It's a study session, October 6th, 2020. Can we go ahead and start with roll call, please? Mayor Bagley. I'm here. Council Member Christensen. Council Member Adagio Ferring. Here. Council Member Martin. Here. Council Member Peck. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Here. And Council Member Waters. Here. Mayor, you have a quorum. Great. Don't hate me, Dr. Waters, but would you like to lead us in the pledge given you and you probably have the most experience in pledges? Maybe, maybe, Susie, Council Member Adagio Ferring could give you a run, but let's do her next. I'm happy to defer if she'd like to, if she'd like to lead this.  I pledge allegiance to the flag to the United States of America. To the Republic of America. Which stands One Nation Under God Indivisible The Liberty And Justice for All All right, great. So how do musicians and stuff do this? I don't know. You can get an entire like basketball stadium to say air ball like in unison, but Dr. Waters couldn't even get us to do the pledge. I just don't get it, you know? Council Member Martin. Very good engineers. Very good engineers. And with music. And with music. Why don't you try singing next time, Tim? I think that might work. All right, let's go ahead and remind everybody that anybody wishing to provide public comment needs to go ahead and watch the live stream of the meeting and call in only when the meeting for public comment is open. Callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time. The toll free number there on your screen, triple eight, seven, eight, zero, zero, nine, nine. Those instructions will be posted again. Oh, my German Shepherd apparently likes to pull pull wires out of my ears. I apologize. All right. Then let's go ahead and move on to motions to direct the city manager to add in the items. Council Member Martin. Yes. Last week, we directed staff to fund Longmont Public Media at level two. And having looked at the discretionary budget stuff and sort of assessed the way people feel, I was in the affirmative prevailing side on that. And I would like to first make a motion to reconsider that allocation of funds. Is there a second? I'll second it. We have a motion to second. So motions on the table. Is there further debate before we vote? All in favor of the motion to reconsider, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, say nay. Nay. All right. The motion carries six to one. Council Member Martin. Yes. I would like to then move that we fund Longmont Public Media at level one. Okay. I'll second. Could we, could I add a friendly amendment? Go ahead. Floor's yours. And then we're going to go with Joan. Joan, you're next. I saw your hand go up. I think the term is, it ought to be option rather than level one, I think. Excuse me. Yes. Option one. Okay. Council Member Pack, did you have something to add? I can't remember what option one was. Can somebody tell me what that was? It was the highest level of funding which would allow them to do some expansions of their services in terms of public service productions. Didn't we have some kind of a report from Jim Golden that it would have to come out of one time funding? Am I remembering that correctly? Jim, do you want to help us out? Yeah, actually either level was coming from one time funding. Level one option one is 117,000. And I think option two is 70, 76,000. And Jim, how much money do we have in that one time funding? Well, you have more than that. So let's leave it at that. And next week we will be bringing to you options, what you have to still direct. So Council Member Waters found that very amusing. Yeah, I know that you're here. That was a perfect response, Jim, I would have expected nothing less. Council Member Christensen. Well, I would love to fund them with that, but I also would love to give the library some extra money, give our early childhood education some extra money. You know, I just, I think it's very difficult to favor one organization over others at a time when we were having to cut back so much in other areas. But if the council thinks that's fine, then I'm forward to, but I just think that at a time when we have so much other, so many other organizations that we have to cut, it's really difficult for me to okay this one organization. But even though I do think they're doing very, very well and I do want them to expand, I just think that this is not the time to give them extra money, but that's my opinion. Mayor, maybe I should be more specific with my answer. I'm sorry, I didn't have it in front of me. So I thought it was that simple, but anyhow, so I'll give you a few different sources of one-time dollars that we've identified. We do have our assessed valuations, so the amounts that would be available from that would be about $170,000. There's 50% of the special marijuana tax, which is $205,000. There's the first, the 50% of last year's, the first year marijuana tax, which was undesignated is $137,000. So all of those are available. And then we talked about over 1.4 million, I believe we said was going into the stability reserve and we talked about that potentially being lowered to whatever amount and using that dollar, whatever it is lowered by if necessary for other one-time expenses. So that's what I meant by you have more. All right, Council Member Peck and Council Member Martin. Thank you, Jim. And that's why I asked that question. So having that information, I will support this. Yes, the other thing I wanted to say about this is that LPM, I think other than probably some of the other organizations that could benefit from additional funding have a firm plan for how to actually have this be a one-time expense. And that taken together with what I think has been extraordinary service during, in terms of communication services for the city makes me think that we need to encourage them to be able to stay on plan to the extent that they are able, given that they're not able to open up their facilities and build up maker space funding yet. So that's the reason why I think that we need to make sure that this resource stays intact for the city. And I would have voted for this last time, except that I wasn't sure that there was support for it. All right, Council Member Christensen. Okay, so I don't know, I presume this will come to us, but I would suggest that if we do this, we take $35,000 out of the Council Contingency Fund because that'll be only till the end of this year. And then it will be, we hope, refurbished. Is that right, Jim? And the rest out of the 50% of the marijuana tax, because it's now 450,000 as opposed to 250,000 last year. So this will not diminish, presumably, our ability to help fund housing and human services, which helped us provide additional vouchers for homeless people and also helped us fund early childhood education to a greater degree. I don't wanna impact those funds. I also don't think we should be taking out of the reserve fund when we really need a reserve. And we need to continue along the path of building up that reserve, which we've been doing for the last eight years, so, or six years, anyway. We've got, I guess my thoughts are that I just prefer that, I mean, I agree with the point of what Council Member Christensen just said, but I just say we leave it up to Harold and Jim and they'll let us know. We can transfer money at any time. It's left to right-hand repeater, Paul, all that stuff. But we've got a motion on the table. Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, they may. All right, it passes unanimously. Is that it, Council Member Martin? Yes, that's all I have. All right, Council Member Peck. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I do have a couple of things that I wanted to direct staff to do. They're pretty easy, won't take much time. So I would like to direct staff to give us an update on the part 16 lawsuit for FAA and how that affects mile high skydiving where we are with that. So I moved to direct staff to give us an update on the part 16 lawsuit with FAA. The only reason I'm not seconding that, Joan, is because a lot of times, a lot of times individual Council members want information and we all have the ability to talk with staff. And so they're bad. This is not just for Council. It is for the residents as well. They wanna know where we are on this and we should update people on where we are on our lawsuits, what's going on. This is an issue that the population is interested in. I'm sure. It would be a very short update. I can ask Harold about it, but then I'd have to email everybody who's asking me. So let's just have him do it publicly. How's my Christian son? I would second that. Okay. I guess the, I'm gonna vote for it, but just so everybody knows, we're gonna be talk hearing from Harold tonight during his city manager update and staff has too much to do and we have too much to deal with on Tuesday nights. So at some point, go ahead, Eugene. Eugene May, city attorney. So the update on the part 16 is that the FAA granted themselves another extension on September 8th to October 9th. Thank you. We've been waiting for that decision for I think over about a year. I knew it would be a short statement. Thank you. There we go. Eugene, you just rescued me and staff. Thank you. Anything else, Councilor Peck? No, thank you. All right. Seeing nothing else. Let's move on to Harold. Where is your city manager report? I go after, I go after public invited to be heard on. All right. So I see the COVID-19, but we're just gonna do all of them with that. So let's go ahead and do public invited to be heard. Let's take a two minute break real quick as we get people in the queue. You're back. All right. How are we all doing on getting back? Then can we, there we go. All right. How many are in the, how many are in the queue? Looks like we're waiting on this again. It is Heather who's emceeing, but it looks like we have four in the queue right now, Mayor. Perfect. You want to start calling them in? Rudy, please. Yes. Thank you. Guest number 499, would you please unmute? Can you hear me? You can. And you'll have three, if you would just state your name and address for the record, and then you'll have three minutes. Okay. My name is Doe Kelly. I live on Barbary Drive in Longmont. Okay. So first, I'd like to applaud the council's decision to hold a study session on the proposed smart meter program for Longmont. I would like to know in the October 20th study session, will you also plan to invite an independent expert in the damaging health effects of wireless electromagnetic radiation? And if you haven't planned to do so, why not? Would you do so? Will you do so? And also, will the public have the opportunity to be interactive in this session other than in public invited to be heard public commentary? I would also like to ask, in arriving at a budget for the AMI, have you financially considered and incorporated in the AMI proposed budget the potential liability impacts to the city for adverse health impacts or damage by fire that are sparked by a smart meter? As you all know, we are in a severe drought situation at the present moment. Large swaths of California and Colorado burn as we speak. And now through October, the 10th is Fire Prevention Week. With this in mind, I urge you to consider the following. It is common knowledge and fully supported by evidence, peer reviewed and published research, science and facts. The smart utility meters, including all advanced metering infrastructure or AMI, electronic utility meters, and all utility meters which contain any digital or electronic components whatsoever, are fire hazards due to a lack of surge protectors in violation of necessary standards for utility meters. They cannot withstand typical grid surges. They cause damage to or destroy homes, lives and structures when damaged by grid surges spark a fire. They emit biologically harmful post-EMF radiation continually, whether transmitting data or not. They create and collect personal data of private activities in the home in violation of law. They allow for sharing of data of personal living habits with utility personnel and others without authorization of the property owner or its occupants. They're able to fatally disrupt and disable medical devices such as pacemakers. They cause heating and antenna effects within metallic body implants, including metal in the mouth, damaging bodily tissues. They interfere with bodily functions such as sleep and interfere with the general health and wellbeing of biological entities in a household when installed in close proximity. The longevity of smart meters is questionable when compared with their analog counterparts, causing for much more frequent replacements than analog equipment resulting in added financial burdens on customers. And last but not least, there are many, many reports of people receiving greatly increased and highly inaccurate utility bills when smart meters are installed. As an individual with ES or electrosensitivity who stands to be more damaged by the installation of said AMI, I ask you my elected representatives in the city of Longmont to deeply and fully consider the fire safety and health issues before embarking on any full-scale rollout of AMI. Thank you so much for your time and thank you for your service. Number 418, I just asked you to unmute if you would please state your name and address for the record. And then you'll have three minutes to speak. Oh, is this the right person? Stan, you're the right guy. Go ahead, buddy. Okay, the reason I'm calling is that you're considering the ordinance basically to confiscate my home and to put myself in jail. And one of the things is that I'm not sure a lot of people in my situation are really aware that this is something that is threatening them right now. And most of them cannot participate in these meetings. So I don't think this meeting can act, it can be considered an open record meeting when the people who are being affected by it for the most part can't access it. Myself, it took me a couple of months to figure out how to do this thing. And the other thing I'm saying is that you're doing something against a certain set of lawnmoth residents and you're not involving them into process. I myself, being aware of what's happening in the city have beat my head trying to get some sort of access to have some sort of input in this thing. And there appears to be a lot of not good knowledge amongst a lot of the city council and the people putting this ordinance together. Like they're saying, oh, we're gonna help you get a place to live. I would like to inform you that I was the one who provided information to the state legislator about the city of Lawnmine having extreme difficulties with section eight discrimination where people who had vouchers like myself could not get places to live because of discrimination. I would think maybe you should just try to get fewer people living on the street by allowing them to actually get housing free from discrimination. And the other thing I don't think you've thought of is that if you're putting more people without shelter out on the streets, we're gonna have more people at the memorial for the people who have died as being homeless.  I don't think so, but that will be the effect of doing something like this. As well as it's probably, you're gonna take somebody like me who's getting back on my feet and confiscate his only source of shelter and put them in jail for doing what? Thank you. Thanks, Dan. All right, number three. Color number 518, I just asked you to unmute. Please state your name and record, your name and address for the record. Somebody needs to mute, your phone is going off. Color number 518, I just asked you to unmute. Can you? Okay. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Can you please state your name and address for the record and then you'll have three minutes to speak. Yes, my name is John Flower. I live at 719 Pendleton Avenue. That's out in the east side of Longmont near Ninth and Pace. I am the president of the Ryder Ridge Homeowners Association. The reason I'm calling is I understand you're discussing some changes to the rules about RVs and motor homes parked on the streets. And what I wonder if you're considering is there are several residents in our neighborhood. I am one of them. And we have a small motor home that fits in the driveway and sometimes I put it on the street and sometimes I put it on in my driveway. When we're preparing for a trip, we have to put it on the street so it's level enough that the refrigerator works. I just wonder if you're even considering this kind of thing because the problem that I think you're trying to solve is people living in the RVs. I don't live in my RV, I live in my house. I live in the RV when I'm traveling places. And so I just want to make sure you're considering that kind of thing so that if I want to put my RV out on the street for a few days to get it ready for a trip and make the refrigerator working, don't make that illegal. And, you know, the last rule that you had somebody could make you complain if it was parked on the street. And I checked with the city attorney and he said, well, even though the ticket says they can confiscate it and they can, I have to move it 600 feet, the city attorney said, yeah, if you put it back in your driveway then you're in compliance. So my answer to that rule is don't bother because I'll just put it back in my driveway. But just remember to think about people who have, I mean, our HOA, the rules in the HOA is that if you have a vehicle in your driveway it's got to be currently licensed. It just can't be an old junk vehicle. It's got to be in the driveway. And so our HOA doesn't have a problem with it. The other thing that came up when I was talking to my wife about this is that I think some people, when they get tested for COVID and have to isolate from their families, what they can do is leave them their RV if they've got one. The camp placed over by the Humane Society that's closed. The city has some land where they could allow cave for that or make it okay if you got a permit or something like that to sleep in your RV for a week or two on the street if it was because of COVID isolation. So that's just something to think about. But the main thing I wanted you to consider is that people like me that have an RV and it's a good looking, fairly new one. I don't live in it. I just wanna be able to put it on the street once in a while so that I can set it up for a trip. So that's all I have. Hope you're thinking of that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. There should be one more, right? About it. Yes, give me one moment. Caller number 811. I just asked you to unmute. Can you please state your name? Can you please state your name and address for the record? And then you'll have three minutes to speak. Okay. Devin Quintock, I live on 17th Avenue in Longmont. I wanted to speak to Mayor Bagley in the council tonight. I had been on the first round of comments when you had discussed this before. So I'm back again. I'm hoping that the city council will continue to come up with a solution for the RV dollars. I have lived in Longmont for 26 years, worked in the school district for 25. Currently, I found that I am having to find a new apartment. And I had been living all from 17th for about five years now. And unfortunately, my roommate is leaving and I have to find a new place. So I have been looking for a new place and have found that I am very much out of Christ to live here in the city. For a 500 square foot suite, you would need to make $46,000 or $44 a year. For one bedroom, $48,708 a year. And for two bedroom, $52,524 a year. I cannot find a place to live. I do not make that much money. So my point is behind this is I feel like I'm being driven out of the city of Longmont after living near for 26 years. And so my point is with the RV dollars, what are they supposed to do? There was a lady who had posted, what's up Longmont, about her situation, she's getting ready to get hurt much with her mother's housing. They called her, she went the next day and they had given her about her way. I don't know what that ends in. Now, so that was the thing once was that she, her and her children that were having to live in an RV. It's not just single people or people that maybe are more undesirable than others or whatever. And my concern was that she was feeling very upset that she can't find a place to live. And again, I do ask that you would consider the situation of COVID, affecting the economy here and how availability here. And I just believe now is not the time to be banning the RVs that are on the street, especially with us going into winter. And I just don't understand where the city is expensive as it's getting, where the RV people are supposed to come. And I'm frustrated because I can't find a place to live here in the city of Longmont. And I've been here for 26 years and it's very concerning, mayhem. There's very few available apartments in town. They can find any and they're very expensive. And I just have to say would come up with a plan or continue to search for a plan on what can be done for the RV dwellers besides just moving them out of the city. I appreciate your time. Thank you. All right, thank you. That's it for public, invited to be heard. Harold, let's move on to your reports. Can we do COVID-19 first and then your city manager report? Thank you. So mayor council, can you see the screen with the graph on it? Yes. Okay. So I'm trying to give you an overview of the numbers. Wanted to let you know, had some conversations with Boulder County Public Health next week. We are going to have a representative here. They are moving through some restructuring right now, just people working on data. And so next week we'll have Rachel Art who's working on a lot of the data. Join us and she's working directly with Jeff and Susan Mutiko on this. So you also know we are now having meetings in terms of the administrator group again. It's three days a week, primarily focused on the situation that's developing, there are the situation that occurred in Boulder and the actions they're taking. So that's where we're spending most of our time. But it did let us bring up some discussions regarding data and that's sort of where you're seeing a move. So today I'll be presenting the information. I did get an update from them this afternoon. I haven't had a chance to really dive into it. So I'm gonna go with what's on the website. And then as I can look at that information, Marika or myself will send that to you. But generally what we're seeing, the good news is as you can see the peak of over 200 cases. And then where we are today, you can definitely see that the orders that they've put in place and the actions they've taken that started is having an impact in terms of our numbers. And you can see that downward trend. When you look at the breakdown for, when you look at the breakdown, when you have the number of students that have been included in this, you can see recently that on September 29th, we had 37 cases not associated with the university in 16. And you can see that downward trend. And so the numbers of the university are getting smaller. But at the same time, you're also seeing the numbers within the community decrease as well. What that really does is when you get into the testing piece and you start looking at what the overall percentage on the PCR testing looks like, the overall rate is 4.1, but the current five day average on the percentage is 2.6%, which is much different than what we talked about at the last city council meeting. Again, you can see when we have the five day rolling average, you can see where it's really just been dropping significantly over the last few days. And I think a lot of people when we go over this and when I talk about it with staff, they go, well, are you doing fewer tests? Well, even when you see what occurred recently in October, and you can see the number of positives, what you can really see is they're still exceeding 1,000 tests per day. And so this is not a, they've been performing a large number of tests. I mean, you can see when that number got higher, but you can also now see where it's going down in terms of the percent positives. So that's really good news. And as we've had conversations with the county, I think we're all excited to see this trend and we really need to continue to see this trend. You will probably get notes from Marika and Rigo regarding the governor's press conference. But one of the things that the governor said today is that really the next couple of weeks are gonna be important for us as we head into late fall and winter and can really give an indication of what that's gonna look like for the entire state and all of our communities. And we still need to be diligent in terms of wearing masks, social distancing, and good hygiene. You will probably hear me say that three to four times tonight because that's just really important for us. This is another graph. If you remember when we showed this to you all last week, I think you could start to see the downward trend and we were hoping that we could continue to see that in this. It's really where you're seeing it 17 to 23, 18 to 22, and 18 to 24. That has been where we've seen the bulk of the cases. You can see the increase that we were seeing in some of the other population groups, specifically 25 to 34, you can really see that pick up. But you're also seeing it go down a little bit. 35 to 44 is in this range. But this is the positive sign that we were all looking for. And I know that the county is continuing to work with them, CDPHE and the state in terms of the mitigation plans. And I know there's more conversations to come in terms of how they move forward. Once again, when you see the age range, again really just dominated by this category. The 10 to 19 numbers interesting because it's really the 18 and 19 year olds that are increasing the bulk of the cases in this, as you can see from the previous slide. Again, the five day average of number of new cases is really mimicking what we were seeing in the PCR testing. So that again, just reinforces what we see. And then again, this is what it looks like by community. 2700 cases in Boulder, 960 in Longmont. Then you can see Louisville and Lafayette. It's also important to look at this chart when they normalize it on 100,000 population where you can see, we're at 1,000, but you can now see Lafayette and Louisville when they normalize it on this 100,000. They're at 953 at 901 respectively. Race and ethnicity. If you remember, this has historically been above 30% and now it's shifted downward to 28.8. So that also gives you a sense of where we're seeing the cases being generated within our county. And then long-term care facilities. Again, you're not seeing a lot here, but what is interesting, and I can't zoom in for you all right now, but you can see that kind of show up in these two dates. And then it's sporadic as we saw this increase. So again, I know the state's continuing and the Boulder County Health Department's continuing to really be diligent in terms of how they work with long-term care facilities. And then our hospital status, again, is pretty consistent with where we've always been. I've had the ability to look at some other data and look at hospitals, and they all tend to be in really good shape right now in terms of those that are hospitalized related to COVID issues. Dan was not on our call today, so I didn't get a chance to see what we have in our hospital system today, but if you remember, we had two last week. So if that changes dramatically, we will definitely let you know. And then finally, what I wanted to do is go over the statewide dial, because I think that's where you're now also seeing this start to come into play. So when you look at Boulder County, if you will remember the 11 days of declining or stable hospitalization, that's really always been here. In the green, the two-week average positivity rate, I think last time we talked was somewhere in this area. It has now moved back into green, but perhaps the biggest change is, if you remember the cumulative incidents, we were somewhere in the red right about here, and we're now moving back into the orange. And so earlier in the day, I think it was somewhere in this area. So all of that is really saying that we're moving in the right direction based on what we've seen. That being said, I think the key message that I'm getting from my conversations with the Boulder County Health and in our administrator for calling and really echoing what the governor talked about today was just diligence in terms of what we're doing. You know, as a county, we've been really good. In terms of, you know, prior to our recent case increase, Boulder County was always performing better than a lot of counties in the state. And so we just need to continue to be diligent, wear a mask. And so there it is again, wear a mask and socially distance. I find myself saying that a lot, and wash your hands and good hygiene. Thanks, Polly, because I found myself saying that a lot because now we've had kids start to go back to school. And what I've told my two teenagers who are in high school is that you're also responsible for other people in this and make sure that you're following the rules and wearing your mask and not taking them off when you're passing in classes because it really is incumbent upon us. And if we weren't learned one lesson from what happened in CU and the case counts is that if you don't do that, that can make a difference in the numbers. And again, managing our numbers and doing these things is really about protecting our local businesses and protecting the people that work in our local businesses because we know that's how they're gonna make the decisions in terms of what level we're in. And so we just need to continue to do that. The other thing that I wanted to update you on related to COVID is there's been a lot of questions regarding Halloween. So what I would do is point everyone to the Colorado Department of Public Health website and go to the Halloween page because they have a lot of information on Halloween and what people need to do. And what they really talk about in this, they lay out a lot, but the one thing that I wanted to point out is they do focus on Halloween mask because that doesn't have necessarily the same protection that a mask that we're wearing. And so they really encourage you that if you're wearing a Halloween mask, you need to wear another mask underneath it because the Halloween mask are designed for what they need to do. They also give a lot of tips in terms of how to, if you are going to provide candy, how to do that safely because just the number of people you impact and the fact that it is within that six foot distance. And so there's really a lot of good information on this. They also talk about, and I think this was really important is that when you do go out with groups, try to stay with your family, try not to have groups where you have multiple family units interacting with each other because those are all opportunities for exposure. A lot of information here way too much for me to go over at this time, but I wanted to point out that that is available in the Colorado Department of Public Health's website. And I would encourage everyone to look at it. Are there any questions for me? Let's go with Council Member Christensen, Council Member Vagal-Bering and Council Member Waters. Harold, thank you for the information about Halloween. I love Halloween, but I don't, I'll have to go to that site because I don't really see a way to be able to safely hand out Halloween County. But if there's a way, I'll do it. I recently read about the fact that, and I would just like Osall to keep this in mind, all of us are fortunate enough to not have to be working in the service industry. Although Councilman Vagal-Fering has to deal with people every single day. So you could say that arguably that is that. And the statistic that I found really startling was that for middle-class and upper-middle-class jobs, about 60% of those have either come back or they've been resolved so that people can work at home. But for service industries and a lot of the other industries at the lower end of the pay scale, only 30% of those have come back. So I would, and when I look at the statistics on the people who are dying and being hospitalized, it's very alarming that I have seen the Latino population go up and up and up. You know, the non-Hispanic white population is dying at about the same rate that they exist in the population. But the Latino population is going up by 3% more than their presence in the general population. And that is also true for the black population, which has gone up by almost twice, their presence in the population. So these are typically people who are working in the service industries. And I would ask us all to be really cognizant of the fact that there are many different worlds here. And if you're lucky enough to live in the one that's not as affected, that's nice. But the rest of the people are not getting very, not getting the same kind of medical care that they ought to get. They're dying at higher rates and we need to be protective of them and cognizant of what's really going on for everybody in this country. So let's all take extra care when we're out there. Don't cough on your grocery guy, et cetera. You know, thank you. All right, Councilor McDonnell-Farron. We'll go ahead. I think I'll just go ahead and make comments. Let's go ahead, Council Member. I actually had a couple of questions, but Harold, did you want to add to what? No, I'm the mayor, go ahead to say a comment. Sorry, I thought he was in the middle of saying something. Well, he was, but let's continue. Okay, so one of the questions we had the other week, we saw a slide that had the community. It was desegregated among the community spread, individual person to person spread and travel. I did not see a slide on that on the website. I was wondering if there, do we have data on those pieces? And I've been getting a lot of questions on the difference between community spread and individual person to person. And so really I wanted to kind of make public what the difference is between the two. Yeah, so that slide is not on their website now. And so I'll have to follow up and see what happened with that. Because that has been on there for some time. Generally speaking, the differences is that community spread is where you can't identify whether or not you were connected to someone who has COVID positive versus person to person is when they go through the social, the tracing component, they can connect you to someone who is COVID positive. And so if you remember last week, most of those were person to person. Yes. And that's exactly what they were doing when they were looking at the bolder numbers and why they were able to say, not in the classroom, but here's where it was occurring because they could identify that via the tracing. Okay. And then the other one is, so in conversations that I've had with Boulder County and with you and the district is, we were really looking at that airborne transmission. So the purpose of having the mask to begin with. So I read an article on the Washington Post that CDC is now saying that airborne transmission plays a role. They've updated their website. I feel like a lot of the conversations that we've had at the city level, the county level and the district have all been planning with the idea that it is airborne, that you do have these, you know, the particles that are airborne. So that's the purpose of wearing the mask to begin with. Yeah. So when you get into the scientific definition of airborne versus the spread of droplets. Yes. The purpose of the mask is actually to restrict the droplets. So when we all talk, we're pushing stuff out. Okay. And so that's the purpose of the mask. When you talk about airborne, if you remember when we talked earlier about people exercising. Yes. And when and where to wear it. So when you exercise and you're breathing harder, you tend to aerosolize whatever it is that's in your system. And then it hangs there longer. So I haven't read that article, but I'll try to read it to see what exactly are they meaning? Yeah. Because it really gets into the nuances and the details, but whether it's aerosolized. And so when you saw what happened in New York, a lot of times they were performing procedures that aerosolized it versus it still being in droplet form. Okay. That's why you saw more medical professionals get ill. Okay. I'm gonna. And they've adjusted their protocols. So as we did early in terms of what we do and where we do it in terms of our paramedics was based on some of that. And so that's when we then look at our data. Again, the number of people that we've had test positive within our organization is lower. I mean, I think now we're probably above 10, but below 15, unless it's changed recently. And that's really including those folks that provide that service. And so it is about the precautions and protective equipment that you wear when you're doing those things. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Another thing to think about is we're moving as we're in hybrid now. Thanks. And Susie, I wasn't snapping at you saying, I'm the mayor, I'm just trying to push us along. That's it. No, you're fine. All right. Dr. Waters. I'm gonna take it that way. All right. Dr. Waters. The questions about masking kind of lead to my question. LPM has produced four video public service announcements. Having viewed them personally, I think they're really well done. I'm just curious, what are, what are we, what's the city doing with those PSAs and how are we working with the business community or others to amplify both the message and the visibility of and access or profile of the video of the PSAs themselves. Sandy, are you on Sandy's really and Marika are working on the public information piece. Sandy and Marika, are you on right now to talk about where we are with those PSAs? Hey, Sandy. Hi, Harold. Sandy's city assistant city manager. We are planning to run those. Those were, those are so great. And we appreciate the partnership with the businesses and everybody pulling those together. So we're gonna run them sort of in a time phased manner out in social media and some other areas along with all of our partners who will be doing the same. Yeah, I agree with that. Go ahead. So I know there's been communication with the partners but if council will remember, I think this was part of an update that I gave a few months or so ago was a conversation that we had with the Longmont Economic Development Partnership. And really those businesses saying we need to be behind this because we need this to remain open. And so that really was something that was born out of that conversation where they were saying they needed to be more proactive in terms of sending this message. Yeah, I just don't want to reiterate. That was a conversation that started in June. Now in October, it's taken us that long to get four. As Sandy said, they're really well done. And whatever we can do to amplify the message and increase the profile, I think is time well spent. And I hope if any of our business community or membership organizations are tuned into this meeting, they'll work with their members to get them on their own social media websites, personal social media platforms and get the message out. Council member Waters, that would be my recommendation is that each of you have your own personal social media accounts. And of course we'll be sharing those in all of the city accounts as well. Thanks. All right, great. Anything else regarding COVID-19? Nothing regarding COVID, I do need to go over some agenda stuff. So go ahead, let's talk about the agendas. All right, mayor council. So as we talk about this and as we were looking at the agendas in the future, we have an agenda coming up that is really crowded. Many of these items are items that you all have been in recent discussions, have directed staff to work on. In addition to this, so it's also coming into play that's not on this list is, you will see a call for an executive session for next Tuesday, where we'll need to, Karen, Kathy and Eugene and I need to talk to you all about the housing authority. But then from a, and this one is time sensitive on October 20th, we would really like to have a joint meeting with the housing authority board and the city council to talk about what we need to do operationally. When you take that, and then you look at what's on this agenda, we have discussion and direction on accessory dwelling units. That was something that council asked us to bring back Longmont Waste Services program review. That is something that you all had wanted us to follow up on, the land development codes, code amendments associated with properties, adjacent to city owned property, and then the inclusionary housing update. I think that one was made by, it was affordable housing that was requested and voted on on the 30th of July, when staff was ready. And then we have the AMI project review and discussion, which was, which is connected to the budget discussions we've recently had. And so the challenge is, if each one of those, conservatively 30 minutes, and then we need the joint session, we can't get through all of this on the 20th. And so I wanted to talk to council about what you all would like to potentially delay on this list. And then I'll stop sharing the screen so the mayor can see hands raised. I don't know who went up first, but let's go the opposite way this time. So Dr. Waters, council member Peck, council member Christensen. For whatever it's worth, for my purpose, you're just gonna take B and D off of that list and schedule them at a different time. For me, the AMI discussion, we're gonna vote the next Tuesday on a budget that includes $13 million for a smart meeting system. I'd like to vote confidently on that evening. And I think the study session is critical to me being able to cast a vote with the kind of knowledge I need to be confident in my vote. And I think the Lancode updates and the ADUs, we've got a number of people in the community who are waiting to see what we're gonna do with those and have keen interest in them. I think the other two, I'm not certain, I don't recall the reason for the review of the inclusionary zoning ordinance. I'll be happy to engage. I just think those things that come back, they're less time-sensitive than the other three. Council member Peck. Thank you. So ADUs, that is not including STRs, right? That's just ADUs. No, that's short-term rentals coming on the next meeting in general business. I believe it's the next meeting. Then I agree that I would say you could take off ADUs in inclusionary housing. ADUs or the Waste Services. I can't see the screen. Let me bring it back up. Dr. Waters said B and D, referring to the Longmont Waste Services and changes to the inclusionary housing. Is that correct, Dr. Waters? Yeah, that was correct. Those are B and D with the two. So just me, I take the B and D off. All right, can we pop them back up? I would do A and B. All right, can we go ahead and... Oh, can we go ahead and there we go. All right, then Councilor Christensen and Councilor Martin. With Councilman Waters and Councilman Peck that we could put off the Waste Services. And I think the affordable housing ordinance is going to be a longer discussion. So I would like to put that off too. And it's not as time-sensitive as the other things as Councilman Waters said. They are things we're going to be voting for coming up and people are waiting on our decisions. So we need to put those, keep those in the forefront. All right, Councilor Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I have a question about the Waste Services. Is that report just on here because the staff's been working on it and it got ready? Or is there some sort of a need to get special direction from the Council about it? So that is, I think, a combination of both. That is a report where you all wanted to, I think before, wanted to see where we are. Talk about that. And then where do we go from here in the future? Dale? Dale? Dale, go ahead. You're muted, Dale. There you go. Councilmember Martin and Mayor Bagley. Dale, you're frozen. Dale's pulling a cartman. Pretend he's here.  So I don't know, did the Council hear anything? I just said that it was all garbled. Go again. So Councilmember Martin and Mayor Bagley. He's still garbled. Hold on, Dale. Hold on. So basically, the report was to give the Council. Yeah, we lost him. It can be delayed. It can be delayed. What he said, Dale said it can be delayed. Go ahead, Harold. Yeah, Dale said it could be delayed. I know there were people in the community that were anxious for this report, but in terms of, I wanted to hear from you all where you wanted to be and what you wanted to see in this. All right, so who is the, Councilmember Martin? You're next. That was my question. All right, so yeah, basically my understanding is the Waste Services presentation has to do with composting and recycling. So I mean, I imagine some of you have friends who follow Council quite closely that might be a little upset that if we pull B, just my thoughts, but the, so Councilmember Christensen. Plus the person who brought composting forth in the first place, I think composting takes a while and we can put that off for a few weeks, especially in light of the fact that the city, the county is thinking about starting a composting facility. So it might be beneficial to let that go a little further and find out what's going on with that. But it is a conversation we need to have, but once again, that could be put off, I think a little bit longer so that we can have a fruitful meeting that's not too jam packed full of stuff that we don't have time to discuss properly. And I guess, so what I was gonna say is that the reason in Councilmember Peck, I didn't mean to be disrespectful or appear disrespectful to you in the beginning of the meeting when you were talking about the update on the lawsuit. As I talked to Harold and staff, it's not just this question isn't just about agendas. In order to talk on a Tuesday night and get the information necessary to have a conversation, our staff has to do a lot of work for each of these issues. And so if it's a problem to fit it into a Tuesday night, it's especially hard to fit it in to an eight to 10 or 12 hour work day. And so I know that our staff in many cases is working more than 12 hours a day. They don't get over time and they're doing a great job. And so we just need to be careful that as we continue, I mean, we keep giving them these huge, huge tasks and they're all important, but we have to just realize that they only have so much time in a day. And my personal opinion is that, I mean, the ADUs currently, the variances that we have downtown, there's no homeowners association.  People wanna know, well, why is my certificate of occupancy being held up? Or why is my neighbor building a ADU by feet off my fence line?  Or why in the world is my trash late? Or why aren't you cutting the weeds?  And so the ADUs are I think are pressing because we have a downtown district without a homeowners that are facing, I mean, people are applying for permits. And I personally don't wanna change the characteristics of our characteristic of our downtown neighborhoods. It's Old Town Longmont, I'd like to preserve it. But then Harold city staff, they need, they're the ones who wanted to bring up the waste services, but it sounds like we're gonna go ahead and pull B if nobody cares. And then the other three were all items that council brought forward, but let's go ahead and if you guys don't mind, inclusionary housing is important, but what we're waiting on as an update as far, I mean, it's still going forward, but we could probably push off the update on how it's working. And so Harold, why don't I go ahead and keep one, three and five or AC and E for that meeting. Anyone object to that? Okay, cool. And then I will need us at the other spot. And this is time sensitive, is the joint meeting on the housing authority? That's fine. We'll have an executive session on Tuesday. Right, but then on the 20th, a joint meeting. That's fine. That's fine. So everybody okay with an executive session on Tuesday? All right, cool. Let's do it. How much time are you gonna need, Harold? Probably start at, I need an hour, but because we have to log on and get early, so I'd probably say start at five 30, that way we can try to get you off. We'll take a little break. All right, that's fine. Okay, great. Okay, all right, thanks Harold. Let's move on Jim to our 2021 budget presentation.  Mayor Bagley, thanks. I don't think I'll be doing that much that you could get me five times, but we'll see. So I'm Jim Golden, Chief Financial Officer. Theresa Malloy is also with me tonight, the budget manager. All we're doing tonight is do some follow up from some questions that council raised last week. The first of those was a request by Councilman Waters, and we had some confusion potentially over what was specifically being asked for. So what we did put into the council communication though, is the programs within the city budget for 2021, entire city budget, not just new dollars that were put into the budget. And each of those programs in the quartiles, three and four for the priority-based budgeting that may have some influence in advancing the cause of equity or provide for folks that would not otherwise have been provided for. And we gave you all an attachment in the communication of all of those quartile three and four programs. I wanted to go real quickly I have just a couple of slides here. I wanna show you some more information. I think we might have overlooked something else that was being asked for. So if you get the next slide, please. This is showing the 2021 proposed budget versus the 20 adopted budget for all funds on the top there. That's the slide that we did show to you last week or the week before. Below it though is a 2021 general fund ongoing requests that were funded. And what we've got there is there's split out between a level one and level two so that you can see, well, this is actually totaling level one and level two. And it shows you how much from each quartile we did fund in the 2021 budget. So those are new dollars in the budget. And then just breaking that out a little further in the next slide is we decided I wanted to separate this out so you could see the difference between level one requests and level two requests. And again, level one requests are expenses that we're going to incur whether we fund them or not the contractual of a large amount of these are from the Platte River Power Authority operating expenses for operating our utility billing CIS. And those are falling in the third quartile there. So there are other items in here that we would incur whether we cover these in the budget or not. Level two, we had a little bit more choice. We had a number of level two requests not a lot because we did tell our staff that they need to limited the amount of requests in the budget process this year because we knew we simply would not have unlimited resources or even much resources to deal with new requests. So we were able to fund some of those requests and those are showing here. So this is where there were more choices being made though. So if that's it, you can remove that slide and any questions on that information in response to that request for information. No, let's move on. Next, we've got just kidding, Jen. It's one, it's one, it's one, okay. Go ahead. All right, I will move on though. So the second item was about funding the Longmont Public Library and what we've done is giving you some information in your council communication on the amount of dollars in the actually the 2020 budget as well as the 2021 budget for the library from multiple funding sources. The general fund obviously is the largest source at $3.7 million in each of those years. The library services fund is about $69,000 in each year. Those are from donations and grants. Then we also have the public improvement fund and in the public improvement fund, we have a couple of uses of the PIF for the library. As you know, part of the bond issue that we voted on a couple of years ago was to provide for a rehabilitation of the library building. It's $2.12 million and I believe that project, I know it was slated to begin in 2021 and I think that might still be the case. And then that's actually been budgeted already. It was budgeted when we issued the bonds but it's within CIP to be used in 21. And then finally, we also have in the public improvement fund, we are funding and I don't have the exact dollar amount because we're doing multiple facilities but we'll be replacing flooring in the West Main entry to the library and the hallway and the meeting rooms. So that's also included in the public improvement fund. Gave the information on certain endowments that we've received in the past for the library. We use the interest on those endowments are able to be utilized and the library board designate what the use of that amount of monies are and you have that information in there. I'm not gonna take you through that detail. And the only other thing I want to point out is that we only did have, again, we asked the whole general fund to limit their budget requests. There was only one budget request as a result from the library. It was an ongoing level two request for $50,000 of digital and print resources augmentation. We were not able to fund that on an ongoing basis. So the city manager did allocate $22,000 of one-time funding for that purpose for 2021. And then the only other thing I was gonna point out I actually pointed out a little earlier in the meeting which is what type of one-time resources you do have available for you for these needs or other one-time needs in this budget. So I gave you actually the three sources being the property tax and the marijuana tax and then the stability reserve. So I wanna point out that the property tax and the marijuana money from 2019 and 2021, I gave you a bunch of numbers then that earlier tonight, total of those numbers is $512,000. So I would recommend obviously that you allocate those first before you consider going beyond that to the general fund stability reserve where we did allocate $1.4 million toward that purpose. That's all I have. I can answer any questions you might have. Council Member Peck. So thank you, Jim, for that update but I do wanna point out that the bond issue for the library was capital improvement project. It wasn't really operating dollars or to buy anything to improve the services that the library can give. So, and I do wanna ask why we did not fund a full 50,000 that's really not that much money that the library asked for. Why don't we give them the full amount instead of the 22? Well, we'll say for ongoing purposes, we really did not have any more ongoing monies to allocate but the city manager did consider a lot of requests for one-time resources. And I think overall he wanted to limit how much dollars we were using on one-time expenses in the 2021 budget. And so that's why he wasn't funding, he only funded 22,000 for that purpose but I don't know if you might wanna add to that. Yeah, so I think there were a couple of components in this one. There were two components to the request and in talking to them in term and Karen I may have to have you help me jump in to help me remember what the conversation was on that. But the 22,000 was really directly related to materials and online resources. And then the remaining portion, Karen what are you on? Do you remember what that was allocated for? So hi, Karen's on. So it really was to, and I think as Nancy presented to the mayor and council about the preliminary results from the feasibility study. So it really was a combination of online and e-resources for children and for adults and to continue to build the adult collection. So those are really, and I don't, Harold I'm sorry I don't remember the exact breakout for that. So that was the 22,000. I can't remember what the remaining. Well, I think we did a combination. So yeah, so I think what certainly has come to light during COVID was just the demand for the online resources from both children and adults. And so there were, there was a request for both e-resources for both children and adults and increasing I think the adult collection. So because regardless of the outcome of the feasibility study, those were demands that they certainly were experiencing the first part of the year. And I think that with what is being demanded of our students be they higher education or elementary, and I'm talking about FRCC as well, that during this time, even if we have to put one time funding, we don't know what next, what 2023 is gonna look like or 2022, that even those issues will be brought up at those budget hearings is what I, or when we look at those different budgets for those years. So I would trust that it would be the library director knowing what requests come in that would actually know what they need. So that's what they need. I suggest we fund it even if it's only one time. I'm always going to be a huge advocate for the library. Give them what they need. So I guess I'm gonna make a motion in that we fund that $50,000 that they requested whether we take the difference out of one time funding or not and then revisit it if they bring it up again next year during the budget process. All right. I'll second that to advance the discussion because I'd like to add to the thinking just a bit. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Dr. Waters, add to the thinking. You're muted, doc. Thank you. I know everybody's worked hard to try to stretch dollars as far as they can be stretched and anything we do will be viewed likely by departments. Like, well, why do I have to do that for my department? But I do think the library's been perennially under resourced. So anything we could do in one time funding, I think makes sense or is worthy. I would add to this. I wouldn't want to just limit it there because I have this question. I don't know what the dollar figure would be, but there was the work that's been done on the feasibility study, none of us have seen the results. As the library board liaison, I haven't seen the results. We're gonna see those results I think at our next library board advisory meeting. But I guess it's a question, are we budgeted? I suspect we're not. Maybe we are just through our planning department to do the kind of planning that is necessary once we have a feasibility study to translate the feasibility study into a study planning documents that give us enough specificity to know what to do and over what kind of timeframe and what it's gonna cost. There's a parallel question here, Harold. And that is, I think we did pretty good work. A collective we, both inside and outside the city staff, members of the community on the STEAM work a year ago, we budgeted this year to do some follow-on. We, that money didn't get spent, but I think we've got the STEAM area falls right into the first and main project. And both the feasibility study and the STEAM work need to be translated, I think, into planning documents to make that work really useful. Is it, am I thinking about that right? Cause if the answer is yes, then my question is, how much more would we budget for the library? Not just for the, to get to the 50, but beyond that, to flesh out from a planner's perspective, or using planning expertise, the planning documents necessary to actually make feasibility study useful.  That was Harold, go ahead. Yeah, so, so we, you know, so when we went into the COVID world, some of them, the money for first and main, I'm gonna answer a couple of questions in this. So some of the money for first and main, and some of the money for the STEAM project, we held because we said we may need that. And then as Jim has given you the updates, in the chart that he indicated, those are our monies that are now less likely to be needed. And so we will have those to be utilized. And I'm looking at Jim too, to utilize in that project. And then we, how much did we put in the budget for those Jim this year or next year? For the first and main transit station? Yeah, the, for this year, it was two and a half million. Correct. So it's two and a half million in the contract. And then for the STEAM, I want to say we had like a, we had a hundred and fifty. 150 was the number. Yeah, we had 150 that we can use for next year to do the work in terms of what the dollar amount would be. I would need to get with Nancy and Karen to understand what would we need to then move into the next step of where we go from here in terms of the library. Now, from a facilities perspective, in terms of what do we need to do with the existing facility? That is the money that Jim's talking about in terms of what's going on with the building, because, you know, what we can do to the building and how we understand that can also impact operations in terms of how can we be via the structure become more efficient and effective and provide services that we do at a different level. But, you know, I don't know, I'd be guessing right now in terms of what it would take but that's a question that we can ask Karen and Nancy and we can have that available in the 13th when we ask for final direction. It just seems to me that the work, the follow on the feasibility study and the planning to translate the work that was done on Steam into something that's actionable in which somebody can make decisions, us or somebody else about investment opportunities and land aggregation, that kind of thing. There's work that has to be done. It likely could be one time money for the work on both projects. That's the way it seems to me. And I'd like to know what that would require on the part of the library that we could add to Council Member Peck's motion. I think both do the digital materials or whatever that's gonna be done by and finish, put us in a position to take advantage of the feasibility study with putting together a set of planning. The other thing in terms of digital materials that I think came into play, I'm trying to remember back a few months. We also got the grant from the National Endowment for the arts that was a joint grant between the library and the museum. And so there was a large digital divide component in that grant funding that's in play. And then also on the digital divide access and library programs that you are talking about, we also did put the 110,000 via the CARES funding into that arena as well. I needed to cover those two pieces. Karen, do you have an idea of what it would take for the next phase? Mayor and Council and Herod was correct. So Theresa reminded me that the other 15,000 of that 50,000 request was for the hotspots for the library. And we were able to get hotspots funded through the National Endowment for Humanities grant. So thank you, Theresa, for reminding me of that. So I would say in terms of the feasibility study and Council Member Waters, what you'll hear at the library board is that what you're going to hear is what are the needs, what are the gaps, how does Longmont funding compared to peer libraries around the nation in terms of size of facilities, in terms of size of budget, those kinds of things. So that is all going to be presented to the library board and certainly we'll bring that back to City Council. So what will not be completed yet is the next step is, so how might we fund that? So we should have a figure around what's, what is a gap and some of that's going to be about facility and so the work that is yet to be completed and some of that is really linked to COVID, to unstable finances right now. I mean, across the nation. So we'll probably have a better idea of a gap, but we will not have the work completed yet about what are the various ways that we might be able to address that various sources of funding. Can I make one more comment, Mayor? Yep. So Karen, I get it, there's a lot of unknowns. I just would not want to get into 2021 and when we raised the question about, so now what we have the result of the feasibility study or gee, we did pretty good work on the steam area and I wouldn't want the response to be, well, we didn't budget for that. So those things have to be sidelined until 2022 to respond to the recession. If it seems to me that we've got some one-time money, we ought to earmark whatever we think the amount would be to do what needs to be done, to translate, to set the feasibility study, put it in a place where it could be actionable and do the planning translate the work on steam and a set of planning documents. So whatever those numbers are, Harold, seems to me that's what we would earmark of the 512,000 in addition to the, whatever, 38,000, would that be the number, yeah, that, or yeah, 28,000 that Council Member Peck is proposing. Yeah, and so I do need to go back and answer that question. So of the 50,000 requests, 22 that we funded with one time, that the remaining 18,000 was actually covered via the grant in terms of what they requested. And so that, I just couldn't, that was a pretty deep dive into the numbers and I just couldn't remember exactly why. You know, if I look at- That would be $10,000 then to get it up to the 50. Maybe. Wasn't it the 15,000 that was funded through the grant? So yeah, it was a lot of spots. So you're trying to go from 22 to 35 then, right? Yeah, yeah, so that was at 35 because we were going to fund the 35, but then the grant covered that. And so whatever that remaining piece is, we can look at it. And then in terms of putting a marker in, I mean, just as I look at it, so we put 150,000 in for first in Maine, which is a much broader area and a lot more work. My gut would tell me between 50 and 75 for the next phase. But what we will do is we will work with Nancy and Karen to have a number for the next council meeting for you all to consider. All right, John, do you want to repeat your motion? Yes, but I just want to clarify. So we're talking about just 15,000 to bring them up to the 50 that they asked for. Is that correct? Okay, so I'm going to amend the motion that we direct staff to find the 15,000 dollars in their budget somewhere to bring the request from the library up to the 50 grand that they requested. Oh, second the amended motion. I think it's a great amended motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. The post say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Council Member Peck. All right. Can I ask for clarification now? So, did I not just hear to tell us to go find it somewhere else in the budget? Meaning? What you would take that as is we're going to go ahead and asking you please take 15,000 from somewhere. Right. Could be one time, Council, can you just come back and let us know what's easiest for you? Okay. All right. So Jim, you're done. Wow, okay, cool. Thank you very much. All right, let's move on then to follow up in discussion about RVs. Harold, you around still? Or Karen, you're going to take this one. I don't think this is yours. Or is it yours? This is Karen. All right, go ahead. Great, Mayor and City Council. So there are a couple of items associated with our conversation that we had back in August about RVs and the increasing number of individuals who are using RVs for their living and the conditions of those RVs and the impact on the neighborhood. So I'm going to start with the first couple of items that Council asked us to come back and have a discussion. And that had to do with basically the, well, there were three directions that we got from Council. One was to consider an RV ordinance that would prohibit RVs or sleeping super vehicles from being parked on public property, including parks and trailheads. And then there was a direction that says, okay, so if we do pass such an ordinance, we want to look at some options for providing assistance or helping folks who are using those sleeper vehicles for their housing temporarily because of circumstances and what might we do for those individuals before who are impacted by an ordinance should Council pass it. And the third direction that we received had to do with an inquiry about the county owned land along Alaska Avenue. And could we have a conversation with Boulder County officials around potential uses for that property that the county owns in Longmont for, potentially for an RV lot, again, for folks who are living in the RVs due to circumstances and not by choice. So after this conversation, Shannon Stadler from Code Enforcement and Jeff Satter from Longmont Police will be talking about the RV ordinance. And we thought that it might be helpful to have a conversation about the other two items before you have a conversation about the RV ordinance. So, so I will, I will, I will hit it fast, mayor. And I appreciate it, but can we start maybe with the last one first that might be easiest? You don't have to, just do what you're gonna do, Karen. The last one first, meaning the ordinance? No, no, you gave a list of things. Yeah, well, I'll just do it. Well, I'll start with one. I'll start with the request to have a conversation with Boulder County about using the property at 1288 Alaska Avenue as a RV safe lot. So we included, and in your council packet, I believe the city manager also forwarded a letter from Jana Peterson, who's the administrator for Boulder County. And basically indicated that that land is in use. So there are three departments in the county. So it's the sheriff's department, public works, as well as the Boulder County Housing Authority that are using that, that property has an active use and it is not available for any kind of community use including parking RVs in that lot. So that's the answer to that question. So I guess, Mayor, that's the easy one, right? Or at least that's where we have a clear direction from county officials. We did not pursue any further conversation with them at that point in time about that particular property. So the second thing that we did some follow up on really had to do with what else might we be able to do? How might we be able to assist folks who are living in their RVs by circumstances to basically help them in the embed that council would provide, would pass an enormous banning recreational vehicles or sleeper vehicles from public property. So there were a couple of things. And so Eleberto Mendoza, who also works in community services is on the line. He did some research as far as what is available as far as RV parking in close proximity to the city of Longmont. That information is in your council packet. So he researched the country would in that's here in Longmont as well as the mobile home, the an RV park that's along highway 52 as well as the Johnson RV park, which is in Johnstown that's just further away from here. So in essence, you'll see that information in your packet, but there wasn't a lot of room in a lot of space available in those three areas for basically parking RVs in there. There's a wait list and they're in pretty high demand. The other thing that we did talk about initially was a conversation with the Boulder County about the use of the fairgrounds and the RV camping and parking that's there. And what we certainly discovered in that initial conversation, and I believe Joni Marsh had the conversation with county staff around that is that the RV campground is closed right now. And so the only thing that's really functional in the campgrounds, the fairgrounds, is that RVs can access the dumping station for disposing of basically wastewater. And so that is operational. And if we were interested in providing any kind of vouchers or assistance for RVs to be able to dump their wastewater in the dumping station, that would be certainly something we can pursue. There was a follow-up discussion, I believe Harold had a follow-up discussion with Jana Peterson about, is there any, could there be any possibility that on a short-term temporary basis three months, maybe up to six months, could the fairgrounds RV be a possibility for some temporary location of, again, folks that are living in their RV by circumstance, not by choice, that we might be able to work out something and provide some assistance and really helping to get folks linked into services or some kind of housing options given that we might be, that council might be passing an ordinance that prohibits RV parking on public property. So it appears that that window is not totally closed, that there can, I think the county is open to having some conversation about that. The recommendation from the county administrator is that she would want that particular option to be vetted by the folks that are involved in homeless solutions for Boulder County so that any recommendation that the county might come up with would be informed by what is happening with homeless solutions for Boulder County as far as folks coming into and being assessed through the coordinated entry system, that they would truly be engaged in those services with the intent of moving toward permanent stable housing. So anyhow, that window is open and I would say that if council wanted us to pursue that conversation with Boulder County and homeless solutions for Boulder County, that it seems like that that could indeed be possible. The other caveat that the county administrator reminded us is that the Boulder County fairgrounds is in case of a fire disaster, which again, there are a lot of fires happening throughout the area, is that that's the location for evacuating animals so that if indeed there were some evacuation orders in Boulder County that the fairground, campground would be off limits for any other use other than for evacuation purposes and for evacuating animals in case of a wildfire. So that is the quick overview and... So Karen, I want to jump in. Yeah, I want to jump in on a couple of... So one of the things that Jana and I also talked about and it's really about the B&B question in terms of the county regulations. And so she did look and to see if anything had come through their system. It actually hasn't and so we've got to figure out what's going on there because they're actually on the east side of County Line Road one, which I'm not sure if that's a well County issue that they're referring to versus a Boulder County issue. So we've got to re-look at that too because it does look like they're in well County if it's the right location that I'm looking at. So we've got to figure that one out. So I think just to wrap this up and then obviously we are available for the questions is that the recommendations that we put in the council communication is that if indeed the council chose to move forward with some kind of a RV ordinance that prohibited parking on public property that it is possible to delay the effective date of that ordinance and we will be suggesting that there would be a delay between when it passes and when it's effective to really give staff the opportunity to do outreach, to work with folks in the community in the situation that are living in their RVs and to do outreach and really to get them connected with coordinated entry and work to get folks into housing to diversion or certainly informing them about what the ordinance is gonna be and they need to be making some other plans. We certainly can move forward if council would like us to do that to have a conversation about the fairgrounds as a temporary option and what those circumstances would be and that again, we would continue to work with our partners with hope, both a shelter that does outreach in the community and to really work with folks to do that outreach to help get folks in a more stable situation than living in their RV. So. Council member Mon, and then council member. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Harold, first of all, you lost me there when you said, I was focused on the fairgrounds and the mid-reach property that we were asking about leasing from Boulder County and then you switched over to the B&B land east of, I had no idea what you were talking about east of County Land Road. So when Ellie Burto, it's under, I need to make sure I get the right page number. It's on page two of the council comm where it says staff researched RV parks in and around Longmont. They mentioned B&B mobile home park. Oh, it was the name of a park. Okay. It was the name of the park and they were saying that they could, it said due to county regulations, it's hard for him to expand. So I kind of broached that topic with Jana to go is this you all and she went in and looked and couldn't find anything in the system, which is then when you look at where it's set, it's on the northeast corner of the intersection of 52 and East County line road one, which means that it's probably a Weld County issue. So that's a different conversation as to the county regs in this. And I just think there's more, you know, it's a different conversation that we have to go through on that issue. Okay. I would like to make a motion, but should I, I should make the motion and we can discuss in the context. Emotions appropriate? Yeah. I'd like to move that the staff go ahead and pursue the option of providing a 90 day, roughly 90 days until the 1st of January, rental arrangement with the Boulder County fairgrounds. That seems pretty safe because it's not fire season during that period of time. And then we could put out dumping vouchers as well for people who have RVs and we could do achieve a pretty significant improvement in the public health situation by doing that. Okay. So that's my motion that we proceed with that, whatever else. I'm sorry, I jumped in too fast, but I seconded. All right. We have a motion on the floor do we have further discussion on this? Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I believe folks remember from the previous conversation that I was worried that we'd go ahead and move forward with this ordinance or prohibition without fully exploring options for folks and that if we did pass an ordinance without exploring these options that they would go by the wayside and we largely just think that problem solved and move on. And that was one thing I was worried about and I still think that we're probably missing it. What is likely a small subsection of the population because for one, Boulder County seems fairly inflexible with expanding the scope of HSBC and the coordinated entry program to accommodate people that aren't necessarily looking for traditional housing or to deal with them in one way or another. I understand that. That is the prerogative of Boulder County and housing, sort of HSBC and seeing that we do have at least some temporary options and I will still as I supported last time the motion as far as the January 1st, I guess, delay as opposed to I believe it was a 90 day or three month that was the motion previously at the last discussion. I'll still support that. And I still would prefer that and obviously it does not seem market feasible as nobody does this, but finding some location which would not be free, maybe partially subsidized for those who are showing financial need but another location is as we've seen all the locations that were provided in the staff report are generally full or have a waiting list and there's not a lot of options for folks that aren't already in those spots. So that worries me somewhat but I'll be supporting the motion and I hope that we do continue further explorations and dialogue in finding places for people that aren't looking for necessarily traditional housing. But with that, I'll be supporting this motion. Thank you. I'm pretty sure I don't see anybody else. So I guess I'm pretty, I'm just from Martin you can go ahead and have your say before I have my say. Thank you. I just like to say that I really emphatically confer with the mayor concur with the mayor pro tem. I think it's pretty paternalistic of us or of HSBC to only provide services to people who want to be like everybody else. And it seems like we should find a way to accommodate that. At the same time, the current arrangement just is not fair to people who do want to be like everybody else. And so we can't twist ourselves into a pretzel just to accommodate what appears to be according according to code enforcement, a really small number of very responsible RV dwellers. Paulie. Councilwoman Martin's initiative. I think that's only one of the options we need to discuss tonight. I agree with Mayor pro tem Rodriguez that we need to have a multi pronged approach. We need to give people some time to adjust to this. So I'm all for what was suggested in the packet that it not take effect until I think it was either. I thought it was January 30th, but we certainly can't have people in the middle of the winter with no place to live. So I would want to discuss also the actual ordinance itself and the way it's phrased and the way we're approaching this whole issue, but we'll do that after we vote for this part of it. Thanks. All right, so I guess let me, let me try and understand. So Councilwoman Martin, the motion is that between now and the first of January in order to prepare, assuming we pass the ordinance, the city would take action in order to make space at Boulder County fairgrounds? Yeah, it was strictly to proceed with the line of attack that Director Roney described, which is make some space during that interim period of time available by leasing it from Boulder County fairgrounds and obtain or create vouchers. Because I guess they didn't close the waste dumping facility, which was really prudent of them. But I think a lot of people have thought that it was closed because the park was closed. Right, I'm not asking you to give your reasoning. I'm asking you to restate the motion. So that's- Yeah, and that's the whole thing. Proceed with what Ms. Roney said in terms of finalizing that arrangement. So in order to not leave people flat footed when the ordinance takes effect on January 1, is that- Exactly. Okay, all right. Dr. Waters. Just to clarify that motion specifically, because of what I've read in the council communication, if we were to successfully negotiate a deal with an agreement with the county, those who would be eligible to use that facility would be those that would register with our coordinated entry program and be pursuing or seeking transitional or permanent housing. Is that correct? Yeah, if I can jump in on that. So a couple of I want to make sure everybody understands a few points. Can I say one more thing, Harold? Okay. Come back to clarify, because I want to add this point. For, because I've heard a couple of reference of people who don't want to be like everybody else. And I don't, you know, nobody, there's nothing in this ordinance that signals that people who choose to live in RVs ought to be like everybody else. But from my perspective, if somebody's in an RV by choice, somebody should have asked a question, where am I going to park my RV before I chose to live in an RV? I don't feel like the city's obligated to create a facility for people who chose to live in an RV, not by choice or not by circumstance, but by choice. We all make choices and we have to live with the consequences of our choices.  We all make those choices. If I make a choice to buy an RV, I'm going to ask somebody ahead of time, where can I park it? Because I don't think we ought to allow parking in parks, greenways, and on the streets for people who are there by choice. And if we're going to put a dollar into creating a facility, for my purposes, any dollar we spend in this area ought to be to get people into transitional and permanent housing. So the explanation about the negotiation and the fairgrounds will be appreciated. So again, it's a short duration, potentially three to six months. Really the potential for that transition point as we move through this. They do want it vetted through HSBC for consider and recommendations. And so here's where it gets pretty solid. Must engage to participate in the coordinated entry screening and to attain more permanent housing solutions. They must stay engaged with the coordinated entry because if you remember when we've talked to you, people will sign up and then they will disengage. And so they must continue to be engaged in that process. And then they may have additional requirements that come into play. And so we know that it's work that we have to continue to do, but what was very clear to me in talking with Jana and I think what Karen's heard from her counterparts is, we can't move away from coordinated entry as we're moving into this world. This is merely a short-term bridge. And I want to be very clear on that. And there's not a lot of spots as we look at this in terms of those conversations. Part of the other component with this that I would like Karen to talk a little bit about is the bridge housing component, because we are seeing more resources come to bear in terms of the potential for bridge housing. But I wanted to reiterate those points on the fairgrounds because I didn't want people to think that it was a longer period of time than what we're hearing. Just hold on one second, so Mike, just clarification. You said three to six months, the motions for January one. Two different issues, the duration. Clarify the two issues then, please. So what I understand is one of the options on the ordinance was council could pass it and it would become effective on January one. What the county's talking about is a three to six month period from when we start in terms of if they're willing to do this, it would be for a period of three to six months. In order, three to six months is the max they're willing to let us use the fairgrounds. If they're willing to go there. Understood. And I guess the, let's go ahead and go with Karen and then Marcia, please go ahead, Karen. Thank you, mayor. So I think when you get to the next item about the ordinance, I think that you certainly can talk then about the effective date. So we just put that in this communication is that delay the effective date. So to give us some time to really work with individuals who are living in the community, living on public property and in sleeper vehicles to try to try to work, to try to explore other options. And so I think the direction is that we will have that, we will have that engagement with the Boulder County about the use of the fairgrounds and we'll do our best to see where that leads us. And I think the other comment that I wanna make is I certainly understand what council members have talked about in terms of the paternalistic perspective of Palma's solutions for Boulder County. And I guess what I would just want to reiterate is that we explore with folks that we are working with all different kinds of housing exits. So our interest is really making sure that we have more stable and more sanitary options for folks to live. And that could be a variety of options. But we're looking for legal options and options that provide some stability to folks so that they can thrive. So just wanted to point that out. Oh, let's hold on one second. Sorry, just something before I call on, we're gonna actually go with Paul or Council Member Christensen, then Council Member Martin, just cause you've already said a few comments on this matter and it's your motion, Marcia. Okay. I received two phone calls from upset citizens this week who both did not want us to pass the ordinance, wanting to know why in the world we would impede on their ability to live in RVs. Both bought their RVs this week knowing this council was going to be talking about this issue. I found it very interesting. Council Member Christensen, you're muted, Polly. Sorry, I would like to call the question. We've been discussing everything but what Council Member Martin was talking about. I would like to move on so we can actually discuss the ordinance and a few other things. I have some motions that I would like to make too. All right, so once the questions has been called, I think it needs a second, it's not debatable and we need a majority vote. Does anybody care if we just vote? Second. No, but I'm just saying, does anyone cares? Can we do it by consensus? Can we just go ahead and vote or does somebody really, really, really want to say something? Let's just go ahead and vote. All right, all in favor of Council Member Martian's motion which basically was instructing staff or directing staff to negotiate with Boulder County and the use of Boulder County fairgrounds in order to create a space for people who own RVs and are sleeping and using RVs as their home in order to help them prepare for this ordinance when it is enacted or should it be enacted later on this evening? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say nay. All right, it passes unanimously. Thank you, Council Member. All right, I'm actually, and then does somebody want to make a motion for the actual ordinance itself at this point? So we don't have Council Member Christensen. We need to present on that. All right, let's go ahead and take a, you might, if we make it to take a two minute break real quick, anyone, anyone in mind? I've got something in my eye and I need to go wash it out. Anybody care? All right, cool, thanks. Back into Council Chambers is cold. So is mine.  Sandy, turn off the heat. Actually my laptops heat the little corner that I sit in for these meetings to an almost unbearable level. If that's true, you need a new laptop. They're very new, except the city one. Use my city one.  We're not in session yet. We're still waiting on Mayor Pro Tem if you want to say something. I'm going to screenshot that. What she just did, Polly, I'm going to screenshot. All right, it looks like we're all back. So let's go ahead and continue.  Peck, go first.  Oh, how kind, thank you. So I'm glad you made that motion, Marsha, our Council Member Martin, but if in fact the county says no, we cannot use the fairgrounds, we're back to square one. So to Alberto and Karen, Alberto, I guess, and Karen, is there a regulation through the county that no more permits for RVs are going to be allowed? So therefore, or expanding of RV lots that are right there, that are there already? And the reason I'm answering, asking this question is that we don't have any place for people who want to live in their RVs to park if in fact there are no spaces in these lots. So Alberto, in your research, did you find that there is a policy with the county that they are not allowing any new RV parks or expansions of existing ones? Council Member Peck, I did not look into that. Back to Carol's point about that place and what seems to be well-county. The owner didn't indicate to me which county he was in. He was just saying he was having issues with a county and he has the land to expand, but he can't because of some county issues, but I didn't delve into which county he was in. And my understanding, and I think was that it was actually the city of Longmont that did not allow more RV parks. I think that came up during a conversation around safe lot, but I think Joni knows more about that as far as the code is concerned. Is that also would be the LBC, the Land Development Code, or is it just a specific regulation for RVs? Could you, there she is. Hi. Hi, I'm Mayor Bagley, Council Member Peck. So Alberto is correct. So the Land Development Code has not allowed new RV parks in the city. I wanna say since the early 90s, so that is not an allowed land use. I have not checked Boulder County's land use code. I can certainly do that and check in with Dale Case there and see what their current regulations do or don't allow. Okay, so thank you, Joni. So I'm thinking that we don't wanna go back to square one and have to revisit this. We should have some kind of a vision. I'm very concerned about climate migration, which other middle states are already seeing. And I want us to have a plan so that we're not caught off guard. If in fact, I am thinking, can we have a temporary moratorium on that Land Development Code not allowing RV parks so that if the county does say no, they will not allow us to use the fairgrounds, then we can direct the staff to look within the city for that temporary space. So I am just gonna make a motion so that going forward, we have a plan. So I move that we direct staff if we cannot find space for a safe lot within the county that we temporarily have a moratorium on the LBC code prohibiting RV parks within the city.  So I guess my thoughts are, can we, Council Member Christensen? Second. All right, there's a motion. I guess I was gonna say, it'd be nice to have a motion on the actual ordinance. We don't really have one. But I guess what I'm saying is that, right, so that's my point. So Council Member Martin, I won't vote to reconsider your original ordinance or your original motion, but I was acting on the assumption that we were going to move forward with staff's recommendations to prohibit RV parking on our streets. As much as I feel for people, these are people that don't pay property taxes, they could literally start their car and move to another town tomorrow. They could drive into our town yesterday. And they are, I understand that some people might have been in Longmont and some people choose or don't choose to live in them, but our city streets were not made to accommodate RVs. So until we actually, I'd like a motion, if not, I move that we direct staff to actually proceed with the ordinance of prohibiting RVs from utilizing city streets at all as presented in our packet. Were you addressing me, Mayor Bagley? No, no, I was just basically making a motion. I mean, I've been asking for something. Well, there's already a motion. No, no, I know, but you're right. You're true, that's out of order, then I'll do it after. But my point is that we need that. I don't want to have a, I'm not going to vote for the motion that's currently on the table. I would if we address the original motion, but I don't want, if we don't address the original intent of this agenda item, all we're doing is approving safe lots, if that makes sense. So- Well, actually what I was, the way I thought we would proceed is to go ahead and recommend moving forward with the ordinance. Now, if we have a three month period and we can't come to an arrangement to cover that period, we can repeal the ordinance again. Right, but what I'm saying is there's no motion. The ordinance has not been, we've not directed staff. All we've done is said, go ahead and make sure that through January one, we are talking with Boulder County to use the fairgrounds. That's my only point. So let's go ahead and start with Council Member Christensen this time and Council Member Peck. Actually, let's go with Karen, then we'll go with Paulie, Joan, Susie. Okay, go. Thank you, Mayor. And so I did, I think Harold talked a little bit about this, but I did want to follow up on the concept of bridge housing and this mayor may not address Council Member Peck's concern. So we are also pursuing at the same time that we're pursuing these other options, a couple of things. One is we are partnering with Boulder County to write and submit a grant for really would be for funding for temporary bridge housing and that would be basically a hoteling for temporary part in time, point in time that really is related to COVID. So we are that we are pursuing that and should that funding be granted, my understanding is that funding would be available starting in November 1st. So again, that there's a lot of things that have to happen, but I do want to let you know that we are pursuing that as a resource to help with this situation that we're talking about here. And also, yeah, I think we put this in the council comm is that we also are looking at a couple of different options in terms of master leasing with the funding that we did receive from city council in 2020 to help with housing exits. And so part of that's been working with the Lamont Housing Authority. And so we're pursuing master leasing options that then also gives us some flexibility for some temporary housing as we help people get into more permanent stable situations. So we are working on a plan A, B, and C for how do we help people that are in really unstable house situations to move toward more stable from the housing. So I just want to let you know that. Okay, council member Christensen. I have several motions, one of which is a prohibited use which is, but I can't give it until we vote on councilwoman Peck's proposal. I believe what we're trying to do is proceed along with what councilwoman Martin said, with what councilwoman, council, I mean, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez's concerns were councilwoman Hidalgo-Farring and councilwoman Peck and I trying to set the stage for not just a discussion of the ordinance but a discussion of the effects of this ordinance and getting those in place before we discuss an outright ban on living in your vehicle, not banning RVs from the streets of Lamont, which punishes everyone in the city who has an RV or any kind of work vehicle, but simply living and sleeping in a vehicle on the streets of Lamont, which needs to be prohibited because we can't have people living on the streets in their vehicles and dumping their sewage and dumping their garbage and doing their laundry and doing, you know, we can't afford that. However, we need to vote on the issue that we have at hand right now and then I will be happy to make a motion to prohibit the use of any trailer coach, mobile home, self-reported motor home, trailer or recreational vehicle or any recreational equipment of any kind cannot be used for living, sleeping or residing on any street or public right away within the city. But first we have to vote on councilwoman Peck's motion. Yes, council member Beck. So, Mayor Bagley, I don't agree with your assessment that all RVs should not be allowed on the streets because it's punitive. Well, that's not what I, let's stop the conversation. That's what I'm saying. What I'm saying is in the packet, I was generalizing. What I'm saying is there's a packet item that we have not yet voted on and that's it. I'm not arguing that we ban all RVs. That's not the point. My point was there's an item in our agenda that was suggested. That's what I was referring to. So, I mean, just to cut the money off, but keep going. Okay, the point and the discussion about the bridge loans I think is important because to Mayor Pro Tem's point of view that people do want to live in their RVs and there is no place to park, they can't they don't want or can't afford rent then possibly we can bring in that bridge loan conversation to help them move off of our streets. I don't know if that's possible but it is a discussion that we need to have. So if we are going to help residents who are affected by COVID for some reason or other have to live in an RV until they can find housing I don't want to kick them out of our town and say too bad. That is the point that I wanted. That's the point of my motion is that we don't stop looking just because the county says no to us. Is there, can we have a temporary solution by just putting a halt on our LDC code? That was the point of that until we can get these people into housing first through the coordinated entry system. It is compassionate, it is empathetic it is what we should do for our residents. So I call the question. All right. Second. Okay, let's go ahead and vote on favor of having the ceasing all debate at present. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Nay. Nay. All right. Ayes have it. Six to one. All debate is over. Sorry, Polly. Debate is over. Can you go ahead, Council Member Peck and restate your motion? Yes. I'll understand. So if all conversations with the county fail in letting us temporarily use a space regardless of where it is for people living in RVs who would like to be part of the coordinated entry system. If those fail, I would like to put a temporary halt on our LDC code prohibiting RV lots in Longmont so that our staff can look for a place in Longmont for these small group of people to parks until we find them housing. That makes sense. Yeah. All right. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. All right.  All right. Passes four to three with Council Member Christensen, Peck, Hidalgo Ferring and Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, four and myself and Council Member Martin and Dr. Waters against. All right. Council Member Christensen. In mind that I would discuss something else first but I, okay. I have looked at the packet as we all have. It strikes me as a bizarre and overly lengthy way of trying to solve the problem. The focus is that we do not want people sleeping and living in RVs on our streets. Those are the only people that we are concerned with and I don't want the rest of the people in the city who own construction vans, construction vehicles, RVs that they use as recreational vehicles once or twice a year. I don't want all of those people to have to worry about anything because they haven't done anything wrong.  If your neighbors don't care, why should the city care? Nobody is living in those vehicles. So I looked up Boulder and Louisville because they're in the county and because they're towns like us. And I think Louisville has a very simple and decent focused law that says, quote, no bus, trailer, coach or mobile home, self-propelled, I sent you all this afternoon. No bus, trailer, coach or mobile home, self-propelled motor home trailer or recreational vehicle shall be or any recreational equipment of any kind shall be used for living, sleeping or residing on any street or public right of way within the city. I would also add public park. The foregoing prohibition shall not, well, the second part of this is something that I don't agree with. It says the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to sleeping within a recreational vehicle for no more than 14 nights with any six-month period on a public street in front of a residence with that resident's permission. We already have that resolved with a seven-day permit that people can get for their guests and then they can extend that once and frankly, who wants their relatives living in front of their house for more than seven days. I think it's, they can always use it as an excuse like, well, the city won't let you live there so you'll have to leave. You can only stay for seven days. Anyway, I think this law focuses solely on the problem which is people living in their vehicles and sleeping in their vehicles. That's the only problem that we have with RVs. We don't need to, as Mr. Flowers said, we don't need to make exceptions, create a very complicated system which we have in the laws presented to us whereby we make a very complicated bunch of laws and then we give exceptions to this. Just have one law that states that people cannot sleep, live or reside in their vehicle on the public streets of lawnmower. Do I have a second? Councilor Peck? I'll second it. All right. I guess what I'd ask is Commander Satter, Deputy Commander Satter here, didn't he have a presentation for us tonight? Yeah, can we have that presentation before we vote on this please? Hello, I'm on. And I'm here with Tim Hull who's with the city attorney's office, Shannon Stadler and Nathan Schultz. And we were part of the committee that worked on this issue around the RV ordinance. And I just turned the recommendations but I think it's a little more complicated to that because if it just prohibits sleeping, then we got to catch them in there sleeping. And that's one of the reasons why we wrote the ordinance the way we did. A lot of thought has gone into this ordinance because there are consequences with words and situations and Tim may be able to answer some of this too. But we spent a lot of time really looking at the words to make sure it's legal, constitutionally fair and correct. And there are consequences for our officers and our staff. If it's just sleeping in a vehicle or something like that, it just causes consequences that how do you prove that? So that's why we wrote the ordinance the way we did. But Shannon has a nice presentation already to go. And so I'd like to hand it off to her to go through it really quick. But I would just like to add a lot of work has gone into trying to get our wording into a spot that's enforceable and clear for everybody involved. And we're not trying to eliminate the homeowner that has an RV from parking in front of this house that loaded that's not the intent and our ordinance makes that clear. Same with the cargo trailers and things like that. Anyway, I'll hand it off to Shannon if that's all right. Mayor, council members, Shannon Stadler, code enforcement manager with the city. Heather, if you don't mind going to slide too, thank you. So the proposed amendments as deputy chief setter said, we have worked on these for probably close to a year to get everything vetted legally and also to make it, to make sure that it's not a burdensome ordinance for staff to enforce either. I'd like to interject here that just since the 1st of September, code enforcement in my office has received 45 complaints on sleeper vehicles on public streets and parks locations. And this is in addition to any of the complaints that were made directly to the police department. My staff, you know, council represents the residents of the city, but I feel my staff represents the residents who call in looking for resolution to their concerns and that we've worked long and hard to come up with an amendments to our code that are legally enforceable. Heather, next slide please. So the goals of the proposed code amendments are to facilitate better use of limited staff resources when dealing with repeat violations. We get calls a lot of times on the same recreational vehicles that just move around. And we found that the current iteration of the code where they only have to move 600 feet resulted in us responding to the same RVs just 600 feet away. Secondly, it's to improve the public health and safety on public rights of way and public property. As we've discussed before, the leaking of sewage, the trash that is left behind when people are living on the streets can present quite a problem environmentally. We have to call out public works on many occasions to clean up the sewage that's left behind in the streets. And thirdly, to allow for the judicious use of public rights of way in the manner for which they were intended. Public right of ways were never designed and are not appropriate as permanent places for people to live. Heather, next slide please. First amendment, legal, further defined a sleeper vehicle to include the terms recreational vehicle on any vehicle that's been converted to serve as temporary living or sleeping accommodations. So like if school buses, old Greyhound buses, things like that that have been converted for sleeping accommodations. Next slide. A sleeper vehicle would no longer have 48 hour allowance to be on the public street or public property unless a permit is issued or if the sleeper vehicle is actively being loaded or unloaded. A sleeper vehicle would no longer have the ability to move from one public location 600 feet away once it's been notified that they're in violation. So they would need to get a notification from code enforcement or the police department that they cannot be on the street. And that would give them time to make arrangements to move to private property or to move somewhere else out of the city. Next slide please. Any vehicle other than a sleeper vehicle would still have a 48 hour allowance when left on public rights of weight or public property without moving before it would be considered an abandoned or publicly kept vehicle. And then you're in the council comm I did include standard operating procedures that both the police department code enforcement and parking enforcement follow when we're notifying someone that they're in violation of any code really, but particularly in this case the abandoned vehicle code. We have red tags that we put on vehicles, notifications that people get that give them plenty of time to figure out how to come into compliance. And then also bonafide contractor trailers would be exempt from the 48 hour allowance while at an active job site up to a period not to exceed 180 days. Next slide please. State or city vehicles or contractors are exempt from provisions of the code walling the performance of official duties under state or city authorization. And then we further defined active loading or unloading to prohibit unloading to a right of way, a greenway or a park. Next slide please. Another amendment to the code would be that the sleeper vehicle permit fee is reduced from $40 to $25. Next, the sleeper vehicle permit issuance is restricted to four seven day permits per specific vehicle, per specific applicant anywhere in the city in a given year. Next slide please. Sleeper vehicle permit code language was amended to prevent multiple persons from taking turns applying for a permit on the same sleeper vehicle, as well as for one person applying for multiple permits on different sleeper vehicles. Next slide please. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to chapter 1112 with the goal of creating safer streets and neighborhoods by reducing toxic waste and minimizing the negative effects of sleeper vehicles and sleeper trailers parking on public streets and public property, which in turn helps protect our valuable water resources. Next slide, thank you. Council Member Peck. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. After listening to the presentation, I like this ordinance in the wording in it, so I'm gonna retract my second. Okay. Council Member Christensen. Well, with this ordinance, every person who has an RV in this city has to go get a permit to have an RV that they can occasionally park on the street to clean it out. And any contractor cannot have their vehicle on the street even though their garage probably is four feet too short to fit it in their garage. And I, you know, there are many, many people in this town who are contractors who have vehicles that they keep their tools in. This does not address them at all. They are not sleeping in it. They're not doing anything. They're parking it in front of their house because it doesn't fit in their driveway and it doesn't fit in their garage. There are a lot of people who have gigantic RVs who don't fit in their driveway either. So how does this address those? I believe we have some answers to that. So hold on one second, Ms. Stadler. So Council Member Christensen. So in the first part of your question about the contractor vehicles, this ordinance does not address contractor vehicles. It only talks to contractor trailers. So the regular vehicle, like a painter van or anything like that is treated exactly the same as any other passenger vehicle that's left on the street for too long. So in all of these provisions in the code are mostly dependent on complaints. We do not even have close to the amount of staff that would be able to address just driving around the city and looking for, or even noticing that something had been on the street too long. Most of these are dependent on complaints that we would get. So a contractor vehicle would just be treated like a car that got left on the street for too long. They would get a notification and they would be advised that they needed to move it to a slightly different location. They're not required to remove it completely. Mayor. As part of their, I mean, what if this is a permanent thing that they use every day and they park it in front of their house every day? So if they move it. And if someone on the block complains then they have to move it. Or they have to get rid of it. So the law. Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead, Shannon. So a vehicle's not abandoned if it moves. So it would have to sit unmoving for 48 hours to be considered abandoned. If they drive it every day, it's not a violation. Mayor. Go ahead, Harold. I'm gonna ask Tim to jump in on this one. So if you, and I can't see the page numbers online. If you look at, if you go to the draft ordinance on page two. Tim, help me clarify this. So the language you struck in red is already in the existing ordinance, correct? Yes. You'll see, Mayor and members of Council of Tim Hall, Assistant City Attorney.  And so it's not necessary, necessarily true that if it's read, it's out. So the contractor's vehicle provisions, the contractor trailer provisions were in the existing ordinance. Those are unchanged, they just moved. So that was, I think one of the points I wanted to make in the ordinance is the 48 hours is in the existing ordinance today for four contractors in terms of their vehicles and how we deal with it. It's not a new piece of the ordinance that's being added in this. And like Shannon said, is when they're moving their cars this is not anything that gets police attention or code enforcement attention. It's when it's left somewhere for multiple days in a row that people start complaining. But a contractor that's working daily is moving his car daily and that's not gonna get any attention from a neighbor. So what I'm hearing Councilman Christensen is that I think everybody agrees with your concerns but the ordinance addresses them. Councilman Peck? Well, so I do have a question about that 48 hours when you say it's left there for 48 hours and it hasn't moved. What does the police do? For example, we had a situation where we had cars that didn't move for weeks because my husband was ill. Do you just ticket that? Or do you go to the home and ask for an explanation? If someone's on vacation and the car sits there. I have a problem and this probably goes to the police department basically and what you inform police to do. Are there individual police that would automatically ticket or tow an automobile that has sat there without contacting the person? I think that that is really kind of what we're getting to. How detailed is this ordinance? It doesn't really say, it just says if it hasn't moved in 48 hours. So as you know, there's 340 miles of roadway in this city, thousands and thousands of cars. Right. Police are not aware of every car that's parked in a home. So we don't just drive down the street and run a license plate to see where the car belongs. It's usually based on a neighbor calling and saying, hey, there's a car parked on my street. It hasn't moved for a couple of weeks. An officer would go over there, run the plate. If the plate came back to the home, they would inform the complaint and hey, the car belongs to the home. And they may even attempt contact with the homeowner. But they likely would do nothing with that because the car's with that home. Now, if the car registered to Boulder they would make contact at the home and ask, hey, do you know whose car this is? They would put a sticker on the car that says the car needs to be moved within 48 hours. And then they would come back at a later date. And often it's not within 48 hours, just because of volume of calls for service to check if the car is there. If the car wasn't there, at that point, they could potentially tow the car. But if the car belongs to a homeowner, we're not towing those cars off the street unless it's some junk kind of car. But if it's a registered car, we're gonna make an attempt to talk to the homeowner and at least put some sort of notice.  That would be very rude and impolite. I'm not very social for our police department. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Yes. All right, let's go ahead and go, Council Member Dogg-Offering, because her fingers are moving fastest and then we're gonna go with Dr. Waters. Okay, thank you. So I actually, I have a couple of questions. So one, so I had heard that Shannan Stadler had stated that 48 complaints that your office has received, 45 complaints, sorry, about approximately, how many does the public safety? I think the last time we... Yeah. Yeah, I think the last time we talked, I counted that we were right around 150 and that was when we talked about this the last time we presented this. As you know, you sent me a complaint today. I also got a complaint from that same neighborhood from Paulie Christensen a couple of weeks ago. So that vehicle moved on for whatever reason. I don't know if it got tagged, but now it's back in the same neighborhood and we're gonna go back and tag that car again. So many of our cars, like Shannan said, get tagged over and over and over again and we just chased them around town. And so it's one car gets tagged multiple times and nothing happens with those cars. So that leads to those numbers of vehicles that, like I said, we were in 150 range when we talked about this in September, I believe it was. So it's kind of staying hovering at that over 100 complaints pretty regularly. By the end of the year, it's significant. Okay, okay. And then the other question. So in response to the public invited to be heard comment, Mr. Fowler who has the RV in his home.  That's those aren't kind of the vehicles that you're receiving complaints about. Is that? That's correct. And neighbors know their neighbors. And if somebody called, let's say somebody called in Mr. Fowler's RV and an officer or a code enforcement officer would go there, we'd run the plate and see that it belongs to that house. And we'd have a conversation. Those aren't the ones that we get complaints about. It's the one that has the lawnmower that is left in the yard, all the trash that you've sent me pictures of. They're parked on some side street. They're parked in a neighborhood and they're dumping all their trash in that neighborhood. We don't get calls from a homeowner that is unloading their car or they have it parked in the street overnight cause they're letting their refrigerator. Those are very uncommon. And when we do get them, the car lists to that residence. And that's where the permits also help if you have a guest that wants to come into town and stay at your home for a week, you can do that under this ordinance. And again, we would know there's a permit and the officer would have a conversation. And even if we threw a tag on it, the person would say, hey, I have a permit. And it's like, oh, sorry about that. I think a lot of this too is also educating the public to know who's going to be affected by this ordinance who isn't, who's pretty safe with this ordinance. And if the RV is tied to that house, that those aren't the vehicles we're looking at. So council member Hedoggle-Ferring. Yes. I get a fair amount of calls in my code enforcement office from people asking that particular question, grandma and grandpa are coming in, what should I do? And the first thing I tell them is go let your neighbors know that you're going to have visitors.  So you've already alleviated the need for a permit, right? And your neighbors know who's there, they know how long they're going to be there, all's good. Like Jeff, there's no reason for us to even respond to anything like that. Okay, thank you. All right, Dr. Waters. Thanks, Mayor Bagley. I move that we accept the changes proposed in the packet we received for tonight's meeting. We direct staff to bring them back to us in the form of an ordinance for first reading at a subsequent council meeting. Second. All right, is there additional debate on the matter? Council member, sorry, Mayor Pro Tem, Rodriguez. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. So basically my reading of everything so far and listening to the explanations provided to us by staff is that there aren't the kind of loopholes or oversights that council member Christensen is concerned with. I think she has a different reading of it, which is fair. And until we actually see without red lines and some of those things, seeing the actual first reading draft ordinance, it'll be harder for maybe some of us to read it in a way that doesn't show kind of some of these loopholes or unintended consequences that could happen. But I don't think that at this time, words smithing it when legal and staff are saying that all items are essentially covered both for the sleeper vehicles as well as for non-sleeper vehicles and the contingencies thereof. So I'd rather see the non-red lined version or the first for first reading. And then if we do still see these holes that we can make those decisions at that time instead of trying to over words smith at this time. So I would agree with council member Waters as far as moving forward this also as an explanation to the public as far as my vote on this is concerned. I've said for a long time to folks that I've met with on the subject that I would support basically this concept of this ordinance that we're moving forward as long as we were finding that kind of support for those folks that need it who are in RVs. And while it wasn't everything I wanted out of it, oftentimes perfect as the enemy of the good. And I think that we got a lot of good things in here and that we're also doing a good thing for the folks by finally addressing this because it has been a long time coming because I remember when the original ordinance was passed which was prior to my election over nearly three years ago. So with that I'll support the motion to move forward and I don't expect anything else from my colleagues here on council that we'll take a good hard look at that ordinance when it comes through and try to see if there are any holes in it at that time as well. All right, I'm gonna call on Council Member Christensen but does anyone oppose to voting after Council Member Christensen speaks? Okay, Council Member Christensen. Okay, my other objection to this is it includes a section on unregistered vehicles or it includes a section on junked vehicles and that includes unregistered vehicles. Unregistered vehicles are not junked vehicles. And for someone to have their car towed as has happened to me when they are merely a couple of months out of have failed to renew their registration, which I know the mayor also failed to renew his registration a few years ago. This is easy for all of us to do the postcard slides under all the other bills that don't get paid. And instead of dealing with it right away, which is what you should do, you forget and then you're out of compliance, you don't remember at all. I would like to change this law so that unregistered vehicles are a separate category which is just something that you get a ticket for, not have your car towed for, which is something that the ordinance as it stands now allows people to, allows the officer at their own discretion to tow this. Tim Holt or someone wrote us back about this a while ago and said, yes, under that law, you can tow a vehicle for being out of registration. I believe that's theft, frankly. And I don't think that you should be allowed to tow a vehicle under any circumstances because it is a couple of months beyond its registration date. I think that should be a separate category called unregistered vehicles and they should be given a ticket and they should be given a ticket and I sent you the information that Lewisville has on unregistered vehicles and I believe that should be taken out. I believe I know what you're gonna say but Ms. Stadler, can you go ahead and say what you're gonna say? So mayor and council member Christensen, I've worked for the city for 23 years. This code 11, 12, 050 has been on the books for at least that long. It has not changed. We are not changing it. We just included it. I believe Tim could address why it was included but that's because this whole chapter, 11, 12 is being amended. So we had to include 11, 12, 050 but that's not a new code. That's been on the books for at least 12 years, probably longer and the SOP that I included in the council comm for junked vehicles on public streets includes the fact and Jeff can concur with this. We typically write a parking ticket to them first. They get a parking ticket and if they're still there on the street a couple of days later with the parking ticket on it then they may get towed but the first course of action is usually a parking ticket for expired plates. But the code does not say that there must be a ticket issued. And that's because there are, there's discretionary use of the code depending on the circumstances. Every circumstance is different. One junked vehicle may be a hazard in the street and would you not want it towed if it was a hazard? Yes. It's marked in front of your house and it is towed with no warning on a Friday afternoon and you have to pay the fees for Friday, Saturday and Sunday and Monday, it's very expensive. Well, I think that's without warning. In a particular situation that happened to just.  That's a different issue than the ordinance that's currently on the agenda. If somebody wants to bring it up on some future. I'll bring it up another time. All right, Dr. Waters, do you have something to say on this? I was just gonna ask but there's a motion on the floor. I understand the concern. Yeah, that was, that's why I cut it off.  All right, there's a motion on the forward floor that was eloquently stated, basically saying, let's direct staff to move forward and prepare an ordinance based on the presentation or recommendation by the staff. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Very complicated topic, but all in all, it was fairly painless, so thanks. Thank you everyone. All right, now we're gonna go on to Council Member Christensen. One more thing. The reason B&B Park was brought up is because a friend of mine went down there to see if he could park an RV there. The man who owns the park told him who seems to think that he lives in Boulder County told him that Boulder County has a policy, he's been trying for several years to expand his park, which could be double the size. Boulder County will not issue him a permit to do that. And he went to, and that's where he thinks he lives. So we need, what I would move is that staff consult with Boulder County and Weld County to be sure that they are not banning issuing of permits for RV parks. Trying to get one within the city limits of Longmont is problematic because we don't have a lot of space, but there is a lot of County land. And Boulder County needs to take some responsibility for the fact that we are getting a heavy load of recreational vehicles because they've been banned in Louisville, they've been banned in Boulder, they've been banned all over. So we're getting them and they need to take some responsibility for issuing new permits to RV parks. So hold on a second, so I guess I would question, the one second before somebody throws his second. Harold, can you just choose an email on what the Weld and Boulder County's policy is on issuing new RV parks and facilities? Can somebody on staff do that fairly quickly? We can do that. And as I stated earlier to the point, that's one of the things I want to look at because it doesn't make sense. And I think we need to talk to this individual and help facilitate that conversation. All right, so now we are now going to move on to C, but let's take a two minute break and talk specifically about post changes to lo