a retail um wrap that is an unproven product here in Longmont. Um

[2:40:58] there is a community benefit of the elimination of the site issues on the on

[2:41:05] the demolished Walmart. There are transportation benefits. This site is on

[2:41:10] the bus rapid transit line where you would have individuals who could take um

[2:41:17] bus rapid transit and live and work within Longmont. The developer is also

[2:41:22] proposing to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement by one and a half

[2:41:28] times by contributing 450,000 to satisfy this requirement. And finally, um we

[2:41:36] heard this morning um at the LED event that houses are where jobs sleep at

[2:41:42] night. And so this would be where Long Longmont residents could um live and

[2:41:48] take transit and um live in this walkable environment for um these

[2:41:54] community members. So what improvements are being proposed?

[2:41:59] These include a north south drive, installation of water, sanitary storm

[2:42:04] lines, plaz uh a plaza and landscaping among others. So what are the re revenue

[2:42:12] benefits to Longmont? Um Longmont benefits from 1.7 million in use tax as

[2:42:20] well as six over six million in development fees. There are benefits of

[2:42:27] sales tax revenue and these estimates are the proposed residents um who would

[2:42:33] be living in these 256 units. this this was what they would be spending as they

[2:42:39] would be shopping in within the city of Longmont. [snorts] And what I mentioned

[2:42:44] before is the property tax. So it would be estimated that the city would gain

[2:42:52] 13,000 um per year of that base and then that that would be estimated to be

[2:42:58] approximately 30,000 that first year for LURA for the increment. And um like um

[2:43:06] what what was just mentioned, this is a this is an increase because the existing

[2:43:11] property tax revenue for 2025 was um 6,700.

[2:43:19] So that is the projected 25-year TIFF analysis for the redevelopment. And then

[2:43:26] finally, just the the recommendation and that that we would um our our

[2:43:33] recommendation is to approve the resolution approving the

[2:43:35] intergovernmental um agreement for tax revenue increment

[2:43:40] revenue sharing between the city of Longmont and Longmont Urban Renewal

[2:43:44] Authority in TIFF area 2. Can I answer any questions?

[2:43:50] » Okay. So, I'm going to give it back to Council Member Marcen. he pulled the

[2:43:55] item. >> Thank you so much, mayor, and thank you,

[2:43:57] Laura, for that presentation. I know there's been a lot of back and forth

[2:44:00] around the community about this specific project of late. Um, and I just want to

[2:44:05] kind of frame my own thinking here before I ask a couple questions, which

[2:44:08] is this is the first time that I, as a member of council or a member of the

[2:44:12] Laura board, have had the opportunity to to vote on and look at this specific

[2:44:16] project. I think the last time it was considered, I was sitting out there. So

[2:44:19] I I'm approaching it with maybe a different perspective than my fellow

[2:44:23] council members who were here and also the perspective of having just heard

[2:44:26] very loudly and clearly from our community where they are at on a project

[2:44:30] that I think from a community perspective is going to present a

[2:44:33] certain a certain way. Um so just want to be really clear that that these tiff

[2:44:38] dollars and the reason I'm asking these questions is not so much about tiff. I

[2:44:41] understand tiff. I I think tiff is the right financing mechanism for this. My

[2:44:46] concern is with the end product that these TIFF dollars are gonna are going

[2:44:49] to create are going to allow. Um and it's the only time I'm going to be able

[2:44:52] to discuss it. So um remind me one more time how many total rental units are we

[2:44:56] talking about in phase one? >> 256

[2:44:59] » and and and that's a 200. So we're talking about a 256 apartment

[2:45:03] development on Hover and Nelson roughly in an area that as my fellow council

[2:45:08] members are well aware has been seriously stacked with those kinds of

[2:45:13] developments. We've all heard about it from the community over the last several

[2:45:16] years. Um was any consideration just in the negotiation process and find you

[2:45:21] know development partners working through the planning phase given to and

[2:45:26] I don't know Laura I know you're on the lur I don't know if you're the

[2:45:28] necessarily the person to answer this question but given to working with a

[2:45:32] developer more interested in for sale product interested in a different mix of

[2:45:36] product for this specific site. I appreciate you in your presentation

[2:45:39] highlighting some of the challenges with that for this specific site. Um, and we

[2:45:44] all know the challenges related to condos and for sale units, but was that

[2:45:47] a was that a conversation during this process as far as you're aware?

[2:45:55] » I I think at least in the conversations with this this group, I know from the

[2:45:59] urban renewal perspective, that was something they talked about and um

[2:46:03] » um I think what they indicated is that it it wouldn't pencil out financially

[2:46:09] and ultimately they have the contract on the property and so

[2:46:15] um it's really dependent on who the owner of the property is and the

[2:46:19] contract that they have with the buyer in terms of who we negotiate because

[2:46:23] similar to the why conversation we don't control that the property owner controls

[2:46:28] that >> yeah and I appreciate that and and I

[2:46:30] think just from my perspective had I been able to be in the lura

[2:46:33] conversations had I been had the planning process been something that I

[2:46:37] you would have had a say in. I I would have thought differently about this. Um,

[2:46:40] from my perspective, this is a vote essentially to allow the financing and

[2:46:44] development of another large apartment complex in an area that's already

[2:46:47] oversaturated and our residents are have said very clearly where they're at on

[2:46:51] that. Um, and I'm going to So, I I appreciate your your work on this,

[2:46:54] Laura. I'm I'm going to vote no on financing on on this on these tiff on

[2:46:59] these tiff dollars. I I I want this site to be redeveloped. I think had the

[2:47:02] projects that have gone on in that side of the community had not been there in

[2:47:06] the last few years, my thinking would have been different. I think right now,

[2:47:09] um, as a representative of the community, I have to I have to vote no.

[2:47:12] So, thanks. >> Um, Council Member Popkin,

[2:47:17] » you got to get out. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, Laura, thank you for

[2:47:20] the presentation. I I had one or two clarifying questions for you. Um, and

[2:47:24] and then, uh, maybe a couple comments to make. Um

[2:47:29] when for for members of the public who aren't following like all of the TIFF

[2:47:33] definitions super closely um is is tiff a tax incentive?

[2:47:41] » No, it's enabling development to pay its own way.

[2:47:45] » Thank you. And is it a is it a subsidy using city funds?

[2:47:50] » No, it's not a subsidy. Is it a rebate or a grant or any other kind of

[2:47:55] incentive structure like that that we're taking out of our other funds

[2:48:01] » as in like are we taking it away from other purposes that that we could be

[2:48:05] applying it to >> if we use it for this project?

[2:48:09] » Um so TIFF has very specific guidelines on

[2:48:16] what it can be used for. Um there must be it must be utilized for public

[2:48:24] improvements. Um so there are very specific guidelines

[2:48:30] on what how it can be used what it can be done what it and how it is used to

[2:48:40] mitigate reverse prevent blight. So it is it is there are very strict

[2:48:48] guidelines on what it can be used for and and and that that

[2:48:57] mitigation of blight is the is the prime directive there. That is really the the

[2:49:03] reason of what what what we're doing what we're doing within urban renewal.

[2:49:08] So, um, you know, it it it's come back to my original question just for the

[2:49:14] sake of time here. Are we pulling funding from other areas in our budget

[2:49:19] to pay for these improvements? >> Uh, no. And I think that goes back to my

[2:49:23] first comment is the the funding for this is only available because of the

[2:49:30] project. If the project doesn't go forward, there's no funding to put in

[2:49:36] the increment. Thank you, Harold. Thank you, Laura. So,

[2:49:39] not only is there no funding to put in the increment, there's no funding to uh

[2:49:43] help address the public safety hazards on the site. There's no funding that is

[2:49:47] stimulating the businesses in the village of the Peaks commercial area

[2:49:50] generally. There is no funding to support workforce housing there um

[2:49:54] that's uh connected on the future bus rapid transit lines. Like this project

[2:49:59] enables those things. It doesn't pull money from other purposes. Correct.

[2:50:05] » Correct. >> Okay. And then this project is also, if

[2:50:08] I understand the development agreement correctly, um adding a

[2:50:13] 150% of the afford is paying 150% of the fee in L for affordable housing.

[2:50:20] Correct. >> That is correct.

[2:50:23] » And and I just want to go back to your question of um pulling funding. It is

[2:50:28] bringing more money to the city. Like I said, the the property tax in 2025 was

[2:50:34] just over 6,000. And due to this project, the first year of property tax

[2:50:39] revenue of the base will be nearly double that. So the city will see 13,000

[2:50:45] in property tax. So the city is benefiting from this development.

[2:50:51] » Yeah, that feels small to me when we think about in this context. Can you

[2:50:54] give me the remind me of the redevelopment fee or like the

[2:50:57] development fees that the applicant is paying that also go to the city.

[2:51:00] » Correct. There are over $6 million in fees that will be paid um to the city as

[2:51:07] well. >> So that Yeah. And that's a little bit

[2:51:09] more substantial than just the kind of 12 13,000 um increase there. Correct.

[2:51:14] Substantially. Um >> the other clarifying question I had so

[2:51:18] the Walmart site and correct correct me if I'm wrong because this was before my

[2:51:21] time here, but the Walmart site closed in 2011. Correct.

[2:51:24] » That is correct. >> Has there been any uh serious efforts to

[2:51:28] redevelop this since before this project?

[2:51:32] » I I can jump in on that. Um since I've been here, I I joined in 2013. Um

[2:51:39] there was only to my knowledge there was only one

[2:51:44] potential project that was brought to our attention on

[2:51:49] that location. Unfortunately, because of the ownership structure on that parcel,

[2:51:55] uh that project didn't move forward. And that existed when the Walmart building

[2:52:00] was actually still in place >> because

[2:52:03] » that was pre 2016 even. >> Pardon?

[2:52:07] » That was pre 2016, I think, before the building was demolished.

[2:52:10] » I think so. So, before the building was demolished, there was one interested

[2:52:13] party in that location. And the the issue with that location is really when

[2:52:20] the building existed. Um it was odd in how it was approved because you

[2:52:29] have two different land owners and one of the land owners owned the

[2:52:35] building and so the two didn't necessarily agree and so while the

[2:52:42] building was there there was nothing that really could move forward. Um,

[2:52:45] since that date, I have not been aware of anybody else that's interested in

[2:52:50] that location. Laura, have you Are you >> Thank you. Thank you, Harold. And And to

[2:52:56] be clear, like that you haven't heard any interest through perhaps a period of

[2:53:00] the historically lowest interest rates for financing construction projects in

[2:53:05] recent history. Correct. >> No.

[2:53:08] » Uh, thank you. Um, so I guess where I'm trying to get at is

[2:53:13] » Yeah. I'm going to say get to your point quick because I we have a lot of people

[2:53:15] in the queue. So >> yeah, so I I fully sympathize with uh

[2:53:19] some of the points that Council Member Mars made. However, I want to reiterate

[2:53:24] that what this project is fundamentally

[2:53:29] different from some of the other housing projects that we have seen come up. It

[2:53:32] is aligned with a lot of the plans that we had a lot of community input on. And

[2:53:38] it costs us more money if projects don't move forward. And this one does align

[2:53:44] with so many of the goals that we care about. Um, and there's a there's a major

[2:53:49] challenge right now with state law that is preventing for sale housing, which I

[2:53:53] know myself and and most of this council also care about. And we specifically did

[2:53:57] inquire about that during this process. Um, and in fact, this project does

[2:54:01] contribute to our affordable housing fund that we can use to help invest in

[2:54:06] future for sale housing, which I and and they're contributing more than they're

[2:54:09] required to. So, I I'll pause for now before I make a few other points, but I

[2:54:13] because I do want to hear what my fellow council members think, but I do want to

[2:54:15] remind us of the context of how we got here over the last 15 years and why this

[2:54:20] project is is not uh you know, maybe the the cookie cutter thing that some people

[2:54:24] might think it is. I've had many conversations with residents throughout

[2:54:28] the the uh campaign season after that about what this project is doing and

[2:54:33] after they understand kind of the mechanism, the concept, the goals of it,

[2:54:37] and what it's actually correcting for. Um I have I have not only received less

[2:54:41] opposition but actually support for why we're doing this. Okay.

[2:54:44] » So I did want to make that point because I think clarity is king here. Thank you.

[2:54:48] » Thank you. Uh Council Member Prito.

[2:54:52] » Uh thank you Laura for the presentation. I had sent you some emails earlier. I

[2:54:56] got a response to one of them but my other one might have been lost. Um

[2:55:02] and maybe it was yesterday. I don't remember. [laughter]

[2:55:05] But one of my questions I'm I guess I'm just trying to wrap my head around the

[2:55:09] 25 year tiff time frame and how um we go about using that if I wasn't

[2:55:18] mistaken in the other contract for the Martin one that had a sunset. So

[2:55:26] once we meet x amount then it cuts off and we don't go to the 25 years. And so

[2:55:32] I'm just wondering why the city um does the overall 25- year period kind of rule

[2:55:39] of thumb and doesn't cut it off once that debt is paid so we can start

[2:55:44] getting those taxes back to us. Can you explain a little bit of that background?

[2:55:50] So the state statute dictates that the period can be 25 years and it really

[2:55:58] does um tie back to

[2:56:03] um how the money is to be utilized to mitigate blight. And so in

[2:56:12] this situation um were were you asking about because they're they're very

[2:56:18] different situations. the the the Martin project versus the Hines project. Um, do

[2:56:24] you want me to elaborate on the 25 years, how it's used

[2:56:30] differently in the two projects? >> Yeah. Well, I guess I was just trying to

[2:56:34] understand why in this project it goes to the full 25 years, but in the Martin

[2:56:39] project, I believe it it cuts off or sunsets once that debt's paid off.

[2:56:44] » No, they're they're both for 25 years. >> They're both for 25 years. And so I then

[2:56:49] I guess the question is why do we go for the full 25 years and not the projected

[2:56:55] x amount of years to pay off the x amount of debt.

[2:56:59] Does that make sense? >> So um Harold, did you want to answer?

[2:57:04] Okay. >> Okay. So the the redevelopment agreement

[2:57:10] with the Hines project, it is aundred

[2:57:17] 20 um million dollar project. So there is no um

[2:57:25] repayment of debt. It's just contribution to expenses.

[2:57:32] And so the way the contribution is broken out, it's

[2:57:39] reimbursed over that 25 year period to get to that total amount of

[2:57:46] reimbursement. And how that is allocated is that

[2:57:54] because the the property taxes are generated on a yearly basis, the

[2:57:59] reimbursement then goes in a yearly basis to get to that total amount of

[2:58:06] those public improvements. Does that answer your question

[2:58:11] » somewhat? And and I think because you know I think the argument that this in

[2:58:16] in what we tell our constituents or like the explanation we give is we

[2:58:23] without tIF the project is not possible. >> Correct.

[2:58:27] » Right. >> Correct.

[2:58:29] » But in some of the situations it doesn't sound like that that argument stands.

[2:58:35] And so I just want to make sure that we're not just giving

[2:58:40] this the tax away that it is actually that reimbursement or filling in the gap

[2:58:47] but and and making sure like if it doesn't need to go to the 25 years then

[2:58:52] why do we go to the 25 years when we could be getting that back into maybe

[2:58:56] general fund or other things. And maybe I'm misunderstanding this um but I was

[2:59:00] just wanting some clarification on that and understanding. So on this one you

[2:59:04] have two different pieces. There's two caps that actually are in place. There

[2:59:08] is the total cap of the funding that goes into it and then there's the yearly

[2:59:13] cap of the funding. And so they're capped on a yearly basis at $600,000.

[2:59:19] » And then so if they generated $800,000 in increment, they only get $600,000.

[2:59:28] if they generate $400,000 in increment, they only get $400,000.

[2:59:36] So when you're running the cap to the full 25 years, that's projected, I

[2:59:40] believe, on the 600,000 for 25 years. So they have a maximum cap that they can

[2:59:47] get and then they have a yearly cap that they can get. So to get at your point,

[2:59:53] if they build it and all of a sudden it appraises at this and they're putting in

[2:59:56] 900,000, they only get 600,000 and then the remaining piece comes back

[3:00:02] into the urban renewal authority. Correct, Laura?

[3:00:05] » That is correct. >> And so then the urban renewal authority

[3:00:08] can invest it in areas adjacent to the property. So let's say theoretically

[3:00:14] we needed to put a new signal light at Hoverver and Nelson, the Urban Renewal

[3:00:19] Authority can contribute to that project or if there was um we talked about if

[3:00:26] there was a project at the fairgrounds, the Urban Renewal Authority could take

[3:00:30] because it's adjacent to the area, they could take anything that they get above

[3:00:35] that to participate in that project. So I think to answer your question, they're

[3:00:40] limited at 600,000 per year. And when you take the 600,000 per year over the

[3:00:45] 25 years, those two numbers align with each other. Now on the other side of the

[3:00:51] equation when you look at different projects

[3:00:54] if you're looking at urban renewal authorities to let's say we're trying to

[3:00:58] build a public project transit station for example we may be the ones that

[3:01:04] issue the debt to construct a transit station. So then that one's written in a

[3:01:10] way that if we incur debt and for some reason if we pay the debt off early then

[3:01:15] it stops. But that's related to debt that we're issuing. So they're two

[3:01:19] different agreements that are trying to accomplish two different things. Okay.

[3:01:24] » Did that answer your question? >> Yeah. You did a better job.

[3:01:27] » Yeah. No, it was and it gets really confusing and I guess the due diligence

[3:01:31] that I want to make sure is yes. like and I think Lura is almost one and the

[3:01:35] same with the city like it's a very close partnership and so just making

[3:01:39] sure that it's not just all going to Lura and the city's actually getting its

[3:01:43] tax back to put into our public fund so that we can pay for things that we need

[3:01:48] and and have the flexibility to pay for whatever and not necessarily hands tied

[3:01:53] to a specific area or project. So, >> and I think to that question, so think

[3:01:58] back last year when we were well, and it could be this year, we're not far enough

[3:02:02] into it. No, but when we were having sales and use tax issues. So, when you

[3:02:07] bring the sales and use tax that they're putting in as part of the permit fees,

[3:02:11] that's also adding a different source of revenue to the system. So if let's say

[3:02:18] that project happened last year, our gap in terms of sales and use tax may have

[3:02:24] been smaller because of the fees that they're paying as they're coming in.

[3:02:29] That is a tax. It's just a different form of a tax that comes into the

[3:02:34] system. >> Thank you.

[3:02:39] » Okay, Council Member Christ.

[3:02:48] Thank you, mayor. [sighs]

[3:02:53] So, I was one of those that sent you an email, but I was really just curious.

[3:02:57] Um, and one of my questions was, you know,

[3:03:00] how are we going to spend the extra money that's um about 3.3 million, you

[3:03:05] say that will be above what um Hines takes out of it? And I I just look at

[3:03:12] this as a big investment in the community because um basically what

[3:03:18] we're saying is that the um that we're going to keep the original

[3:03:23] property tax and you say as we begin to develop it that will actually double to

[3:03:28] be 13,000 a year. So >> that is correct.

[3:03:30] » That's a win right there. Correct. >> And then um

[3:03:36] we're going to save public safety time and excessive calls on in that area.

[3:03:42] Plus, we're also going to receive sales tax and I think you said $500,000

[3:03:48] to which will sales tax will go into the um public safety fund in that amount.

[3:03:54] So, we actually have more sales tax for the city, but the public safety portion

[3:03:58] of that would be about 500,000. So, that's another win. And and then um for

[3:04:04] those who weren't in the original meetings with Hines, I've got to say

[3:04:07] that this is a bit of an original project and that it has a wraparound

[3:04:11] garage, so the garage is safe and out outside influences can't come into that

[3:04:16] garage. It's five stories, so there's elevators and it's in an area where

[3:04:22] there's a lot of commercial activity, so it's very walkable. if you want to go to

[3:04:27] a restaurant, if you want to go to entertainment, if you want to go to the

[3:04:31] fairgrounds, if you want to catch a bus, um it it's quite a bit different than

[3:04:36] some of the slap and dash that we've been seeing that the community is

[3:04:39] concerned about. And I actually have had a lot of interest in that product

[3:04:45] already from the community. And so my big question is I've been tasked to ask

[3:04:50] is when are they going to break ground on this product?

[3:04:54] » They're hoping very soon. I mean, they were they were really hoping to um break

[3:05:01] ground as soon as they can. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um and my understanding

[3:05:06] of that extra um the extra money that will come back to

[3:05:11] Lura, we can reinvest in in more buildings, in more um assets that will

[3:05:19] also grow property tax and grow sales tax in those two areas. But it'll be up

[3:05:24] to the lura board. So we'll have we'll have influence as we go forward as to

[3:05:28] how's that how that is spent. >> That is correct.

[3:05:31] » Okay. All right. Well, I I'm in favor of this and thank you for being so patient

[3:05:35] and showing us once again what the plan is.

[3:05:39] » Thank you. Yeah, the plan and the process as well. Um, Council Member Cole

[3:05:43] Copper. >> Thank you, Mayor, and thanks for all the

[3:05:46] information. Um, so it's been a vacant site for a while. No, hardly any retail

[3:05:52] or large event company has shown interest in the site. It is a hard spot

[3:05:58] for retail in-n-out. So, I'm not surprised that there hasn't been much

[3:06:02] activity for that. Um, but no like Trader Joe's type of grocery, no no

[3:06:08] library branch that we've been working on could fit there. Like, what else

[3:06:13] could go there if it weren't this project?

[3:06:17] you know, those um access issues are are are really limiting and access is is

[3:06:25] bread and butter to these retailers and if they have any access issues at all,

[3:06:32] they will find another site with no access issues. And um retailers have

[3:06:39] have a formula. They know exactly how many cars per day, how many people

[3:06:43] within five miles, how many um they know exactly what they're looking

[3:06:49] for in a site and if they cannot find it in a site, they will look at another

[3:06:54] community, another state, another I mean they will look at at other sites. So, I

[3:07:01] I think the the access issues speak volumes.

[3:07:05] » And if we don't approve this, that doesn't mean that another apartment

[3:07:10] developer wouldn't come in and develop it anyway. They just might not get the

[3:07:15] tiff. Correct. That doesn't stop development from happening there is what

[3:07:19] I'm kind of asking. Is that correct? Um, I think potentially I think what you

[3:07:26] would get is if something were to occur is is probably not this type of product.

[3:07:32] Um, and it would probably be more of um suburban style simply because the the

[3:07:40] challenge in this is really the wrapped design in this. Um there hasn't been

[3:07:44] anything like that built in Longmont. And so the the underwriting on that

[3:07:49] project is what's creating certain issues, you know, and talking to Hines,

[3:07:54] they said we could underwrite this probably right away in Cherry Creek

[3:08:00] because that's what it's proven itself there. So behind it is the financing

[3:08:05] piece that that is part of the challenge in this. So could you get multif family?

[3:08:10] Yes. Could you get multif family that is designed like this that has elevators

[3:08:13] and other pieces? I think it's hard to say without the tiff because that really

[3:08:20] the financing is driving that issue. I think the other thing that we probably

[3:08:24] we didn't talk about in this is it's not just the land ownership on the Walmart

[3:08:28] site. It's the land ownership in the entire site because there are um

[3:08:36] covenants on um retail sites that you often see where certain tenants have

[3:08:43] certain rights um that can preempt the rights of the other property owners. And

[3:08:50] so in this case, when you think about Hobby Lobby in particular, it's

[3:08:53] sightelines, it's access, it's these other issues. And so I think that piece

[3:08:59] of the puzzle is also making the site very difficult which retail then becomes

[3:09:04] a problem because I don't know this agreement per se but I have seen other

[3:09:08] agreements where they also can say yay or nay to who comes in. Now on the

[3:09:14] retail front to Laura's point you know we can say we want this type of retail

[3:09:20] or we want this in the community. Um, kind of when I said earlier, tell you

[3:09:25] what you need to hear, not necessarily what you want to hear. [snorts]

[3:09:29] » Um, the reality in the retail world right now is that they have been under

[3:09:33] fire probably for the last 10 years. And their their decision making process is

[3:09:38] probably more refined than anything that I've seen in my career. And in most

[3:09:44] cases where people are bringing retail in uh in a lot of areas that are

[3:09:49] adjacent to us, they're actually having to participate in sales tax sharebacks

[3:09:53] in order to get the retail which from my perspective becomes dangerous because

[3:09:58] then what happens when it's not working and so it is a very competitive world

[3:10:05] and really the biggest problem with that site is access visibility to Hoover in

[3:10:11] terms of the building that's in front of it and you know what we're hearing is

[3:10:15] it's just not a desirable location right now for retail and we we've just seen

[3:10:21] the hit since I've been here we just kind of have seen what's happened in

[3:10:24] that location. >> Mayor, I'll be quick. Um what is our

[3:10:27] current vacancy rate in Longmont? Is it somewhere around five 6%.

[3:10:33] » I have that slide. I think um 3% >> 3%.

[3:10:39] » We saw that this morning, didn't we? We we [clears throat] saw we saw some

[3:10:43] information >> vacancy 3.4%

[3:10:45] um within uh the city of Longmont. This was from our from our housing people

[3:10:50] today. >> Okay. And um any ideas on what the rent

[3:10:54] price might be? >> No,

[3:10:57] » I do not know. >> No, that's fine. Um my concern is that

[3:11:01] there's not going to be affordable housing near transportation. I am for

[3:11:05] building um housing near transit because I think we need to move people

[3:11:10] efficiently with our transportation network and I'm I'm sad that there won't

[3:11:15] be any affordable units here because this is in a major transportation

[3:11:19] corridor and it's surrounded by um many shopping centers and I feel like sure

[3:11:25] we're getting money uh flu to to do something else somewhere else um but I I

[3:11:32] don't want to push people on the outskirts town where we don't have

[3:11:35] transportation to help them get to their jobs and their services. Um, this is to

[3:11:41] my core where I want uh density in transportation corridors, but I I I I'm

[3:11:48] really want to see affordability near these corridors. And

[3:11:55] I don't know where I stand. I'm conflicted. So, thank you. Okay.

[3:12:00] » Thank you. Oh, Council Member Popkin.

[3:12:06] Thank you, mayor. I'll try to keep it briefer than my other comments. Um,

[3:12:10] there there are a few things that I want to maybe set the record straight on

[3:12:13] here. Um, first, I I share Council Member Kalcott for uh struggle a little

[3:12:18] bit in terms of, you know, really trying to prioritize affordability along these

[3:12:21] corridors. What I will say though is housing supply in of itself increases

[3:12:27] affordability across the board. and you could subsidize something publicly in a

[3:12:32] specific area, but you know that actually dilutes the the market effect.

[3:12:37] And when we're thinking about a new zone in our first and main area and sugar

[3:12:41] mill and steam uh district, like that's where like all of these ideas, all of

[3:12:46] this passion and energy should really come to a head so that we can set up

[3:12:49] those zones for exactly the kinds of things we want around transit oriented

[3:12:52] development. This project is a particularly unique creature because

[3:12:56] it's correcting for some defects on this site, some blight conditions on this

[3:13:00] site. And when I think about what responsible growth looks like in this

[3:13:04] community, it is leveraging a site like this

[3:13:07] » because it is along, you know, the downside about it being along a major

[3:13:10] corridor is that it's visible, but the whole intention of it being along a

[3:13:14] major corridor like this is that it's transit accessible and business

[3:13:17] accessible. Walking, biking, taking the bus, and all of that, right? And so,

[3:13:23] What this does is it also pulls pressure off of existing neighborhoods. And I

[3:13:27] know this council hasn't seen some of those projects yet either come back or

[3:13:32] come through, but uh I know some of my my former my current colleagues who've

[3:13:36] been on the council for many years longer than myself have seen that

[3:13:39] wholeheartedly. And when you get those types of pressures, um it's a very

[3:13:43] different conversation. This pulls pressure off of existing neighborhoods

[3:13:47] and focuses on redeveloping, not developing, redeveloping sites that have

[3:13:51] been previously disturbed um and our public's health and safety hazards. Um

[3:13:56] and and I want to build on uh Council Member Chris's comments before. This

[3:14:00] really is an investment in Long and our region. redevelopment of this site. And

[3:14:04] Laura, correct me if any of these numbers are out of date, but as of uh

[3:14:08] end of last year, redevelopment of this site will generate an estimated $ 48

[3:14:12] million in just the first 25 years in local revenue to Longmont, Boulder

[3:14:16] County, and the school district. Money that would not exist otherwise. Um, and

[3:14:21] in fact, this actually includes approximately 11 million in city taxes,

[3:14:24] fees, and other revenue um that directly enhance and support our public safety

[3:14:30] and our core services. um and roughly 32 million in taxes in for uh the school

[3:14:36] district and and the county. Um this helps fund important services without

[3:14:40] raising taxes on current residents um or expanding development in farmland or

[3:14:45] existing neighborhoods. And and so this is particularly valuable when our

[3:14:49] budgets are tighter and when federal and state funding is limited. Um, this when

[3:14:54] when you think about the TIFF revenue, when you think about everything that's

[3:14:57] coming in and going out, it's roughly a 220% return on investment.

[3:15:03] » We're putting in 15 million through TIFF and we're getting about 48 million in

[3:15:07] regional revenue. I I I would love to see more projects

[3:15:11] that achieve that and that correct public safety and

[3:15:15] health hazards. I don't know where how often we're going to see those types of

[3:15:18] opportunities and from the where the risk is all borne by the private sector.

[3:15:23] It is such an opportunity for us and an opportunity to support the village of

[3:15:27] the peaks which when economic times get challenging. More foot traffic is so

[3:15:33] incredibly valuable to the strength of that um part of our community and those

[3:15:37] businesses that are there and the businesses that we hope to frequent on

[3:15:41] occasion when we when we need something or want to shop there. Um it really

[3:15:44] enhances that. The last thing I'll just say here is that I think this is truly

[3:15:48] responsible. >> Um before you do you have a question?

[3:15:51] You have about a minute and 20 seconds left. So

[3:15:54] » question are there any other mics on?

[3:15:57] » Uh yes there are. >> Okay.

[3:16:00] » Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Um

[3:16:02] » so I won't move the question then. Um yeah don't

[3:16:05] » this this is from my perspective and from all of the conversations I've had

[3:16:09] with residents. Responsible growth where growth makes sense for us. Um, it's not

[3:16:13] the dirtiest and dis most disgusting site in Longmont that's reserved for the

[3:16:17] sugar mill when if for when annexed, but like it is not a pretty site and it is a

[3:16:21] complicated site that impacts our other businesses and housing right nearby. And

[3:16:27] we have an opportunity before us. We have a partner who is actually trying to

[3:16:31] negotiate effectively with us and trying to build something that is uh creative

[3:16:35] and new for our community. Um, is it the perfect thing? Uh, probably not. But

[3:16:41] most projects aren't and we're do we have something that's really really good

[3:16:45] and a sound investment for our community. So I really really hope we

[3:16:48] set a clear precedent with this and say hey we want you to build on these types

[3:16:52] of sites because we got a whole lot more of those at first in Maine and in our

[3:16:55] sugar mill. >> Great. Thank you. Council member Marcen.

[3:17:00] » Thank you mayor. And I I want to say I appreciate council member Popkins points

[3:17:03] because I actually agree with him on a lot of it when it comes to this specific

[3:17:06] site. I think this site is appropriate for development like this. It's along a

[3:17:10] major corridor. It's near services. It's close to transit. Um, from a planning

[3:17:14] standpoint, I get it. Makes sense here. Um, I really wish this had come forward

[3:17:17] 5 years ago. Um because I I agree on virtually every point that Council

[3:17:22] Member Popkins raised with this specific project, but but I think we're talking

[3:17:26] about an area of the community that our residents are screaming at us about when

[3:17:32] it comes to the hundreds of highdensity rental units and highdensity apartments

[3:17:36] that have been added in this quarter mile area in the last 5 years. As a

[3:17:41] council member, I believe I have to take a broader view here. Um, I think at one

[3:17:44] point during the campaign, I heard almost everybody who was running um say

[3:17:49] that they would like to see prioritization for for sale units and

[3:17:52] fewer apartment developments. I do not believe I can honestly tell my

[3:17:57] community that I'm doing that and not voting for more apartments if I am in

[3:18:02] fact about to vote for more apartments. Um,

[3:18:06] our residents are screaming to slow this down a little bit and to be very

[3:18:11] thoughtful. I appreciate the project on its merits, but our community needs

[3:18:16] ownership opportunities. Our community needs chances for folks to put down

[3:18:20] roots, build equity, and see Longmont as their long-term home. When we invest

[3:18:26] publicly in redevelopment by approving a mechanism like this that's going to

[3:18:29] enable a development, I think it's fair to ask if we're advancing the right

[3:18:33] balance in our housing mix. And I don't think this does that. I don't think

[3:18:37] another 256 market rate and above market rate rental units with no affordable

[3:18:44] on-site units that this tiff will allow to be created is what our community is

[3:18:49] asking from us. Um so for that reason I'm not going to support the item

[3:18:53] tonight. >> Okay. Okay. Um Council Member Kuffford,

[3:18:56] I believe this will be your second time, correct?

[3:18:59] » That's correct. >> Okay.

[3:19:02] » Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Uh and I'll be quick. Um I did speak with um the

[3:19:07] management for uh village at the peaks and they have been having issues um with

[3:19:13] that area and I appreciate everything that everybody on this dasis has said

[3:19:18] tonight and I appreciate what council member Marging said. Yes, we have heard

[3:19:22] from our community almost all of us um that we we have too many rental

[3:19:28] apartments. Um, but I'm also looking at it from the opportunity of redeveloping

[3:19:34] this area that has caused our businesses at Village at the Peaks a lot of

[3:19:39] heartburn and that they're spending a a large amount of money because of the

[3:19:46] surrounding area is is a magnet to blight and we're we're having issues and

[3:19:53] I think we have an opportunity and it is a a very difficult decision that I'm

[3:19:58] going to be about creating more rental apartments.

[3:20:02] In my heart, I really want us to have for sale apartments that are affordable

[3:20:08] in transportation corridors. I believe this this site is appropriate for what

[3:20:13] we're doing. The apartments that are being built elsewhere are not in the

[3:20:17] areas where I am passionate for us to develop. Um so I I believe I'm going to

[3:20:22] be for this. >> Um thank you and thank you for the

[3:20:26] comments. I mean, yes, we do have to vote our heart on on these issues. For

[3:20:32] me, you know, this area has been a source of consternation, public safety

[3:20:36] activity. Um, you know, it is it has been a pain for the business owners in

[3:20:43] that area as well as the city itself, our public safety. Um, you know, and I

[3:20:48] think about the talk of rentals and all that. Well, guess what? I rent. and

[3:20:54] buying a home. You know, I you've known my situation over $200,000 in mental

[3:21:00] health, health care because of a broken system.

[3:21:05] Um there are people who are and the more I talk about it, the more people come to

[3:21:10] me and are in the same boat where they have great credit, they have money saved

[3:21:15] up, they cannot qualify. So, you know, we also need a place to

[3:21:20] go. And I think about um you know folks and friends that I have in the ID, the

[3:21:26] um individuals with developmental disabilities as well as um people with

[3:21:31] severe mental illness, you know, looking for places that they are close to

[3:21:37] commerce that they are not having to drive but they have easy accessibility

[3:21:41] to buses and transit. you know, I see this development in this location as a

[3:21:48] prime opportunity for people in that situation. So, you know, that's why

[3:21:52] moving forward with this, um, I look at other annexations that will be coming

[3:21:57] down our pike, other things that will be coming before us, and I'm going to look

[3:22:00] at them with more critical with a critical lens in the sense of are we do

[3:22:06] we want development out where there is no transit, where there isn't close

[3:22:10] close to businesses and economic development, and that we're tearing

[3:22:15] apart farmland or open space areas, you know. So those are those are areas that

[3:22:19] I'm looking with a critical eye and being cognizant. So this is about

[3:22:23] careful and smart planning. I understand it's it's condensed in this area, but it

[3:22:29] also allows opportunity for people who don't have access to vehicles to

[3:22:33] actually get to where they need to go. Um, and that's just what I've seen in my

[3:22:38] own personal experience in folks that I've I've worked with in the past. So,

[3:22:43] you know, I'm looking at it from a different lens as well. Um, Council

[3:22:47] Member Popkin, you've already spoken twice. Um, Council Member Prito,

[3:22:52] » just a quick uh question for Laura. Um, so I know not every development is the

[3:23:00] same. So, I'm going to ask this question. understanding that um in the

[3:23:04] past the public has come out and spoke against certain developments and we've

[3:23:10] seen developers come back with updated um

[3:23:17] plans um and how that development could look. What are the odds that that could

[3:23:23] happen here? Um, [clears throat]

[3:23:28] do you mean updating >> like the amount of units? They've

[3:23:33] lowered it, they've changed it from apartments to town homes, uh, different

[3:23:39] things like that. >> So, we worked um, extensively with them.

[3:23:44] Um part of our negotiations were included looking at their proforma and

[3:23:51] that we we needed to see that there was a gap and there was a but for and for us

[3:24:00] there was the gap with market rate and we asked about if they could add

[3:24:09] affordable units and they just couldn't make that pencil and

[3:24:18] in exchange they offered the one and a half times of the inclusionary housing

[3:24:24] fee. So that was their um offer

[3:24:32] to be a good community partner. And so because they could not build

[3:24:40] affordable units and make the proform work, um they offered that instead.

[3:24:47] » Okay. And I understand the affordable piece. I guess I'm just asking about

[3:24:52] like design. um you know why 250 apartments and not

[3:24:59] you know a certain amount of town homes or

[3:25:03] » so I think we we we did have that conversation and it really gets down to

[3:25:07] the proforma okay >> in terms of

[3:25:10] » when you and so now I'm going to put the housing authority hat on

[3:25:14] » okay >> so when you're looking at these projects

[3:25:17] and you're looking at the total construction cost you're also looking at

[3:25:21] what the rents are what the rents generate over time and and and the issue

[3:25:26] is they couldn't make it work financially.

[3:25:29] » Okay, >> we had them work scenarios where they

[3:25:31] did put affordable housing on it and some people have asked, well, why can't

[3:25:36] they put more money on the front end versus affordable housing units? It's

[3:25:40] because the rent structure out over the life of the loan

[3:25:44] » cost significantly more than if they put it on the front end. And so I I think

[3:25:50] that's really the issue. It it is a financial underwriting issue on this

[3:25:54] project. >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:25:56] » Okay. So, um let's go ahead and May I have a motion? Okay. So, council member

[3:26:04] um or I'm sorry, Mayor Prom is moved >> 9A.

[3:26:08] » Item 9A. Do I have a second? >> Um and council member Popkin has

[3:26:13] seconded it. Let's go ahead and vote.

[3:26:25] Okay,

[3:26:29] » it just says waiting. >> Um, it was um count uh mayor prom

[3:26:36] » and then Popkins seconded.

[3:26:46] Okay. Okay. And the item carries um 5 to2 with council members Marcen and

[3:26:50] Prito in opposition. Okay. Now we're on to item D. Amend rule 27 of city

[3:26:57] council's rules of procedure regarding board interviews. And that was also

[3:27:00] pulled by council member Marcen. >> Thank you mayor. Hi Don. Good to see

[3:27:06] you. >> Good evening.

[3:27:07] » Um do you have anything you want to say at the top or or just questions or

[3:27:10] thoughts or >> Good evening is all I've got.

[3:27:12] » Okay. Awesome. Um, I just wanted to I know it was a lot of sausage making last

[3:27:16] time and I just wanted to thank um folks for kind of the conversation that we had

[3:27:21] around this. Um, I I I pulled this because I wanted to just bring up a

[3:27:26] topic one more time for our consideration before we finalize our

[3:27:30] approval on this. And that is kind of this question that I continue to have

[3:27:35] about boards and echo chambers about you know we we have had this challenge that

[3:27:40] we discussed earlier tonight where very technical boards approve folks from

[3:27:45] within that circle and we don't often get the community impact or community

[3:27:49] input that maybe we as a council are looking for. So I do not want to remove

[3:27:54] boards from the interview process. I actually really appreciate and desire

[3:27:58] the the the place that that that boards have in that process. I think where we

[3:28:02] wound up in the the interview panel, I actually think that's a good outcome.

[3:28:05] The one thing that I'm still struggling with personally, I want to vote for

[3:28:08] this. I am still struggling with the notion of formal recommendations uh

[3:28:13] being provided um by members of the board. I'm still struggling with that

[3:28:18] and a number of my council teammates have rightly reminded me that we are not

[3:28:22] obligated >> uh to vote for recommended candidates.

[3:28:25] That is true >> but I don't believe that our written

[3:28:28] rules should necessarily rely on our studiousness or on individual vigilance.

[3:28:33] Right? So good governance is about safe rails and structure so that authority

[3:28:37] accountability remain clear regardless of who sits in these seats 101 15 years

[3:28:42] from now. So what I don't want to see happen is a situation where we get

[3:28:46] ourselves into another issue because we've created yet another echo chamber

[3:28:50] because boards are able to firmly recommend and then future councils

[3:28:54] perhaps rubber stamp those recommendations. So I'm going to I'm

[3:28:57] going to take a shot at this. Um I have an amendment that deals with three lines

[3:29:03] » in this and I've sh I've shared it with staff. Um section

[3:29:07] » uh it is section it's rule 27F >> and then um rule 27 F2.

[3:29:14] So and I shared this with staff so I think they have a copy. It's actually an

[3:29:17] amendment that's kind of in three parts, but what it would do is essentially

[3:29:21] eliminate and this is the discussion is like is the formal recommendations piece

[3:29:26] is is so that it would strike um this amendment that I shared with staff would

[3:29:32] strike the phrase and provide a written recommendation to council.

[3:29:36] » It would strike the phrase but final recommendation shall be made by the

[3:29:40] board as a whole. And then it strikes um all applicants and interview materials

[3:29:45] for EL oh sorry it adds doesn't strike it adds the following subsection excuse

[3:29:49] me um it adds a subsection that says essentially all applicants and interview

[3:29:54] materials for all eligible applicants including interview recordings score

[3:29:58] sheets or other documentation shall be forwarded to city council but the board

[3:30:02] shall not make a formal recommendation and um I would entertain a second for

[3:30:07] discussion at least second. Thank you, Mayor Prom. I appreciate it. Um,

[3:30:13] » could I add one one thought to your motion, Council Member

[3:30:17] » Marcing? Thank you. I did note one other spot that we we overlooked.

[3:30:21] » Okay. >> It's 27F.

[3:30:25] » Um, does it the towards the end of there it says together with written

[3:30:30] recommendation from the board. >> Yeah.

[3:30:32] » So, I would just >> I would take that as just to just to

[3:30:35] have the conversation. So, um I I believe

[3:30:41] that council as the appointing authority should be clear and unambiguous in how

[3:30:46] we approach this conversation. Um I love that boards are going to help evaluate

[3:30:51] these candidates. I love that we've empowered them to take that process on

[3:30:54] fully and to ask the questions and develop the the the feedback that they

[3:30:59] want to bring. But if I really believe if we want to avoid some of the

[3:31:03] challenges we have had um in this recent period, the one of the better ways to do

[3:31:09] that is to make sure that council is the ultimate appointing authority is is the

[3:31:13] only frankly appointing authority and not the board itself. That would also

[3:31:17] return us to the norm that existed prior to that rules of procedure change.

[3:31:21] Something that council has done in the past consistently. So that is the the

[3:31:26] motion that that I have the amendment.

[3:31:30] » Council member Christ.

[3:31:35] » Uh well this is perhaps the right time to bring it up is I have another

[3:31:39] adjustment. Um for let's see section F number three. It was my

[3:31:49] understanding that we would the um video would be available to all of council and

[3:31:55] so I was going to add or change the language in number three to be um be

[3:32:02] recorded with video and audio that is made available for council review

[3:32:08] » and strike whenever possible. >> And strike whenever possible.

[3:32:11] » Mayor Mayor has a point of parliamentary procedure here.

[3:32:14] » Yeah, I know. I think we probably need to wait.

[3:32:16] » Yes. Yeah. But that is why I had my light on. Okay. So, we can do it

[3:32:19] separately. >> Okay. Well, let's just speak to the um

[3:32:22] » the motion council member. Yes. Got it. >> Yeah. Thank you.

[3:32:26] » I generally agree with what you're saying, councelor Marsing.

[3:32:29] » Okay. So, um did you have any comments to what he said?

[3:32:32] » Yeah. I'm just saying I generally agree with

[3:32:34] » generally agree. Okay. So before um I'm going to kick it back to council member

[3:32:39] Marcine >> because it did look like you were not

[3:32:43] done with your amendments or are you done?

[3:32:46] » I was just going to I was going to do a separate amendment that does exactly

[3:32:49] what council member Chris just talked about because I caught that as well.

[3:32:53] » Okay. So um Don, would you like for us to vote on these separately or as a

[3:32:58] unit? >> I think

[3:33:00] » we're saying separately. >> Okay. Well, hold on. I'm going to ask D

[3:33:03] on [laughter] your she's large and in charge.

[3:33:05] » We we have um the wording and council member Marcing was kind enough to email

[3:33:11] and we have discussed that. So I think if you if we approach that one first.

[3:33:14] » Okay. >> And then any additional after that?

[3:33:16] » We will do it afterwards. >> Y thank you.

[3:33:20] » Okay. And then council member Popkin, do you have a um question on the amendments

[3:33:25] that council member Marcen has presented?

[3:33:29] Yeah. Not so much a question as a comment, but discussing that specific

[3:33:33] amendment. Yes. >> Okay.

[3:33:36] » Okay. Um I I appreciate the spirit of what council member Marcing is coming at

[3:33:40] with this. I think we actually had this conversation somewhat at length at the

[3:33:44] the last time we discussed these rules and procedures. And I I worry that we

[3:33:48] are in in our quest already to re reapproach

[3:33:53] one of the the perhaps uh boards most in question of why we're making some of

[3:33:58] these changes. I worry that we're overcorrecting here and disempowering

[3:34:01] our all of the other boards that are really putting in their time and spirit

[3:34:05] and to council member PTO's comment earlier today that are volunteering

[3:34:09] their time and energy and passion um for for uh service to our community and

[3:34:15] city. Um, so I I I don't think uh council member Marc is intending to

[3:34:20] disempower anyone here and I think he's just trying to kind of put in some

[3:34:22] guardrails which is commendable but I don't think they are necessary and I

[3:34:26] think the guardrail that we put in place by having the council liaison be part of

[3:34:30] the interview process for each of these is a new is an update and a guardrail in

[3:34:36] of itself to some of the very concerns that council member Mars adequately and

[3:34:40] aptly um has raised. So I think we actually addressed some of that. I I

[3:34:45] worry about disempowering a board on an advisory

[3:34:49] role anyway when we are truly the beall endall decision maker on who gets

[3:34:54] appointed. That's all I have to say. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, do we have

[3:34:59] any comments, questions, or are we ready to vote on amending the language?

[3:35:08] Okay. So, the motion was made to amend rule 27

[3:35:16] section F. I think that was the only >> F2 and I think

[3:35:21] » F. Yep. F2. >> F5

[3:35:24] » and F5 and F5 >> and add F6

[3:35:27] » and add an F6. Um, okay. And the motion was made by Council Member Marcy,

[3:35:32] seconded by Council Member McCoy. Let's go ahead and vote.

[3:35:42] Okay. And that carries 5 to2 with council members Popkin and Prietto in

[3:35:48] opposition. And then um go ahead. I think did you have a

[3:35:54] second >> motion? Council member.

[3:36:00] » Okay. Um Council Member Chris, go ahead. So I would move that we [sighs]

[3:36:09] change the text on section F3 to read be recorded with video and audio

[3:36:19] that is made available for council review and I did send this text to

[3:36:25] Michelle. >> Okay. Um do we have a a second on that

[3:36:30] amendment? >> Clarifying question. Um, okay. Well,

[3:36:34] I'll second it and then let's open it up for discussion.

[3:36:39] Um, and um, Mayor Pro. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, [snorts] Council

[3:36:45] Member, uh, Christ. Um, there are occasions where things don't work, and

[3:36:52] that's my concern. It's not that I don't completely agree with you on this. I

[3:36:57] mean, we've got uh that, but occasionally, you know, once in a while

[3:37:02] we see it here at council where something doesn't go right. Correct,

[3:37:06] Dallas? And uh and uh and you can talk to Sergio at Longmont Public Media would

[3:37:14] also agree it's a little bit beyond their control. Uh I kind of felt like

[3:37:20] that was the intention of of this. It wasn't like they were going to be like,

[3:37:25] "Hey, this week we're not going to do it." It's it's like if something goes

[3:37:30] wrong, u you know, then we we wouldn't be uh in violation of our

[3:37:38] own ordinance sort of thing is my only thinking. And

[3:37:42] it's not that I don't see your point. I do. I think it's a very valid point. But

[3:37:48] it uh uh and I think most of them all are. But then we just also went into

[3:37:53] this thing of how we are contractually agree working with Longmont Public Media

[3:37:59] who does a lot of this recording and it's not I don't do this part. Okay. Um

[3:38:07] » because I'm trying to think. Okay. So >> it wouldn't have an effect on that.

[3:38:12] Okay. I just didn't didn't want to be one of those situations where it's like

[3:38:16] someone's sick, didn't get the to this board or commission to record that.

[3:38:21] » Sometimes things don't work. You are absolutely correct, Mayor Prom.

[3:38:25] » And I guess maybe if there's some sort of way of of not having us in violation

[3:38:31] if if something doesn't go right, I I'd like that to be

[3:38:37] considered. >> Okay. Might I ask a question of council

[3:38:40] member Marcing? >> My laptop died.

[3:38:43] » Otherwise, I'd look at this. >> Could you read the additional wording

[3:38:47] section six that we >> Do you have that in front?

[3:38:50] » Yeah, I do. >> I I my thinking was that that covers the

[3:38:55] addition that >> the one we passed a second ago?

[3:38:57] » Yep. >> Okay. What you had and this um

[3:39:02] related to this tech issue or related to the one we just passed, right? that all

[3:39:06] what you we just passed >> all application all applications and

[3:39:10] interview materials for all eligible applicants including interview

[3:39:13] recordings score sheets or other documentation shall be forwarded to city

[3:39:17] council but the board shall not make a formal recommendation

[3:39:20] » and if I >> and that includes interview recordings

[3:39:23] » and it says recordings I thought we added recordings there so I was

[3:39:26] wondering if that did not >> cover the motion you're trying to make

[3:39:30] here or >> maybe maybe council sorry is it okay

[3:39:33] mayor if I because this was going to be my if I'm recognized or no.

[3:39:36] » So, um, you're still recognized. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah. I just had a

[3:39:39] question for council member Chris. I wonder if we could

[3:39:42] » uh Yeah, go ahead. >> potentially make this simpler and just

[3:39:44] strike whenever possible. >> So, do you have a friendly amendment for

[3:39:49] that? >> Yeah, a friendly I if you would accept

[3:39:51] that as a as an amendment to strike whenever possible from 27F-3.

[3:39:56] So, we just take out that whenever possible language so that the clear

[3:39:59] intent of the policy is that >> be recorded with video and audio.

[3:40:03] » Yep. Yeah. Okay. >> Yes, I would agree with that amendment.

[3:40:10] » Okay. So, we have an open >> motion to amend

[3:40:17] um F3 and strike the language whenever

[3:40:22] possible. Okay. So, seeing no one else in the

[3:40:26] queue, let's go ahead and vote.

[3:40:33] And I had seconded it yet. >> Okay, there we go.

[3:40:41] » Okay. And that carries unanimously. And now we're on to actually the main,

[3:40:46] right? or is it >> so because it's consent agenda so just

[3:40:51] like a procedural question do we need to vote

[3:40:55] on item D as it stand >> to approve the amend the changes to

[3:41:01] council rule of procedure as amended >> as amended yes

[3:41:04] » as advisable yes item D as

[3:41:08] » as amended >> as amended second okay so I heard him

[3:41:12] like a hair hair second sooner so Um the motion to approve um amend the amendment

[3:41:20] to rule 27 with amendments has been made by Mayor Prom McCoy and seconded by

[3:41:26] council member Marcine. Um did you have one more quickly?

[3:41:30] » Oh yeah. >> Thank you mayor. I just wanted to thank

[3:41:32] this council for a lot of sausage making that's gone on here and we have proven

[3:41:37] we're very bad at that. But I actually think we got to a really I no I think we

[3:41:40] got to a really good place here where the boards remain empowered to carry out

[3:41:44] this process and provide input and we are enforcing accountability. I

[3:41:49] appreciated council member Popkins thoughts last time around around um

[3:41:52] board process. So I just I was I'm I I want to just thank everybody for working

[3:41:57] through it because I I know editing lines and language is not always easy.

[3:42:01] So I just wanted to thank my council teammates.

[3:42:04] » Thank you. Um, Council Member Popkin, and then we'll vote.

[3:42:08] » Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate the discussion, too. I think

[3:42:11] these were some uh good conversations tonight. Um, I think we have a problem,

[3:42:16] and before we vote on this, I wanted to flag it here. Here is where I understand

[3:42:20] the process is now. We are now asking boards to do all the work, to review all

[3:42:27] the applications, to come up with the interview questions, to do the

[3:42:30] interviews that are recorded, and then to synthesize information for us. but

[3:42:34] not to offer any recommendations. >> Yeah.

[3:42:37] » And that gives us just their information from doing all of the work. We've cut

[3:42:42] out, we intentionally cut out our role in this process from interviewing them

[3:42:45] last time for efficiency and because we thought we were going to have the

[3:42:48] council leaison kind of oversee some of this just to make sure that there wasn't

[3:42:51] any funny business. And and now we're in a situation where they're doing all the

[3:42:56] work but don't have actually a voice in this. And I think we've created a

[3:43:00] problem for ourselves. And that doesn't sit well with me. I I I'm I'm not sure

[3:43:03] how to solve this because we just voted on an amendment there and um and

[3:43:10] it just it just we're we're trying to respect and attract and recruit more

[3:43:14] volunteers from different parts of our community and now we're in a predicament

[3:43:18] where we're stripping them of their say of who is working with them on

[3:43:24] these boards. I I appreciate council member Marcing's concern about an echo

[3:43:28] chamber, but we've seen to my knowledge like one instance of that, maybe two in

[3:43:32] like the last decade. And if if if that is a bigger problem than I

[3:43:38] know about, please correct me. But um I think we're actually addressing the meat

[3:43:43] of it with some of the separate work that we're doing. And I think we're

[3:43:46] creating a situation where our current board members don't actually have a

[3:43:50] voice in this. So, honestly, I love so many of the changes we just made to this

[3:43:54] process, but I don't like where I don't like what the sausage is going to taste

[3:43:57] like now. And and so, I'm going to have to vote against this because I think it

[3:44:02] doesn't actually it doesn't help the board members help advise us best. And

[3:44:07] that's literally like their intent. So, that's all I have to say. I think we

[3:44:12] real problem. Um, so I do want to, you know, I think about I've been on council

[3:44:16] since we made the change from the council doing the interviews to the

[3:44:20] process that we are now changing. So we do have that option to see is this

[3:44:26] working? Is this is this the best format or do we need to go back come back in a

[3:44:32] year and re-evaluate this? Um, I am I feel all right with the changes we've

[3:44:39] made. Um, but I would like, you know, let's let's see how this how this plays

[3:44:44] out because we know the system we were working with did not work. The first few

[3:44:50] months that we did it, I gave it a chance to see that it would work and I

[3:44:55] you know coming in with an open mind and um you know it was a couple of rounds of

[3:45:00] interviews and then we realized okay this is not

[3:45:05] it's not working for us and it's causing more of a a consternation than than a

[3:45:09] resolution. So um I'm gonna go ahead and pass it to Council Member Prito and

[3:45:15] you've spoken twice. >> Spoken once.

[3:45:16] » You've spoken once on this. Okay. So, I'll give it to you and then Brito.

[3:45:23] » Okay. >> Oh, no. It was Yeah, he was the next

[3:45:26] one. >> Oh. Oh, thank you. Yeah. I just wanted

[3:45:28] to respond to Council Member Popkins point, which is

[3:45:31] » well taken. I I I I just strongly disagree that we're not, you know, that

[3:45:36] we're just asking boards to do all our work and then not empowering them.

[3:45:38] There's nothing in here that says that they can't that, you know, they shape

[3:45:42] the questions. They shape the feedback that we receive. they they shape all but

[3:45:47] a formal recommendation. That's the only thing in the code that we've changed is

[3:45:51] is to say, you know, we're not going to get on our packets anymore the big

[3:45:54] bolded name that says this is the person the board says you should choose. Um I

[3:45:59] don't see that as the board doing all of our work. I think it is up to us as

[3:46:02] individual council members to do our due diligence to provide and review the

[3:46:06] resources that these boards are going to give us and to make good choices that

[3:46:10] ensure that the community is well represented where council remains the

[3:46:14] appointing authority um rather than the the the rather than I think where yeah

[3:46:20] I'll leave it there. >> Great. Thank you council member Pietto.

[3:46:24] » Um so I'm going to just I'm agreeing with Matthew here. Um,

[3:46:30] council member Marc, I just came off of a board

[3:46:34] » and there were nights I was thinking like

[3:46:39] I'm putting all this time and effort in [laughter]

[3:46:42] and and and there were times where like I felt like, you know, is is my voice

[3:46:48] valued even as just a recommendation and then

[3:46:52] we're taking that away from them. [laughter]

[3:46:55] And that's and those were real conversations that I had with my

[3:46:58] husband, with um family just around like my expertise, the time that I'm putting

[3:47:04] in. Um you know, I I came we did applications, we screened applications,

[3:47:10] it was extra time. And so I'm 100% in agreement with Matthew here.

[3:47:16] Again, I'm I'm coming from somebody who served on a board most recently for the

[3:47:21] last I don't know 3, four years. um having felt like even you know in some

[3:47:27] of the language like even how they would put it just like it is just a

[3:47:31] recommendation like you guys don't you know even some of that language felt

[3:47:35] kind of like okay well then then can I be utilizing my time somewhere else

[3:47:39] where I feel maybe I have more impact and say and so you know I know it

[3:47:45] doesn't seem like that to you um council member Marcen but it very much is that

[3:47:50] um and I and I and I can't speak for all board members and neither can you,

[3:47:56] right? You can only speak from your perspective. But what I can say as a

[3:48:01] board member is I felt like that many times where I questioned my value on

[3:48:05] that board and whether it could be, you know, I could be utilized somewhere

[3:48:09] else. And so I'm going to be denying this. Um I feel like the recommendation

[3:48:14] piece is huge. I just argued with mayor pro [laughter]

[3:48:20] about the voting and the say and member, you know, with the the the board

[3:48:25] appointment because it is that much it is that important to me as a person

[3:48:29] [snorts] to have a say to know that my voice is heard to know that the time and

[3:48:34] effort that I'm putting in is actually going toward

[3:48:37] it's moving something even if it is just a recommendation. And so I just want you

[3:48:43] to understand it from that aspect and I'm hoping the other council members see

[3:48:46] it from that perspective as well. Hear it from someone who just served on a

[3:48:50] board for a really long time. Hear it from someone who put that time in and

[3:48:53] and vote against this as well. So >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:48:56] » And just a last note, we're dissolving the airport board. Yeah.

[3:49:00] » So I don't I don't know why the extra and additional changes are being made at

[3:49:05] all. >> Thank you. Um, I think it was looking at

[3:49:09] the process of a as a whole, not necessarily one one board. Council

[3:49:13] member uh Kulkoffer. >> Thank you, mayor, and uh thank you,

[3:49:17] fellow council members. Um, there's a lot of great debates tonight and my mind

[3:49:22] is uh spinning a lot and for one minute I think I I know where I stand and then

[3:49:28] somebody else speaks and then I'm kind of on shaky ground again. Um, I also

[3:49:31] just came off of a board and we recently did interviews and you're right, it was

[3:49:37] empowering and I felt proud to do the recommendation. Um, but I don't know the

[3:49:44] boards would still do >> the ranking and provide their input.

[3:49:50] Correct. They're just not formally saying, "Hey, these are the people."

[3:49:54] » So, they are still ranking it and ranking the candidates. and we can see

[3:50:00] where they're leaning towards >> to say like, hey, like this person we

[3:50:05] think is a strong fit. They're just not formally highlighting names to say these

[3:50:09] are the people we want you to select. >> But how do you say that? So, I I think

[3:50:14] what what my understanding was, and I'm going to interject in here, my

[3:50:18] understanding is when that cover letter comes to us, and correct me if I'm

[3:50:23] wrong, but that they would have a list of, you know, all the applicants that

[3:50:28] they interviewed with, you know, first, second, third, fourth in that order.

[3:50:34] » What clarification like >> that? Hold on, hold on. So, I'm going to

[3:50:38] let Don answer first and then I'll come back to you. hold on to your

[3:50:41] certification. >> Thank you, mayor. Think the way I

[3:50:44] understood that kind of in my mind, how I was seeing that was we would give you

[3:50:48] all of the materials. Yes. >> And there would no longer be a cover

[3:50:51] letter. >> Okay.

[3:50:53] » That that recommendation sheet goes away.

[3:50:56] » Um but you would get the application, the recordings, the score sheet, and and

[3:51:02] of course your recommendation from your >> leazison who participated as well. um

[3:51:07] and and use that information to arrive at your conclusion.

[3:51:11] » Okay. >> You would still get in your packet the

[3:51:13] list of vacancies. Yes. >> And the list of applicants and and

[3:51:17] notations that Michelle does about >> if somebody's applied for two different

[3:51:21] seats or, you know, if they're a returning applicant, those kinds of

[3:51:25] things. >> Those kinds of things would still

[3:51:26] provide that. >> Yes.

[3:51:27] » But the the letter from the board that says we recommend Bob.

[3:51:31] » Yeah. >> Okay. So I I guess I was thinking and I

[3:51:35] don't know if maybe it got lost in the conversation because I think of our

[3:51:39] conversations were pretty >> pretty heavy but I thought there would

[3:51:42] be just a list of you know we've interviewed these people and then just

[3:51:46] have their in order all the way from the beginning to the end. Um,

[3:51:52] » okay. >> So,

[3:51:55] » now, yes. Um, Council Member Popkin, >> I guess I'm trying to understand where

[3:51:59] where we are, and it builds on what you were just getting at, mayor. Like,

[3:52:02] » my understanding is there was no recommendation made on candidates from

[3:52:06] the board. That was the language that was voted on before as an amendment. A

[3:52:11] ranking to my mind would constitute a recommendation. And so I wanted to

[3:52:15] understand is that like what is I think Don just clarified it maybe but just for

[3:52:20] for the entire council's clarity here is there a ranking that's provided is there

[3:52:24] any normative judgment that is made through this process based on the

[3:52:27] current language >> sorry not

[3:52:31] » so

[3:52:34] » yeah I thought that there was a but isn't there a rubric that they fill out

[3:52:38] like I'm going back to when we did our when we took over doing all the board

[3:52:43] appointments We actually had a rubric that had the rankings. So, will we be

[3:52:48] able to see those? >> You would get all of the materials that

[3:52:50] that were used when they interviewed. Right. Okay. So, the the rules say rule

[3:52:54] F5 says talks about scoring sheets. >> Yes.

[3:52:57] » So, there would be scoring sheets. >> It's just it's not going to be laid out

[3:53:02] that but we can analyze. Oh, they rank this individual higher

[3:53:07] » and issues with this >> and then they Yeah. So, we would be able

[3:53:11] to see the notes that they took. >> Correct. like an interview pro I sort of

[3:53:15] view you all as HR in the interview process. Yes.

[3:53:18] » Where we're required to give you all the things we used. Okay. To interview those

[3:53:21] applicants. >> I guess that's where that ranking piece

[3:53:24] came to me. It would be coming from the scoring sheet. So we would be able to

[3:53:28] see how the inter interview interviewers ranked the interviewees. Yes. The

[3:53:34] applicants. So then we can >> be an analysis. It wouldn't be an

[3:53:40] recommendation letter or anything like that. It would just be the raw tool.

[3:53:43] » The raw tool. Okay. Um so, Council Member Prietto and then um Popkin,

[3:53:49] » just a quick comment. Um >> so,

[3:53:53] so they don't provide recommendations to us for board appointments, but they

[3:53:58] provide recommendations on everything else

[3:54:02] like applica like funding like so I just served on housing human services,

[3:54:08] » right? and then they they recommend these are the agencies

[3:54:13] we fund. So >> So we're saying you can recommend

[3:54:17] » everything else but you can't recommend board appointments. So I just wanted to

[3:54:22] point that out. >> That is a good point. two.

[3:54:24] » Yeah. um

[3:54:25] » gota give credit where credit is due >> as far as um

[3:54:30] » the the verbiage like so if it is not a rec I want my council members who are

[3:54:36] for this to say that in a sentence to a board member without sounding

[3:54:42] demeaning like I don't know how how would you how

[3:54:46] would you say so we're going to have you guys do the interviews this is the

[3:54:52] process and then you're going going to rank people and then we'll send it to

[3:54:56] council is that like so just so I'm just trying to also think of like the

[3:55:01] language of how we're going to explain that to board how staff leaison are

[3:55:06] supposed to explain that without seeming you know taking that power or seeming

[3:55:11] demeaning but I just wanted to raise those two points is how is that going to

[3:55:14] sound in a sentence and if they're able to recommend everything else to us why

[3:55:18] are we taking their power to recommend an appointment um and I would like to

[3:55:25] vote no on this and move along. [laughter]

[3:55:27] » Okay. So, um very good. Yeah. Um Council Member Popkin, is this your second time?

[3:55:36] » This will be your third time. Yeah. >> On this topic. No, I think

[3:55:40] » Well, no, not on this the final, not the final in the amendments. Go ahead.

[3:55:45] » This is this is quick. Just building on what council member Prito was just

[3:55:48] saying. Um, now I'm understanding this to mean they are scoring individual

[3:55:53] applicants but somehow just not providing a summary of how they scored.

[3:55:58] Like I is that where we are at now that they are using a rubric to score

[3:56:03] applicants and now just not saying well here's the list of how they scored in

[3:56:07] this order. Like is that is that what we're being handed? I am now very

[3:56:10] confused as to what we're getting of information and how it is materially

[3:56:15] different from a a scoring and a recommendation or or from an overall

[3:56:19] recommendation and and it just it feels like we're trying to solve a problem

[3:56:25] that does not exist consistently across the board pun intended.

[3:56:29] » Thank you. Um uh Mayor Prom >> I have Thank you, Mayor. I absolutely

[3:56:34] disagree that it's you there's this perception that uh uh it's not across

[3:56:39] the board in many boards and commissions it it is the case and what you're having

[3:56:45] with some of these boards um is uh where they all rank them and then

[3:56:53] they all come together and say well these are the top two that we want and

[3:56:59] that's the ranking opposed to just having the people that interview them,

[3:57:03] score them, and uh and when they're done, uh the board doesn't give a

[3:57:09] recommendation uh at all. It's just uh you can look at

[3:57:13] their scoring from an individual point of view, the the council leazison and

[3:57:19] maybe two uh other members of the board. But what was happening is even though in

[3:57:25] some cases we never saw the real ranking part of it, we just saw the end result

[3:57:30] of the the uh of the board's recommendation. Often times that was a

[3:57:36] uh a recommendation that uh uh may have or may not have been consistent with uh

[3:57:45] with high uh high you know evaluation scoring. So, and I really want to make

[3:57:52] it very clear there's some sort of bizarre thing going on here that you

[3:57:56] there's folks thinking that somehow uh this one isolated situation

[3:58:03] is somehow going to be some sort of cascading waterfall of change of all

[3:58:09] kinds of boards which is absolutely positively unequivocally not the case at

[3:58:14] all. We have a situation where we had to take

[3:58:19] something in hand and I just am really shocked and surprised that people can't

[3:58:24] grasp that that we absolutely had to take a situation uh with the board in

[3:58:29] hand. We're not doing that across the board with anything else and it's not

[3:58:34] the sort of uh uh situation where we're uh you know picking winners and losers.

[3:58:41] We had a situation that had been decades in the making. Decades. Not just not

[3:58:48] just a one meeting, one sort of one off. It was decades in the making. And and

[3:58:55] I'm tired of hearing it's somehow acting like this is some sort of universal

[3:58:59] thing because that is just a disconnect with reality.

[3:59:02] » Okay. Thank you. I'm going to call the question. I feel like we've people have

[3:59:06] made up their minds. Um and we're going to go ahead and vote.

[3:59:26] Okay. And so the motion carries um four to three with council members Christrist

[3:59:31] um Popkin and Prito in opposition. Okay. So now we're moving on to

[3:59:38] general business. Um, let's see. Citizen initiated land

[3:59:44] development code text amendment referral to allow contractor shop to be a

[3:59:49] permitted use within the mixeduse employment MUE zoning district and a

[3:59:54] conditional secondary use within the neighborhood professional employment NP

[4:00:00] zoning district. Uh, thank you for your patience.

[4:00:20] Good evening, council members. My name is Nathan Jones and I'm one of the

[4:00:23] principal planners with the planning and development services department. As you

[4:00:26] mentioned, the first item that I'll be presenting this evening is a citizen

[4:00:29] initiated code amendment uh to land development code regarding contractor

[4:00:33] shops.

[4:00:38] Uh by way of background, city staff met with the applicant in September of 2025.

[4:00:43] So last fall, we met with the applicant uh to discuss um generally contractor

[4:00:48] shops, where they're allowed by right, um what rules and regulations uh go into

[4:00:54] um adding new contractor shops in other parts of town. Um the applicant

[4:00:58] expressed some interest um in uh expanding that use and um better

[4:01:03] understanding the process to uh amend the land development code uh to again to

[4:01:08] allow the use to be allowed in different zoning districts. Um as we'll discuss a

[4:01:14] little bit more uh further on in this presentation, the uh use is only is it

[4:01:18] it's considered a conditional use um in only one zoning district, the mixed use

[4:01:22] employment zoning district. Um and we also walk the applicant through the text

[4:01:27] amendment um process. The land development code allows private parties

[4:01:31] to initiate um LDC text amendments. The first process in that is a referral. Um

[4:01:36] so an applicant will first submit an application for referral that will be

[4:01:39] forwarded on to the city council. The city council will then direct staff to

[4:01:44] um use uh city resources to uh review the request, develop a recommendation,

[4:01:49] uh take it through any uh boards and commissions that need to take a look at

[4:01:53] it uh and then bring it back to city council for ultimate approval. Um so

[4:01:57] after we met with the applicant, uh they submitted a formal request to begin

[4:02:02] these proceedings in October of last year. Uh due to the timing of um the

[4:02:06] application being submitted, uh we made the determination to wait till the

[4:02:10] earliest available uh council meeting in the new year. Uh and so that brings us

[4:02:14] to this e this item this evening.

[4:02:19] Uh to summarize the request, it's fairly straightforward. Um, it is to allow

[4:02:23] contractor shops as a permitted use in the mixeduse employment zoning district

[4:02:26] and to add it as a conditional secondary use within the non-residential primary

[4:02:31] uh uh employment zoning district. Uh, land development code does have existing

[4:02:37] language related to contractor shops. Contractor shops are defined as an

[4:02:41] establishment that provides a trade service including but not limited to

[4:02:44] plumbing, carpentry, glass glazing, welding, sheet metal, electrical and

[4:02:48] roofing surface services. The term contractor shop includes construction uh

[4:02:53] contractor's offices. As I mentioned earlier, um it's only allowed as a

[4:02:58] conditional use in one zoning district that is the mixeduse employment zoning

[4:03:01] district. It does include two use specific standards. Uh the first use

[4:03:05] specific standard is related to um any property that's adjacent to um

[4:03:10] city-owned greenways. Uh this standard applies to many of the different uses in

[4:03:14] the land development code and it's not particularly relevant to this case. The

[4:03:18] second standard does relate to outdoor storage. Um, and it uh includes some

[4:03:23] additional regulations uh related to the height, size, and location of outdoor

[4:03:27] storage for contractor shops. And that's really what um gets us into the

[4:03:31] differences between a contractor's shop versus other um office uses. Um due to

[4:03:36] the type of trades that are uh defined as part of a contractor's shops, those

[4:03:41] trades oftentimes need um additional outdoor storage uh to store um equipment

[4:03:46] and materials uh sometimes fleet vehicles. Um so there are uh some visual

[4:03:52] and noise impacts that are associated um with the contractor's jobs that makes it

[4:03:56] a little bit more intense of a use um than a standard office use. Um when the

[4:04:03] land development code was adopted in 2018 and the mixeduse employment zoning

[4:04:07] district was established, it was established to uh provide a mix of

[4:04:11] various types of non-residential and residential uses so that they could um

[4:04:16] kind of coexist and uh create this whole mixeduse um approach. Um as part of

[4:04:22] that, the contractor's shop was allowed as a was included in that zoning

[4:04:27] district as a as a conditional use. Uh the mixed use zoning district allows for

[4:04:31] two different types of residential uses. It allows for single family attached. So

[4:04:35] that's your standard uh townhouse style development. It also allows for multif

[4:04:39] family which can be um stacked forplexes or up to your uh standard uh apartment

[4:04:45] complex. Um the mix zoning district if you look at a map of the zoning

[4:04:49] districts across town um are primarily located along um industrial older

[4:04:55] industrial corridors. There are some areas where um the MUE zoning district

[4:04:59] is immediately adjacent to residential single family zoning districts as well.

[4:05:04] Um and again so the conditional use piece here um is considered a major

[4:05:09] development application under the land development code. Um major development

[4:05:13] applications including this are uh ultimately decided by the planning and

[4:05:17] zoning commission. It allows the planning and zoning commission to uh

[4:05:21] look at cases or uh proposals on a case- by case basis and on a siteby-sight

[4:05:26] basis to um add different conditions uh to the use to try to mitigate the impact

[4:05:32] uh that could potentially arise if it is an immediate uh adjacency to other

[4:05:37] quoteunquote non-compatible or incompatible uses such as uh different

[4:05:41] residential type uses. Um so that's the existing code language as of today.

[4:05:47] Um, which brings us to our council options and the staff recommendation.

[4:05:51] Um, the first recommend the first option is to direct staff to proceed with an

[4:05:56] amendment to the land development code regarding contractor shops. The second

[4:05:59] option is [snorts] uh to direct work to cease uh direct staff to cease work on

[4:06:04] any future amendments related to uh the request as I outlined uh here on this

[4:06:09] slide and um go through in the staff report. staff is recommending at this

[4:06:13] time not to move forward with um with the request. Um standard as part of our

[4:06:18] typical process when a referral is made uh we do not um go into very much detail

[4:06:24] in ter of a detailed analysis in terms of potential future impacts of what the

[4:06:29] change could include. Uh so we have not fully vetted or uh researched the item.

[4:06:35] However, at a very high level, we have identified some concerns. I was kind of

[4:06:38] hinting at it earlier when I was talking about the type the impact and the

[4:06:42] intensity of contractor shops and the adjacency um to residential development

[4:06:48] uh in the MUE zoning district. There are some concerns that we have about

[4:06:52] allowing it um as a permitted by right use versus a conditional use.

[4:06:57] » [snorts] >> Um, as part of any uh future uh if the

[4:07:01] staff or if council were to direct staff to move forward with the request, um we

[4:07:05] would need to analyze the code, try to identify any conflicts that could arise

[4:07:10] throughout the code uh if we were to change the table of allowed uses to

[4:07:14] allow um these two uses. We would need to make sure that everything aligns

[4:07:18] appropriately. And then we would want to um do some level of stakeholder

[4:07:21] engagement uh where we could go talk to members of the community uh both

[4:07:25] residential neighbors and members of the business community to try to figure out

[4:07:29] where they are with uh requests such as this whether or not they support it or

[4:07:32] have additional concerns. Uh we would then take all that information uh

[4:07:37] develop our own recommendation that would go to planning and zoning

[4:07:40] commission. Um they would then vote on a recommendation which would be forwarded

[4:07:44] on to you all um as the final decision-making body. So without having

[4:07:48] any prior direction from city council on this item, um we are recommending at

[4:07:52] this time not to move forward with this request. That does conclude my

[4:07:56] presentation. I tried to keep it short and sweet. Um however, the applicant

[4:07:59] does have a quick presentation as well. They are here. Um they will be available

[4:08:03] to answer any questions on a technical level. I can address any questions that

[4:08:07] you may have about our recommendation as well. So I'll hand it over to uh the

[4:08:11] applicant at this time. >> Okay. Can we hold questions until after

[4:08:14] the second presentation? Okay. Just keep your keep your mics on.

[4:08:23] » Hello. Thanks so much for hearing me out. Longtime listener, first- time

[4:08:28] caller. My name is Annie Lner and um I'll talk while he's working on the

[4:08:32] presentation. You guys see this presentation in your screens? Okay,

[4:08:35] cool. Um yeah, so I'm a resident of Longmont. I'm a commercial broker, so I

[4:08:39] work on sales and leasing deals with landlords and tenants.

[4:08:43] » Um >> which one is it?

[4:08:44] » That one. >> Sorry, this one.

[4:08:50] Um, sorry, I don't want to fuss too much with it. And, um, in my work in

[4:08:55] particular, I represent a lot of small business owners as tenants. So, um,

[4:09:01] first off, I guess I want to just Yeah, thank you so much.

[4:09:05] One, two, three. Just this is what I use. Sorry. No, I don't know how to use

[4:09:10] this. Um, I want to acknowledge the planning

[4:09:13] staff. Um, I understand why the recommendation is to not move forward at

[4:09:17] this time. What I'm asking for does require some staff resources and um

[4:09:22] without clear direction or prioritization from council, maintaining

[4:09:26] the status quo is reasonable from a staff workload perspective. This is not

[4:09:30] about criticizing staff and what they do. They work really hard and we

[4:09:33] appreciate it. Um, but what I am here to do is report from the field on how our

[4:09:38] land use code adversely impacts our community in practice.

[4:09:42] So, as you each know, um, the zoning district allows certain uses, and Nathan

[4:09:47] did a good job explaining that. So, that's to say the type of business that

[4:09:51] you operate, your use, right? So, like a storage warehouse, a retail shop, or a

[4:09:55] gym has has different uses that are categorized by our land use code. So,

[4:10:00] you have to put your business where the underlying zoning code allows you to

[4:10:04] operate. Even if a building you like makes perfect sense for your business,

[4:10:09] if the zoning doesn't work, you can't be there. When it comes to commercial uses

[4:10:13] and especially industrial uses, mixeduse employment is the most permissive zoning

[4:10:18] district in Longmont. It allows many different uses by right like R&D

[4:10:23] companies, office users as was mentioned and um certain light manufacturing, but

[4:10:29] mixeduse employment, which he mentioned is a mixeduse zone um zoning district,

[4:10:34] is the only one where we can do any of the industrial type of uses. We don't

[4:10:37] really have industrial zoning in Longmont anymore. So we are left with

[4:10:41] these mixed use areas where all of those heavier uses have to try to find space

[4:10:46] and be compliant with some of the use standards. So uh my application mentions

[4:10:51] two zoning districts. Uh but I especially want to focus on mixed use

[4:10:53] employment. That's the the bigger my bigger bugaboo. Um and the other one

[4:10:58] that was mentioned is there's an error in the executive summary. It's uh

[4:11:00] non-residential primary employment. Maybe I'll come back for another day to

[4:11:03] talk about that one because it's fun. But um if you look at the zoning map

[4:11:06] that I have in front of you, mixeduse employment is the light gray areas

[4:11:10] mostly clustered around um areas around like Weaver Park Road out by the Sugar

[4:11:15] Mill kind of out there. And then in central Longmont uh near Ken Pratt and

[4:11:20] like Sherman in that area and um those those are the ones that especially have

[4:11:25] a lot of the um higher concentration of multi-tenant flex industrial buildings.

[4:11:31] Some of these other areas that you see farther out are newer and have bigger

[4:11:35] spaces that maybe are better for like R&D and some of the adv advanced manu

[4:11:40] manufacturing, excuse me. So the smaller, more affordable and older

[4:11:45] industrial flex spaces are concentrated in those big areas that have kind of

[4:11:48] circled. Um that is also in industrial uh leasing and sales. That's the

[4:11:53] tightest segment of the market. That's where we see the lowest vacancies and so

[4:11:58] it's really competitive. It's hard to find these small spaces in multi-tenant

[4:12:02] flex spaces um where a lot of our small businesses go into and I'll get into

[4:12:06] that in a minute. Um so I don't know how to switch this. There we go. Um if you

[4:12:11] look at our table of allowable uses right here, this is our land use code.

[4:12:14] the use category, contractor's shop, which I didn't define, but it's

[4:12:18] basically HVAC companies, plumbers, electricians, the guys that are coming

[4:12:24] in at 2 a.m. and fixing your burst pipes, um are allowed in one district.

[4:12:29] You can see it there, one district. And in that, they are not allowed by right.

[4:12:33] Um, as Nathan pointed out, um, they are to be allowed there and to be compliant,

[4:12:39] notably, they must complete a conditional use review before they

[4:12:44] occupy the space. So, what I'm requesting is that we amend the code to

[4:12:48] allow that use by right rather than by conditional use review. So, just a

[4:12:53] little bit easier to go occupy space in these areas. And here's why I think this

[4:12:57] is justified. I have five points and I'm going to try to go through them fast.

[4:13:00] The current process as it is creates timing barriers that are incompatible

[4:13:04] with small business leasing realities. So most small contractors are likely to

[4:13:10] lease a space not purchase. Once they actually identify a space with the right

[4:13:14] zoning that's actually affordable and that is small enough they have to

[4:13:17] negotiate lease terms before pursuing even getting to pursuing this uh

[4:13:21] conditional use approval. And the reason they do it, the reason we do it that in

[4:13:25] that order where we start with lease term negotiation before we get to

[4:13:28] conditional use approval is because the application for the conditional review

[4:13:32] involves a lot of hard costs like site plans, documentation, and professional

[4:13:37] services that you have to hire. You don't want to spend more money on a

[4:13:40] space before you have even come to terms on your deal. And also, it's of note

[4:13:45] that landlords in these very competitive markets, in these competitive spaces,

[4:13:48] are not going to hold a space off market for you for two to four months while you

[4:13:52] go and try to do your conditional use review. So, as a result, many tenants

[4:13:56] lose the space before they can even be secured.

[4:14:00] Two, conditional use review is processed as a major development application. I

[4:14:05] know this has been kind of thrown around. It came up earlier in the public

[4:14:07] comment and it came up uh before. So, this is a big deal. This is This is the

[4:14:12] » I apologize. I'm gonna have to interrupt for procedural.

[4:14:15] » Oh, shoot. Sorry. >> Um, go ahead. Um, Council Member Marcen.

[4:14:21] » Thank you, Mayor. Not your fault at all, Annie. We just have your fault at all.

[4:14:23] » No, you're all good. I move that we extend the meeting beyond 11:00.

[4:14:27] » Okay. So, the motion has been made to extend the meeting past 11. We do.

[4:14:32] Otherwise, we're we're shutting everything down. Yeah.

[4:14:34] » Um and it so it was moved by council member Marcy and seconded by um council

[4:14:40] member Kulkuffer. All those in favor or let's vote.

[4:14:46] » Please vote no. We can do that. >> Please vote no this time.

[4:14:51] » Okay. That carries unanimously. We have extended past 11. Go ahead.

[4:14:55] » Sure. Sure. Okay. So, uh it's really important to understand why this is such

[4:14:59] a big deal. major development application. Um, even when no site

[4:15:03] changes are proposed, the conditional use review application follows the same

[4:15:07] procedural framework used for reszonings and annexations, really big projects

[4:15:12] that take a really long time to do. Now, in theory, we should be able to move it

[4:15:16] through faster, but that's not really happen sometimes in practice, especially

[4:15:20] for these small contractors, which is where I'm focusing today, who are

[4:15:24] leasing 1,500 to 3,000 foot spaces. This level of process creates uncertainty in

[4:15:30] time, cost, and outcome that most cannot absorb.

[4:15:34] So, as the real life example, as you heard from a um a public comment

[4:15:38] earlier, I also included here an application submitt. This is for a

[4:15:43] recent conditional use review that we did. Um that was Sentinel Property

[4:15:47] Management, Corey Cash, who you heard from earlier. He's sophisticated and

[4:15:50] knows what he's doing, but he was trying to lease a space on Weaver Park Road.

[4:15:53] So, out there in MUE, they were looking to subleasase a space out there. uh to

[4:15:57] stage their operations. It was already a very complex deal that took months, I'm

[4:16:02] not kidding you, months to negotiate. And then we learned that Sentinel as a

[4:16:06] property manager is considered contractor shop. That was a little bit

[4:16:09] of an oversight on the early end of things. And um but we were just kind of

[4:16:12] surprised and they needed a conditional review. So after everything had been

[4:16:16] teed up um between three parties, CFOs, brokers, attorneys, architects, all

[4:16:21] kinds of people all over the country, we had to step into a conditional use

[4:16:25] review at that point. Um most people might have just gone under the radar and

[4:16:29] not done it, but he had permitting to do and everything else. And so, you know,

[4:16:32] you got to you got to follow the rules. Happy to. The only reason that it did

[4:16:36] not fall apart is because Sentinel is sophisticated and they can handle the

[4:16:39] process and they can hire architects and they can deal with everything that was

[4:16:42] required. So, I just wanted to show you in my presentation here.

[4:16:46] Boom. Uh, this is this is his checklist. This is a checklist for a conditional

[4:16:51] use review for no site plan changes just to occupy the space. I'm just going to

[4:16:56] kind of go through some of this. Alta survey, mineral rights disposition,

[4:17:01] ownership and property incumbences report, statement of expected utility

[4:17:05] needs, wastewater classification survey, concept design, it keeps going. All of

[4:17:10] those check marks are required. legal description. That seems pretty easy.

[4:17:15] Here we go. Some more fun things. Phasing plan.

[4:17:21] This is This is all real. This is his application checklist just to go in and

[4:17:24] occupy space and make no changes. He was doing internal changes only, interior

[4:17:28] changes only. So, uh yeah, I wanted to just point that out. No outside storage.

[4:17:32] So, there was no impacts on the outside and there were no changes to the site

[4:17:35] plan. It took us four months from the first inquiry to our PNZ conditional

[4:17:40] approval. So this lease that we all had teed up ready to sign had to just sit

[4:17:46] there. We all just had to wait. We had to hold it from giving an option to

[4:17:50] anyone else in the market to lease it. And we did it because it just we had to

[4:17:53] at that point. But that's a unique anomaly situation. This deal should have

[4:17:58] fallen apart and it would fall apart in most normal situations.

[4:18:02] Okay, moving on. Um, hang on. I want to make sure I didn't

[4:18:07] miss anything. I didn't. Mixed use employment already, this is a really big

[4:18:12] point, already allows for several potentially more intensive uses by

[4:18:16] Wright. Um, uses like vehicle repair, bars, and nightclubs, and large recycle

[4:18:23] collection facilities are already permitted by Wright in MUE. You could

[4:18:26] argue those have some pretty significant impacts, as was spoken to earlier, um,

[4:18:31] on all of our potential, you know, residential uses in in the same zoning

[4:18:35] district. So meanwhile, a small electrician or plumber shop triggers

[4:18:40] discretionary review. This raises the question for me of proportionality

[4:18:44] between actual impact and just procedural burden on our small

[4:18:48] businesses. Number four, residential adjacency concerns can be addressed

[4:18:53] through objective standards. And what I mean by that is if the concern here is

[4:18:57] outdoor storage and screening and noise and vehicle counts, hours of operation,

[4:19:02] etc., These impacts can be managed through clear performance and use

[4:19:06] standards rather than a full discretionary review process. So all I

[4:19:09] mean is that we can be there by right. We can have a P with an asterisk and say

[4:19:13] there's a bunch of use standards that you have to adhere to, but you can still

[4:19:17] go occupy it without having to do a major development application, which is

[4:19:21] significant and you saw the checklist for that. Like no small plumber is able

[4:19:25] to do that. It's just not a possibility. It's not a reality.

[4:19:29] Um yeah, my last point there is that it

[4:19:33] would just help protect the nearby neighborhoods while providing

[4:19:36] predictability for our small businesses. Finally, um let's talk about the broader

[4:19:41] economic concern. And I think I've kind of said this, but I'll just drive it

[4:19:43] home that the large well- capitalized companies can navigate these extended

[4:19:47] review timelines. And we saw it happen with Sentinel. That was the exception.

[4:19:51] And he's not even that big. I mean, he's a totally locally bred, you know,

[4:19:56] business, but small local contractors often cannot. What I see in my

[4:20:00] day-to-day is that the structure of the code unintentionally favors large users

[4:20:04] and disadvantages the small trades businesses that serve our community

[4:20:07] daily. If we design our design zoning in a way that prioritizes R&D, tech, clean

[4:20:13] manufacturing, but we make it difficult for the very trades people who build the

[4:20:18] homes that those jobs create and who wire those R&D spaces and who fix the

[4:20:22] infrastructure to operate here, we will hollow out the ecosystem that makes our

[4:20:26] city function. These are not fringe uses. They're the businesses that

[4:20:30] sponsor little league teams and that employ local residents. They respond at

[4:20:35] 2 am when you need them. And if they can't find space here, they will go

[4:20:38] elsewhere. And I'm watching it happen. We lose them to neighboring markets

[4:20:42] where the red tape is less thick. Happens all the time. And almost

[4:20:47] happened with Corey. So my request is not to remove guard rails, but to

[4:20:50] explore whether contractor shops in mixeduse employment could be permitted

[4:20:54] by right subject to this defined um performance and use standards. And I

[4:20:58] think this would better align with actual impact and reduce some of

[4:21:02] unnecessary barriers for uh local small businesses. So, I really hope you'll

[4:21:06] consider directing staff to work on this. I think it's a priority and really

[4:21:10] important and a bit of an oversight in our maybe not even an oversight, but in

[4:21:15] 2026, I see it as a problem in our land use code.

[4:21:18] » All right, I'm done. >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:21:20] » Yeah. Um, Council Member Prito,

[4:21:24] » I don't I don't even know why that's on, but I'll talk. I'll talk.

[4:21:27] » Yeah, go for it. >> No, I think that you drove home a really

[4:21:30] a lot of good points. Um um my husband, he's a handyman and and

[4:21:36] he's one of the small tradesmen and I live next to a small business who

[4:21:41] unfortunately is trying to grow. They're very successful, but they're having

[4:21:45] difficulty finding another space to be in. So, I hear your argument and we

[4:21:52] don't want to cause businesses not to be able to grow

[4:21:56] and and move into bigger spaces or uh meet their needs and and contribute to

[4:22:02] our little economy here. So, um I am going to

[4:22:07] » Yeah. And I was going to say maybe this will help jog your memory because you

[4:22:11] had your name in the queue from the staff presentation as well. So, I don't

[4:22:15] know if it was something in regard to that or is it gone? That's okay. You did

[4:22:19] such a great job, by the way. I was like, "Way to drive it home."

[4:22:24] » Um, you could have stopped midway and and I was sold.

[4:22:27] » Um, I I am for it. I know I'm a little bit I was a little bit hesitant coming

[4:22:33] in as far as taking off the conditional use. Um, but with some of the points

[4:22:39] that you brought for other um, businesses being able to come in by

[4:22:44] right, I think that's a really good point. Um, and also as far as the uh NPE

[4:22:51] conditional secondary use, I'm also I'm also interested in looking into that as

[4:22:57] well. >> Um, because I feel like

[4:23:00] » district >> sometimes you get companies that go into

[4:23:02] big spaces and could lease a small piece of it to maybe a plumber or an

[4:23:08] electrician or a handyman. And so I think if we're wanting to really help

[4:23:12] our small businesses here, uh, we really have to put our money where our mouth

[4:23:16] is. So I'm going to be for this and yeah, thank you for your presentation.

[4:23:22] » Yeah, thank you. Um, Council Member Coloffer,

[4:23:26] » thank you for the for the presentation. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I am all for this

[4:23:30] almost everywhere except for where uh residential meets these these areas. Um,

[4:23:36] I do want us to be business friendly. Um, I want us to make sure that

[4:23:39] businesses want to come here and operate here, but I want to make sure that if we

[4:23:43] do move forward with this, that those conditions have weight to them. Um,

[4:23:49] because, you know, we are affecting a bunch of residents on some of these

[4:23:54] edges. >> And I want to make sure that there's

[4:23:56] teeth to these so you're not affecting quality of life of our residents. We

[4:24:01] have two jobs here, residents and businesses. M

[4:24:04] » and I want to make sure that we're protecting our residents but also

[4:24:08] promoting uh being businessfriendly because I've been talking to a lot of

[4:24:12] businesses lately and not not because of us but because of outside influences as

[4:24:17] well death by a thousand cuts and I want to make sure that we make it as easy to

[4:24:24] open a business in Longmont um that we can make it at the same time protecting

[4:24:30] the quality of life for the folks who live next to a shop.

[4:24:34] » Um, so I don't know what we could do to make sure that those conditions have

[4:24:40] teeth. >> Um, and I'm I'm for it if if if that is

[4:24:44] the case. Um, but I don't want to have a shop that is, you know, doing CNC, um,

[4:24:49] that is vibrating everything and causing, you know, neighbors to have

[4:24:55] noise complaints like we're having with the airport or somewhere else. I want to

[4:24:59] make sure that we're protecting our residents as well. So I don't know if

[4:25:02] staff can help me with that and if the conditions would protect residents as

[4:25:07] well and if they are if the business is violating something you know what would

[4:25:12] happen.

[4:25:15] You >> go first.

[4:25:16] » Okay. Um so I guess I should take a step back also and explain next steps. So uh

[4:25:22] if the council directs us to move forward with this uh we will review um

[4:25:26] the pros and cons of uh your deci what will ultimately be your decision. Um

[4:25:31] there is a review fee associated or there's an application fee associated

[4:25:35] with this. So I believe the review fee is about $850. The applicant would have

[4:25:39] to um pay the review fee to initiate the formal application. Um and then we would

[4:25:46] begin the process of actually picking apart um all the different questions and

[4:25:51] issues that you've raised. I think um at a high level again uh there are some

[4:25:55] pros and cons. It is only allowed in one zoning district. it is a uh only allowed

[4:25:59] as a conditional use. Um there are some pros and cons associated with that. Um

[4:26:05] and I think as staff goes through the review process, we would uh identify

[4:26:09] appropriate use specific standards that could potentially apply. Um we would

[4:26:14] then propose those to the to the planning and zoning commission. Um

[4:26:19] and ultimately we may go through this whole review process and still come back

[4:26:22] and say uh we still recommend uh denial of the request or we could come back and

[4:26:28] after engaging with the members of the community and actually researching this

[4:26:32] a little bit more in detail maybe we can find ways to uh address our staff

[4:26:36] concerns. Um, a big part of our job here is to present you all with the

[4:26:41] information that you need to be able to make a determination and to at least

[4:26:44] give you a starting point, to be able to set the policy and then we will um, you

[4:26:49] know, we'll provide you with recommended language or conditions or standards that

[4:26:53] can get you to where you want to ultimately be. Um but again without

[4:26:57] having prior specific direction on this particular issue and then looking at our

[4:27:02] um list of to-do items uh both from the planning zoning commission and the city

[4:27:06] council over the next year. Uh we were concerned about timing and staff

[4:27:10] capacity. Um um so that's kind of where we where we structured or where we

[4:27:15] landed with our with our recommendation. So

[4:27:19] » yeah, I think the answers that you're asking for will

[4:27:23] come with the process. And I think the piece on this from a

[4:27:29] staff capacity is, you know, they obviously talked about all the issues in

[4:27:34] front of us. And so I think from a council standpoint, you know, there will

[4:27:38] have to be some prioritization in terms of what do we move forward on, what do

[4:27:44] we not move forward on? And so I think the challenge

[4:27:49] if council directs us to do this, I think the question is going to be when

[4:27:53] do you want it? And then how do we adjust other priorities?

[4:27:57] » Yeah, >> that's really the crux of the issue.

[4:27:59] » Mhm. Okay. Um, Council Member Marcy, >> thank you, Mayor, and thank you for

[4:28:05] that, Harold. I I I know we all up here appreciate the work that staff is doing

[4:28:09] and trying to balance the the competing priorities often that change um somewhat

[4:28:13] suddenly. Uh, so I I'm sympathetic to that. I also think as as policy makers,

[4:28:18] at least as a policy maker, the thought I have is how do we support our small

[4:28:23] business community and how do we make it easier for long for longers who want to

[4:28:26] work for want to thrive here and open up businesses here for that to happen. So,

[4:28:29] um I I do have some questions just generally for staff. First of all,

[4:28:33] Annie, great job. Big fan of the podcast. Thanks for being here. Um just

[4:28:37] to be clear, you know, moving option one tonight

[4:28:42] doesn't approve it. doesn't you know we're going [snorts] to go through the

[4:28:45] process and and it directs staff to do that just to be totally clear. Okay.

[4:28:49] » Um what and I know you walked through it a bit in your presentation some of the

[4:28:52] general idea but what are the major specific impacts that staff is most

[4:28:57] concerned about. >> Um I think again just the uh outdoor

[4:29:01] storage piece. Um again the type of outdoor storage and I think the example

[4:29:05] was given about a CNC machine. Um technology is changing. There's a lot of

[4:29:09] different trades now uh that are diff a lot of different uses as Annie pointed

[4:29:13] out that could be um included or captured under that uh contractor shop

[4:29:18] definition. Um we would need to you know we would want to look into all of that

[4:29:22] but um I think at a high level it is the outdoor storage piece, it is the uh

[4:29:27] vehicle and fleet maintenance piece. Um that's all kind of captured also within

[4:29:31] the outdoor storage and it's the adjacency uh to existing established

[4:29:36] residential neighborhoods. um those are primarily as as I pointed out in the

[4:29:40] presentation if you take a look at the zoning map the majority of the MUE

[4:29:44] zoning districts are within our more established industrial corridors.

[4:29:47] However, there are areas where especially around um around the St.

[4:29:52] Brain Creek area where um it was intentionally zoned MUE with the ability

[4:29:58] to have additional residential uses in there uh with an eye towards future

[4:30:02] redevelopment of those areas. And so, um, again, when you take a look at all

[4:30:06] the different types of uses that are permitted, um, we would just want to

[4:30:09] make sure, again, that there's no conflicts. I think if we were to move

[4:30:12] forward with this, we would end up recommending use specific standards

[4:30:16] related uh to try to heavily mitigate some of those impacts. Um, but that's

[4:30:21] yeah, I think those are the main concerns.

[4:30:22] » Thank you. I I I think I personally would like to see those youth specific

[4:30:26] standards and where that winds up from from a planning perspective and have

[4:30:29] that conversation. So, I'm actually gonna go ahead and make a motion. Mayor,

[4:30:32] if it's in order or you have other folks, Last I looked, there was nobody

[4:30:35] in the queue. Yeah, cool. They're all here. Uh, Council Member Popkin.

[4:30:42] » Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, I >> and and thank you, Annie, for a

[4:30:48] thoughtful presentation after midnight. Oh, nope. Sorry, after 11. Sorry, I'm on

[4:30:51] central time. Um the uh I I appreciate [clears throat] the the thoughtfulness

[4:30:56] and and how you broke down the different issues because I think sometimes we hear

[4:30:59] about challenges facing small businesses but can't always put like a name to what

[4:31:03] the actual issue in the process is. And so I think you did an excellent job of

[4:31:06] breaking that down. Um I I I heard from Nathan and from Harold a little bit

[4:31:11] about kind of capacity issues and timing. And I'm just was curious if um

[4:31:17] either either of you or anyone else on staff could speak a little bit more to

[4:31:20] the broader to-do list and kind of how this fits into staff capacity.

[4:31:25] » I'm not in a hurry. >> No, Annie, you don't have to. [laughter]

[4:31:30] » Take all the time you want. >> So we have

[4:31:33] » So there's there's going to be a few of us that jump into this. So

[4:31:36] » Okay, >> Grant, why don't you start with

[4:31:40] » Sure. Good evening. Grant Penland Planning and Development Services

[4:31:42] Director um reticent to give any specific timing etc. But uh of course

[4:31:48] there's a lot of projects that I think council is aware of um both that have

[4:31:52] been you know discussed previously um and otherwise and I think shortly you'll

[4:31:56] see kind of the the broader work plans that we've put together. Um you know

[4:32:02] typically we would look at a pro process like this and expect that with uh

[4:32:07] community engagement you know 6 nmonth overall process uh depends on the amount

[4:32:13] of research etc that we'd have to do. Um so as Harold indicated the expectation

[4:32:18] is we probably have to shift some things around in order to you know get back in

[4:32:23] front of council if you said you know you want to see it quarter two or

[4:32:26] quarter three versus the end of the year.

[4:32:29] » Okay. >> Yeah. I think that's

[4:32:30] » that's really the issue. I think I've said it before is if you if you put an

[4:32:34] aggressive timeline, we're shifting things. But if we have more time where

[4:32:41] we can kind of step back and evaluate workload and figure out how we fit it in

[4:32:45] it, that's an easier process for us to go through. So when we talk about what

[4:32:50] are the issues in front of us, um obviously council's directed the MUIR

[4:32:55] work that we're doing. we have the the first and main work that we're doing.

[4:33:01] Um, you know, there have been conversations, you know, we talked about

[4:33:05] it earlier, sugar mill and and so it's when you think of the broader scope

[4:33:10] because in that the planning department's heavily involved in all of

[4:33:14] those projects. So I think the answer is if you tell us we want to do it, we want

[4:33:19] to do it second quarter, third quarter, we're we're shifting priorities and and

[4:33:25] I will tell you there's a challenge if we have time to work through this. I

[4:33:29] think it's easier for us to move through it and then make sure we're not missing

[4:33:34] that community involvement piece because where this could go south just for

[4:33:39] everyone is if we're trying to compress it in a too tight of a time frame and we

[4:33:43] miss the involvement component of this and that's where the unintended

[4:33:49] consequences start slipping to some of your questions. Have we thought about

[4:33:53] where is you know where are the conflicts? What do we need to do? So,

[4:33:56] it's really about more if you want us to do this, how quickly you want us to do

[4:34:01] it will drive the answer to the capacity question.

[4:34:07] » Thank you. Um, Annie, a question for you. Is there a specific timeline that

[4:34:12] you were hoping for here or did you were you coming here really to flag a kind of

[4:34:16] increasing attention for your clients? >> Yeah, I work I work with planning

[4:34:21] through these things and I know how long they take. So, I buckled up for the long

[4:34:25] haul. But case in point, this is exactly why we want to kind of make some of

[4:34:29] these things like let's put some rules in place and then take some of the

[4:34:32] burden off of planning so they can focus on things that are more important and

[4:34:35] not be doing these reviews. >> Yeah. No, thank you for that. Okay. Um,

[4:34:40] I'm not going to make a motion because I don't know what the Q looks like, but I

[4:34:42] have a suggestion here for this group, which is we have a retreat in a month

[4:34:47] and that's partly where we're going to talk about a number of priorities and

[4:34:50] we're going to talk about um kind of some of the other goals and and ideas

[4:34:55] and frankly I have a few thoughts on other potential code or zoning updates

[4:34:59] we can make that are adjustments and I've emailed staff about them, but again

[4:35:03] that takes time and so maybe there's a little batch uh situation we can like a

[4:35:07] little bit of a a minor uh planning main uh code update package that we can put

[4:35:12] together um that pulls a few of these together possibly in more of the spring

[4:35:15] if we have a sense of our priorities after retreat and some of the bigger

[4:35:19] things that we were just talking about might have more clarity on in two months

[4:35:23] versus right now. So my suggestion I'm not making a motion right now because I

[4:35:26] don't know who else wants to speak >> there's still others. Yeah, my

[4:35:29] suggestion would be maybe that we table this until uh either like the end of

[4:35:33] April or the beginning of May um when we have a clearer sense of some of our

[4:35:36] priorities and how this fits in and how we can maybe do this efficiently as a

[4:35:39] package. >> Okay. Um Council Member Christ.

[4:35:44] » Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Miss Lner, and thank you, um

[4:35:49] Mr. Jones Meyer. Uh it seems to me that um making things more efficient would

[4:35:57] ultimately help the planning department and having you know people having to

[4:36:01] come in and and go through this long process to get into an MUE pos um

[4:36:09] um zoned facility seems like um seems like it's

[4:36:15] as much a burden on staff as it might be on the on the um business owner. And I

[4:36:20] very much appreciate um Miss Larnner, you bringing this information to our

[4:36:25] attention in a way that we need to support businesses and we're always

[4:36:30] wondering how can we be better at that. So thank you for bringing that to our

[4:36:34] attention. I I just want to point out when we're talking about um time frames,

[4:36:39] if we're talking six months, that puts us out to August. So, you also have to

[4:36:43] be considerate of, you know, when would people be looking for new places to set

[4:36:48] up their business and it would probably probably most likely be easiest for them

[4:36:52] in the summer. Um, and that maybe sometimes when you have a

[4:36:58] task list, if you do the I don't want to say the easiest, but the thing that you

[4:37:02] can accomplish fastest first, it clears the road for a lot of other

[4:37:07] bigger projects, which I know I know what those big projects are, and they're

[4:37:11] going to take a while. So um so I would be in favor of uh option

[4:37:18] number one u to bring it back with uh an amendment. I think probably

[4:37:26] the complexity here is with the use standards as we're talking about, you

[4:37:30] know, how do we how do we deal with residential areas? Probably I'm just

[4:37:36] throwing this out because I don't know the jargon, but a setback of some kind

[4:37:40] might be useful when it comes to setbacks from residential, setbacks from

[4:37:46] certain other, you know, child care and what have you. uh particularly if

[4:37:52] there's some noise, vibration, you know, you know, all the ones that people are

[4:37:56] going to complain about. So, um so anyway, I'm in favor of of bringing it

[4:38:02] back. >> And um I'm interested in hearing what my

[4:38:05] other counselors have to add to conversation.

[4:38:07] » And this is this is a question for staff.

[4:38:10] » Would putting in amendments right now be an appropriate time because we haven't

[4:38:15] even engaged the public. So I would really like to I you know I don't want

[4:38:19] to put the cart before the horse but um you know I I getting a consensus that

[4:38:25] people are supporting to move forward but I

[4:38:29] » well through process I yeah so I want to see

[4:38:34] what staff comes up I don't want to put burden we do have big things coming down

[4:38:38] the pike so I do want to be cognizant >> of the work that we've already put on

[4:38:44] staff what our goals and objective objectives

[4:38:47] are for this term and you know as we come together during

[4:38:52] our council retreat you know re-evaluate some of these priorities but I mean I

[4:38:57] know we have things on the docket right now so I'm going to pass it over to

[4:39:01] council member Koffer >> mayor can I jump in real quick

[4:39:04] » yes go for it >> I think the question today before

[4:39:06] council is do you want us to work on this I mean in its most simple form

[4:39:12] » yes >> the next question then is when do you

[4:39:18] want us to to bring the deliverables back to you?

[4:39:23] » And I think the challenge is ju just to be clear that the large projects that

[4:39:27] we're working on >> the load's going to be within the next 6

[4:39:30] to 8 months >> on on those projects in terms of what

[4:39:34] we're trying to move through. That's I think what they're alluding to in terms

[4:39:38] of the capacity. council could make the decision to say, "Yes, we want to move

[4:39:45] forward on this." And then we could have that as part of the priority

[4:39:49] conversation in the retreat. >> I um and really kind of lay that out in

[4:39:54] terms of where it sits in terms of all of the other projects. But the simple

[4:39:59] question is, do you want us to work on it? Then we can add that then into part

[4:40:03] of the retreat conversation in terms of timing.

[4:40:05] » Yeah. And we don't need to to table. We're It's not necessary to table. It's

[4:40:10] not going to save us any >> as long as you don't tell us we want it

[4:40:14] in the >> Exactly. Exactly.

[4:40:16] » Where we're now starting to jam, I think we can bring that in to have that

[4:40:20] conversation. >> No, that's good. Go ahead, council

[4:40:22] member. >> Thank you, Mayor. I move to direct staff

[4:40:26] to go for option one with staff's timeline on when they can fit this in,

[4:40:32] making sure that we do not move any of our other priorities. So on your own

[4:40:37] timeline, >> um, bring this back to us.

[4:40:40] » Second. >> So,

[4:40:42] » yep. The motion was made by council member Koffer. Seconded by many, I

[4:40:47] think. [laughter] >> Yeah. Um, I

[4:40:53] » go ahead. Um, council member Christ. >> Um, thank you, Councilman Coffer. I I

[4:41:00] would actually like to have the discussion during our retreat which is

[4:41:02] at the end of March to discuss what our priorities are. I think that's a good

[4:41:07] discussion to have but we may still end up in the same place. I would just like

[4:41:11] to have that discussion about what priorities are are

[4:41:16] are the bumps in the road that we need to deal with

[4:41:19] » I think it's just useful all the way around.

[4:41:21] » Okay. >> Yes. Can I can I add that as a friendly

[4:41:25] amendment to what you're >> So you have made the motion to direct

[4:41:29] staff to um move forward on just researching and just reviewing this

[4:41:36] process. We have an active motion on the table.

[4:41:40] It was made by council member Kuffer, seconded by I like a millisecond

[4:41:46] mayor prom. [laughter]

[4:41:49] So um are you wanting to make an amendment? I am I'm asking if you would

[4:41:54] accept a friendly amendment. >> Okay.

[4:42:00] » I think I'd like to keep it as is and then if we decide at the retreat to move

[4:42:05] priorities then we can make the decision then and then we can direct staff at

[4:42:09] that point to rep prioritize. >> Okay.

[4:42:12] » If that's okay. >> No. No.

[4:42:14] » It's okay. [laughter] >> Yeah. Yes. Okay. Um, Council Member

[4:42:19] Prito, >> I I would like staff to come back and

[4:42:22] let us know what they're thinking as far as the timeline because I don't want

[4:42:26] this to get lost in the the chaos and the busyiness of everything. just to

[4:42:32] kind of be transparent with our small businesses

[4:42:36] um to our presenter tonight who's worked so hard in getting this to council and

[4:42:41] then just for us as council so we can speak to it to constituents and you know

[4:42:47] um different things like that. So I would like

[4:42:50] » you guys to come back at some point and just let us know like

[4:42:53] » like an a quick update. >> Yeah, just an update just letting us

[4:42:56] know like hey this is where we're at with our projects. This is what we're

[4:42:59] thinking. This is when you can expect to see it.

[4:43:03] » Thank you. Yeah. >> Yeah, we can we can do that as part of

[4:43:05] the process. Okay. >> And frankly, that may be part of the

[4:43:08] retreat conversation. >> That's Yeah, that's what I was thinking,

[4:43:11] too. Okay. So, are we ready to vote? Oh, I see a hand. Okay. Council member

[4:43:16] Popkin. >> Yeah. I was just wondering if we could

[4:43:18] if I could get clarity on what the proposed motion is again.

[4:43:22] » Option one. >> Option one.

[4:43:25] » Okay. Just to adopt option one. Okay. Yeah. Um

[4:43:30] I'm a little bit here with council member Christrist on just like I'd love

[4:43:34] for this council which we really haven't had a chance to really discuss our broad

[4:43:37] portfolio of priorities to discuss that first. I don't actually think it changes

[4:43:40] the timeline much if we wanted to move forward. That's my slight preference in

[4:43:44] this process is let's agree on priorities and then work to implement

[4:43:47] that both as a council and staff. Um I I don't think it re from what I'm hearing

[4:43:52] it doesn't slow much down because that's a month away. Um and this wasn't going

[4:43:56] to be solved in four weeks. Um, so I don't know if it changes much other than

[4:44:00] gives us more clarity and more vision into a lot of different work plans and

[4:44:04] things that are going on. So if if council wants to just move forward with

[4:44:08] this and direct it, fine. But um, I I think it would actually be more

[4:44:11] strategic and and more intentional if we have a conversation about priorities

[4:44:15] first and then worked to work to implement those. It's no it's no

[4:44:20] disrespect in any way, shape, or form to the applicant tonight um, or her

[4:44:24] presentation and and the challenges that she raised. Okay. Um, so I I think what

[4:44:30] to um what council member Prito had said that we don't want it to get lost in the

[4:44:35] shuffle. I'll be supporting it tonight because I want to make sure it's

[4:44:38] bookmarked. I I don't want it to get lost. Um, so Council Member Marcy.

[4:44:45] » Yeah, just very quickly, I think we can do the, you know, we can have the

[4:44:48] broader issue conversation about priorities at the retreat or or wherever

[4:44:52] that conversation takes place. I think either way, you know, Miss Larner is

[4:44:55] here and has gone through this process and we're dealing with a specific

[4:44:58] element of our code tonight that's in front of us that I think there's general

[4:45:01] based on the conversation, there's general consensus. So, I appreciate the

[4:45:04] thought from Council Member Poppy. I I I would say let's just go ahead and move

[4:45:06] forward and start the process and see where we go.

[4:45:08] » Okay, let's go ahead and vote. >> Just a point of clarification for my

[4:45:11] ownification. >> Wait, hold on. So, [laughter]

[4:45:16] okay. Did you you've already spoken twice?

[4:45:19] » No, I've spoken once on this topic. on this topic. I have it marked down twice.

[4:45:24] » Oh, then clarification. When does the when does the applicant pay?

[4:45:32] » Good question. >> Uh I believe there's some flexibility in

[4:45:37] the code, but typically an application review fees are due at the time of uh

[4:45:42] formal application submittal. We can work with the applicant on timing and

[4:45:45] everything for every for all that. >> Yeah. because I think the re, you know,

[4:45:49] there are still other pieces that need to happen before

[4:45:52] » That's correct. >> We start collecting dollars. Okay, let's

[4:45:55] go ahead and vote.

[4:45:58] » Yeah.

[4:46:10] » Are we waiting on you or >> I don't know.

[4:46:13] » Okay. It says waiting, but it's okay. >> Yep. No, that you're fine. So, the

[4:46:19] motion carries six to one with Cal Council member Popkin in opposition.

[4:46:24] Okay. So, now we are on to Yeah, thank you. Um, and I feel like

[4:46:30] Annie, you will not let us let this go either. So, [laughter]

[4:46:34] so I don't think it'll get lost in the shuffle. Um, okay. So, Nathan, stay

[4:46:38] close. Zero reading on proposed land development code. Amendment related to

[4:46:43] drive-thru uses adjacent to Main Street.

[4:47:07] » Good evening. Good evening once again. Uh my name is Nathan Jones and I am the

[4:47:12] next item I am presenting this evening is a zero reading of a proposed uh

[4:47:16] another set of proposed amendments to land development code. This time related

[4:47:19] to drive-through uses on Main Street. Uh this item really goes back to 2019 and

[4:47:25] the Main Street corridor plan. So, the main street corridor plan was accepted

[4:47:28] by city council um in 2019 as a visioning document and uh really set the

[4:47:34] future land use goals for the main street corridor um up and down

[4:47:38] throughout the city. Um the real intent of the uh one of the main intents and um

[4:47:44] outcomes of this planning effort uh was really to try to find ways to transition

[4:47:49] the corridor from an autodominated um corridor to more of a

[4:47:54] pedestrian-friendly multimmodal corridor, something that's more human uh

[4:47:59] quoteunquote human scale. Um and as part of that uh planning effort, it did

[4:48:03] identify and propose some limitations on uh autoor oriented uses along the along

[4:48:09] the corridor. Um following the 2019 um acceptance of the corridor plan, city

[4:48:14] staff began working on code amendments um that would implement that uh long

[4:48:20] range planning effort and brought back a set of code amendments in 2022. Um,

[4:48:25] these land development code amendments uh were particularly uh they were

[4:48:30] specific to limitations on permitted uses, parking lot design, and the

[4:48:34] location of uh drive-throughs along Main Street, uh, which is the item that, um,

[4:48:39] I'm going through right now. Um, and specifically, um, it included a

[4:48:45] limitation and a prohibition on new drive-through uses along Main Street.

[4:48:50] So, it was very clear that um as part of this uh the staff report and as part of

[4:48:54] the discussion that was surrounding this that new drive-through uses uh would be

[4:48:58] prohibited along Main Street. Um however, the actual co adopted code

[4:49:03] language um put that prohibition under one of the specific uses, the retail

[4:49:08] sales. We'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Um but the code

[4:49:11] adop language that was ultimately adopted applied that restriction to only

[4:49:16] one of the many different uses that are allowed in the along the corridor. Um

[4:49:21] between 2022 and today, city staff have uh through working with um applicants

[4:49:27] and members of the community identified a gap between what we believe the intent

[4:49:31] of the code amendments was in 2022 and what we believe the intent of the uh

[4:49:36] corridor plan in 2019 was to do which was again to uh prohibit new

[4:49:40] drive-through uses along Main Street and what the actual code language actually

[4:49:43] reads. So, in an effort to further clarify our requirements and processes,

[4:49:48] um we are proposing some code changes this evening um uh to to go through the

[4:49:53] existing conditions of uh the land development code. So, new drive-through

[4:49:58] uses are already prohibited in the mixeduse downtown zoning district. So,

[4:50:02] that's going to be everything between essentially 1st Avenue and 9inth Avenue

[4:50:06] along Main Street. So, already new drive-through uses are prohibited along

[4:50:09] that section of Main Street. Um, however, what as I just explained, um,

[4:50:15] new drive-through uses are only prohibited for retail sales between 9th

[4:50:19] Avenue and, uh, Highway 66. Um, the existing code does not include specific,

[4:50:25] uh, prohibitions for drive-throughs for restaurants, personal services, banking

[4:50:30] institutions, and other types of uses. These are uh the type of uh type of

[4:50:34] applications that we've been fielding and questions that we've been fielding

[4:50:37] from members of the community about whether or not that code provision

[4:50:40] actually does apply to these other uses. Um and then lastly, uh it doesn't the

[4:50:45] existing code doesn't explicitly define what we mean when we say drive-through

[4:50:49] uses. So when are we talking about drive-throughs as an accessory use

[4:50:53] somewhere just on site or is it use that is act is the drive-through actually

[4:50:57] connected uh to the physical building in some way. Um so once again we've kind of

[4:51:01] identified some gaps in how our code is written um and have uh brought forward

[4:51:08] uh some uh proposed code amendments to try to address that uh that issue. There

[4:51:13] are five pieces to uh the proposed code amendments. First, it would allow retail

[4:51:17] sales or add retail sales with drive-thru as a conditional use uh

[4:51:21] primarily in the mixeduse zoning districts. It would allow drive-throughs

[4:51:25] as an accessory use again within mixed use zoning districts. It includes use

[4:51:29] specific standards for drive-throughs. It clarifies the prohibition for new

[4:51:33] drive-throughs on Main Street along the entirety of the corridor uh related to

[4:51:37] restaurants, banking institutions, personal services, and retail sales. Um

[4:51:41] and finally, it includes the definitions that I was describing earlier,

[4:51:45] definitions for drive-through uses, and retail sales with drive-throughs. Um as

[4:51:49] part of the backup material here, we did include some red lines to the land

[4:51:51] development code that goes into more detail on those items. I can answer

[4:51:54] those if you have questions. I can answer any questions if you have uh any

[4:51:58] I can answer any questions about those items if you would like. Um but to wrap

[4:52:03] up my presentation here uh once again we have two recommendations. Uh in this

[4:52:07] case uh staff is recommending that you move forward with these items primarily

[4:52:11] because of the previous planning efforts that uh have already been conducted on

[4:52:15] this particular issue and the stakeholder engagement that has already

[4:52:18] taken place um and because we've kind of already done the work of identifying the

[4:52:22] gaps in code. So, um, the recommendation is to move forward with option one in

[4:52:27] this case. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, where'd you go? I

[4:52:32] thought eight was up. Okay. Council member Koffer.

[4:52:36] » Thank you, uh, mayor. Um, so this would eliminate drive-throughs on Main Street.

[4:52:41] But what if they were on the corner, let's say, of 15th and Main Street?

[4:52:45] Could they have a drive-thru on 15th, just not on Main Street?

[4:52:48] » I believe the prohibition applies to lots adjacent to Main Street. I know.

[4:52:54] » So, um, so yeah. So, part of the part of the issue that we've been, uh, running

[4:52:58] into is really where does that prohibition begin and end?

[4:53:01] » Um, and how does it apply to some of these, um, kind of nuance cases? If you

[4:53:07] start to look at, uh, the built environment between 9th along the

[4:53:10] mixeduse corridor zoning district between 9th a and uh, highway 66,

[4:53:14] there's uh, quite a bit of undeveloped parking lot space. And so, um, again,

[4:53:19] once again, when you look at redevelopment for those parking lot

[4:53:23] areas, how they can be reconfigured, we've been fielding a lot of questions

[4:53:26] about whether or not new drive-through uses would be allowed. Uh, once again,

[4:53:30] these these um code provisions would clarify that. It would not allow any new

[4:53:36] drive-throughs. That doesn't affect existing drive-throughs. We have a whole

[4:53:39] other standard related to non-conforming uses that would uh apply. So, if there

[4:53:43] is an existing drive-through use, that would be allowed to continue. Um, could

[4:53:47] also be the case that it doesn't have to be the same user. It doesn't have to go

[4:53:50] from like a McDonald's to a it could go from a McDonald's to a Starbucks or vice

[4:53:54] versa. As long as the um use is not expanding and as long as the um there

[4:53:59] are no real changes to the impact of of the drive-thru, it would still be

[4:54:02] permitted. So, >> um so this would 100% eliminate

[4:54:07] drive-throughs or they would have to the applicant would have to come and say,

[4:54:10] "Hey, I would like a conditional use to allow a drive-through or just

[4:54:14] » prohibit it." So as opposed so the land development code table of uses includes

[4:54:19] three different types of permissions prohibited allowed by right or

[4:54:24] conditional. We also have secondary uses which is slightly different um but in

[4:54:27] this case it would prohibit new drive-throughs. So um they would have

[4:54:31] that if somebody wanted to propose a drive-thru uh they would have to um

[4:54:38] I uh believe they would have to reszone the property. Um, and we've also

[4:54:43] structured these um, we've also structured the prohibitions to apply

[4:54:48] specifically to the use. So, yes, the it's a long answer to your question.

[4:54:52] Yes, it would prohibit any new drive-throughs. So, um I am not for curb

[4:54:56] cuts because I want us to be um more multimodal and I think drive-throughs

[4:55:01] can there's a coffee shop on Main Street that sometimes you get stuck because the

[4:55:05] drive-thru line is so long it's going into Main Street and that causes uh

[4:55:11] congestion and people driving around them and it causes hazards for the

[4:55:16] drivers and the pedestrians u block sidewalks for ADA issues. Um, I am I am

[4:55:23] my transportation hat is coming in hard on this one, even though I'm very

[4:55:27] businessfriendly, too. Um, but it creates so many issues when you have

[4:55:32] curb cuts on a major road that I'm wanting to say no more curb cuts because

[4:55:39] I want us to have the space for multimodal and I

[4:55:44] don't want us to also gum up transportation when it comes to vehicle

[4:55:49] traffic on a major road in our town. >> Um, so I I think I'm going to be for

[4:55:56] option one. Okay, thank you. I think that's I

[4:56:01] thought that's where you were going with this. Um, Council Member Marcen,

[4:56:05] » thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick questions. Thanks for the presentation.

[4:56:08] Um, you've mentioned several times that there are like some practical examples

[4:56:12] of where this has run into conflict with applicants. Can you just give me a sense

[4:56:16] of give us a sense of like where what those have been, who those applicants

[4:56:20] are, what the confusion has been? Are folks wanting to open drive-throughs and

[4:56:24] they're confused about what the prohibition is? what's been the like

[4:56:27] practical implication here and I'm asking that partly because I'm a little

[4:56:31] worried about opportunity cost in this to some degree about about like what

[4:56:35] like it I agree on a lot of points but I'm just curious about practically what

[4:56:38] we've run into. >> Sure. Um and I guess I should take a

[4:56:40] step back. We did believe that the part of the impetus of all this was we did

[4:56:44] believe it was the intent of the original 2022 code to apply this

[4:56:48] prohibition throughout the entirety of the corridor. Um, so setting that aside

[4:56:53] to answer your question without using specific business names, um, I think

[4:56:56] primarily restaurants with drive-throughs. So that would be like a

[4:56:59] drive-through coffee shop or a drive-through restaurant, um, banking

[4:57:03] services. So a bank with a drive-thru and um, things like that.

[4:57:07] » And I know it's probably I probably you probably can't disclose it, but part of

[4:57:10] me does want to know what the specific business, you know, organizations that

[4:57:12] we're talking about are in terms of scope and scale, but um, yeah. Okay. I I

[4:57:17] appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Prito,

[4:57:24] » just some thoughts that I'm having. Um, thank you for your presentation. Um, one

[4:57:29] of the thoughts just for my council, my fellow council members. Um, is kind of

[4:57:35] just like what is our vision for North Maine? Um, you mentioned 9th Avenue to

[4:57:40] 66 and what's the feedback from the neighbors and yeah, do we want a bunch

[4:57:45] of drive-throughs? like is that what that neighborhood wants to see, you

[4:57:50] know? Um is that what is that what they're wanting? I know that they talk a

[4:57:53] lot about like downtown and how come we don't take kind of that aspect of

[4:57:59] downtown up north kind of in your your area, Susie.

[4:58:03] » Um and so yeah, I mean I would I would be for um not having more

[4:58:10] drive-throughs. I don't think that's the vision I have. Neither have I heard

[4:58:16] that's the vision that constituents want is just a bunch of fast food drive-thru

[4:58:22] kind of places. Um so that was that's one of the thoughts I had. Um another

[4:58:29] question I had too and I'm blanking here. Um

[4:58:34] was oh the so the current like so let's say McDonald's on 19th Avenue uh shuts

[4:58:42] down. Could another place come in and use that drive-thru that's already set

[4:58:46] in place? Okay. So, >> I think there's some technical issues

[4:58:49] there. So long as the use is not um considered abandoned for a long period

[4:58:54] of time. So, if it's three or four years between like um renovation, then it

[4:59:00] would be considered covered under our code.

[4:59:02] » Okay. And and this doesn't impact kind of like our food trucks and and uh

[4:59:08] businesses like that. >> Food trucks are considered mobile food

[4:59:11] vendors. uh and not the same as a >> drive-thru. Okay. I just want to make

[4:59:16] sure that this doesn't have like unintended, you know, consequences for

[4:59:20] some of those business owners. >> Okay. Yeah. I would I would go for your

[4:59:24] recommendation. I I don't like I said, I don't think my vision for North Main is

[4:59:28] a bunch of drive-throughs. [laughter] I do see eventually my hope is that we

[4:59:33] can take what we have going on downtown and and move it up north. So, [laughter]

[4:59:38] » thank you. Thank you for your presentation. So, um, just for

[4:59:42] clarification, so I'm I'm thinking about some of the drive-thrus like Starbucks

[4:59:48] near 17th. >> Sure.

[4:59:51] » So, that's not coming. It doesn't You don't enter it. You actually go into the

[4:59:55] parking lot to go through. So, would those continue to be permissible

[5:00:00] » under this code [clears throat] change? >> Once again, if it's an existing

[5:00:03] drive-thru, it's allowed to continue um for any site design issue. So, anytime a

[5:00:09] new building, if we're talking about a new construction of like a new

[5:00:12] Starbucks, right? >> Yes. A new Starbucks.

[5:00:13] » There are some other site design issues. So, through the site development review

[5:00:17] process, our engineers are going to look at um traffic circulation, not just off

[5:00:22] of the main roads, but also onto like within the actual parking lot itself. We

[5:00:27] have different regulations related to uh the spacing between curb cuts. Um so, we

[5:00:33] wouldn't permit a driveway spacing that was too close together. Um and it's uh

[5:00:38] as you guys may have been aware of through the traffic impact study and

[5:00:42] traffic impact analysis uh we also have to look at if there's these queuing

[5:00:46] lines that go on forever and ever does that stop up everything down the line.

[5:00:50] » Um so that is those are all things that we normally review as a standard site

[5:00:54] development plan. Um and >> so all that to say if um like under

[5:00:59] existing conditions if council were to say we don't want to move forward with

[5:01:02] this at all. We want to allow new new drive-throughs for restaurants. Um,

[5:01:07] » it may be the case that there may be some still some other site design issues

[5:01:10] that are insurmountable for certain parcels um or certain certain lots along

[5:01:15] Main Street. Um, but once again again um from the corridor planning effort that

[5:01:20] was done in 2019 >> and and I I keep going back to that

[5:01:24] because that did have a fairly robust stakeholder engagement process and did

[5:01:27] set the policy for future actions. Um that's again once we started to realize

[5:01:33] or notice that uh identify that there was this gap that's why we um made the

[5:01:37] determination to bring it forward to clarification for clarification from

[5:01:40] this council >> and that's kind of when I onboarded onto

[5:01:43] council and it was like some of this looks familiar and I was like wait

[5:01:46] didn't we pass something like this already [laughter]

[5:01:48] » and and not to to belabor the previous point I think the previous conversation

[5:01:53] as well we were talking about time and unintended consequences because this is

[5:01:57] as you're if you're pushing these things through

[5:02:00] » these These are the things we need to be careful with if we're try if we're

[5:02:03] pushing things through pretty fast. >> Got it. Okay. Um, Council Member Popkin.

[5:02:10] » Yeah. Thanks, Mayor, and thanks, Nathan, for the good work on this. Um, I I

[5:02:13] support the direction on number one, and I'll just leave with that. Um, the the

[5:02:17] other context I just wanted to share with my fellow council members. Um about

[5:02:22] I guess it was about a year and a half ago, the planning and zoning commission

[5:02:26] started a conversation about the future of drive-throughs in our community

[5:02:29] overall. Um we had seen three come in in different places that were more intended

[5:02:34] to be kind of regional centers, pedestrian uh plaza, pedestrian

[5:02:38] oriented, multimodal oriented um areas according to Envision Longmont and our

[5:02:43] code going forward. And so PNZ started that conversation. I don't think there

[5:02:47] was any formal recommendation from PNZ yet. Um, and I emailed with staff a bit

[5:02:53] in advance of this meeting to understand if this was the right time to bring some

[5:02:56] of those forward. Um, staff advised no, not not for this one. That was too

[5:02:59] different materially from this Main Street corridor update, but I just

[5:03:03] wanted to kind of telegraph like that is a conversation that's already been had a

[5:03:07] little bit in the conversation about the future of drive-throughs in multiple

[5:03:10] parts of our community. Um, I'm for advancing part one here and I hope that

[5:03:14] we can have a conversation about kind of making some uh code adjustments uh for

[5:03:19] what allowed uses uh regarding drive-throughs more broadly.

[5:03:22] » Okay. Um, Mayor Prom, >> thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you, Nathan.

[5:03:28] I I appreciate this. I wanted to just kind of echo what uh Council Member

[5:03:32] Koffer was uh pointing out earlier about uh ADA and and that sort of thing, but

[5:03:39] also um you know when I was I remember a study that I was uh helping with with

[5:03:46] Dicky Lee Haulinghor and uh and Ron Stewart uh when Ron was a county

[5:03:52] commissioner and they were trying to trying to slow down um uh trying

[5:03:59] stop or, you know, figure out what we're doing about cars idling in a in a

[5:04:06] drive-thru. and um and the impact of that and I think a little bit about uh

[5:04:11] that uh and and I think that uh uh we have to think that there's so many

[5:04:18] aspects of this that are negative to our community that the ones that are there

[5:04:25] and the exceptions that we make down the line here uh will uh uh will be

[5:04:30] exceptions that are are really um uh major exceptions, not not some sort of

[5:04:36] like, hey, you get one and everybody else gets one down the line here. So, I

[5:04:40] I want to stress that uh that I think um where we're going with this is uh you

[5:04:46] know, maybe we don't know what the the game plan is for, uh every part of

[5:04:51] Longmont or how things might change, but and here's the butt. the the butt is

[5:04:57] that uh we can always make exceptions if we absolutely have to because there's a

[5:05:02] uh to council member Mars point there a costbenefit analysis that actually

[5:05:08] uh helps everybody hey call it [laughter] hey you know what don't claim

[5:05:15] I wasn't listening buddy okay >> thank you [laughter]

[5:05:18] um Council Member Christ >> thank you mayor um thank you Mr. Jones

[5:05:24] Meyer. Um, how many applications do you have for

[5:05:29] drive-throughs right now on Main Street? >> On Main Street, none. Because we've

[5:05:35] interpreted that code to apply to all drive-throughs.

[5:05:39] » Okay. Um, then if I were choosing

[5:05:44] how to spend your time, I would rather you spend your time on the mixeduse

[5:05:51] employment issue than reworking the code in this regard right now because I think

[5:05:57] my main street's kind of full. I don't think we're going to have a lot of new

[5:06:00] applications. >> I guess I should clarify my answer then.

[5:06:04] We have received several pre-application meetings for requests for

[5:06:09] drive-throughs. Okay. >> So, between 2020 2022 and today, we have

[5:06:14] received several requests to initiate develop drive-thru developments along

[5:06:19] Main Street. Um, we have denied them or told them that the use applies to that

[5:06:25] that prohibition applies to their use. Uh, and again, these cleanup efforts, we

[5:06:29] we see these as cleanup efforts. Um, again based off of prior discussions

[5:06:33] that were that had previously happened. So um,

[5:06:37] » so how much time will this take for you to do?

[5:06:39] » I believe we've already done the red lines and we would bring these back the

[5:06:43] next available council meeting for uh, I believe we indicated that we would bring

[5:06:47] it in next available council meeting for determination.

[5:06:50] » Okay. Because I have also noticed that and I'll this is to councelor Popkins

[5:06:55] comment. I have noticed that planning and zoning has flagged these for us um

[5:07:00] for the last three times that they've had this. Um so um then okay, I'm on

[5:07:06] board with number one. >> Would you like to make a motion?

[5:07:09] » I move >> that we direct staff to proceed with the

[5:07:13] proposed land development code amendment and schedule a public hearing.

[5:07:17] » Second. >> Okay. So, the motion has been made um by

[5:07:21] um Council Member Chris, seconded by Council Member Marcine, and the third um

[5:07:26] disembodied voice >> um council member Popkin. [laughter]

[5:07:32] » I couldn't see him. I just heard the voice. [laughter]

[5:07:35] » Okay, let's go ahead and vote.

[5:07:40] » Nope.

[5:07:46] » Marcine

[5:07:51] » [laughter] >> Yeah, give us another problem.

[5:07:53] » Give us another problem. >> Okay.

[5:07:58] » And so that carries unanimously. Thank you. Um, thanks for putting up with us.

[5:08:04] » Thanks, Joe. >> Uh, okay. We are on to the 2026

[5:08:08] legislative bills recommended for city council position.

[5:08:11] » That one's the one we're pulling because >> Oh, that's the one we're pulling. Never

[5:08:14] mind. That was so many pages ago. That is never mind. So we are now

[5:08:19] » almost yesterday. >> Yeah, that was almost that was yes. No,

[5:08:22] almost yesterday. Um so we are now at final call public invited to be heard.

[5:08:28] Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? Thank you. Thank you.

[5:08:32] Okay. And now we are at mayor and council comments.

[5:08:38] I can wait. [laughter] >> Okay. Yeah, I'm tired. That's that's my

[5:08:44] comment. Um, okay. We are now on to um no city manager remarks. Does the

[5:08:50] city manager have any comments? >> No comments, mayor, council.

[5:08:53] » Thank you. City attorney. >> No comments, mayor.

[5:08:56] » Okay. >> Okay. Motion has been made to adjurnn.

[5:08:59] Seconded by council member Christ. All those in favor?

[5:09:02] » I opposed. Okay. We we are adjourned. >> Thanks for the

[5:09:13] » [music]

[5:09:17] [music]

City Council Regular Session 02/24/2026

Transcript