I would now like to call the May 19th, 2020 Longmont City Council regular session order. Could we please start with the roll call? Yes. Mayor Bagley is not on the meeting yet. Council Member Christensen. Here. Council Member Adagio-Ferring. Here. Council Member Martin. Here. Council Member Peck. Here. Council Member Rodriguez. Here. Council Member Waters. Here. Mayor, you have a quorum. Mayor Pro Tem, you have a quorum. Thank you. At this time, we will do the Pledge of Allegiance. Everybody ready? All right. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands, from nation to God, indivisible liberty and justice for all. All right, that always sounds so good. All right. First, I'll do the reminder to the public for anybody wishing to speak during first call public invited to be heard on our public hearing item, on any of our public hearing items or for our final call invited to be heard. You'll need to watch the livestream of the meeting. Instructions for how to call in to provide comment will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen at the appropriate times during the meeting. Comments are limited to three minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. At this time, we will do the approval of minutes. I see no approval of minutes for this session. Is that correct? All right, then. We shall take agenda revisions and submission of documents and motions to direct the city manager to add any agenda items to the future agendas. All right, the second hearing. Let me maximize my screen so I can see everybody. Councilmember Peck. Then Marsha. Thank you, Mayor Pro Temor-Rigas. I actually have two motions tonight and I'm bringing them forward because when we were on WebEx, we didn't have any way to do public input. And now that we're on Zoom, we do. So I'm going to move to direct staff to bring forward the second reading on Metro districts at the next regular session. Can I have a second? I'll second that. Second. OK, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this item? Councilmember Waters. Yeah, anyone who won't surprise Councilmember Peck or the others on this program or on this in this meeting, that I think that's a bad idea. I'm going to vote against the motion. And I understand the fate of Metro districts may be done. I will say I think anything to do that we do right now under these conditions that make it more difficult to house people in Longmont is irresponsible. And I just think generally, we ought to wait until we can have a fuller, face-to-face, more robust discussion and carefully analyze the implications of doing what it seems like we're going to do. But to do it under these circumstances feels to me like it's a disservice. Though a whole bunch of people are housing insecure in this town right now are going to be more so when we come out of this pandemic. So I'm going to vote against it. I think it's a bad idea. I think it does not keep faith with what we said we're going to do in terms of the public input. Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. I have a different reason for wanting to postpone this, which is that as people have become housing insecure as a result of their layoffs or because of the strange circumstances of being homeless during a pandemic or whatever, I have a short list, not a huge list, but a short list of other housing related items that I think should be considered by the council. And so my belief is that we should consider them close together one after another at an appropriate time so that we can see how they interact with one another. And for that reason, I would rather postpone because, for example, I don't think that the staff has the time to get together a sources of income ordinance for a long month right now. Thank you, Councilmember Christensen. This is something that we have carefully discussed and analyzed since November the 7th. And this leaves developers hanging. I don't think that's appropriate. This is the second and final reading. We have discussed it and discussed it for months. Everyone has had many, many opportunities to weigh in. I cannot understand how people think this has to do with providing portable housing. It does not. And we need to get this out of the way so we can discuss other housing options. This has just been hanging. And we need to be moving along through some things so that we can start dealing with all the things that we've left hanging during the coronavirus. This is something that's just been put off and put off and put off.  So this is one thing we can just have a final hearing on. Everybody have their voice heard and take a vote, make a decision, and move on to something more productive. All right. Well, I suppose I'll just chime in real quickly that part of the reason it was postponed in the first place was due to the lack of the ability to have a proper public hearing. In my opinion, while we have been able to have comments from the public during these Zoom meetings, I'm pretty sure most would agree that they are not as robust as they normally would have been in an in-person setting. And I'm concerned that there was a somewhat of a tacit agreement that we try not to bring things that are particularly controversial to our constituents during this time where it's difficult for many of those to be able to participate in this process. So I'm concerned about that. And I'll probably, if this time, vote accordingly. Council Member Peck. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. I just agree with you in that we have had several meetings about this where all interested parties have weighed in. We've had letters from the Chamber. We've had, I'm losing my train of thought here, we've had discussions from the Real Estate Association, from LEDP, from the Chamber. We have had, at the last robust meeting that we had, we had investors fly in from Canada that made their reasons for wanting to do business in Longmont heard. We had people fly in from Chicago. We've had three robust or the ability to have robust comments about this issue. I just want to get off of our plate some of the issues, rather than keep dragging them out, that we can actually get off of our plate. It also leaves the planning department kind of hanging. They don't know what we're going to do if this is going to pass or fail. This is about six months now that we've been saying we need more input from the public. We need more input from developers. At what point do we say we have enough, we have enough input? No matter what, what our platform is, there are going to be people who say we need more input. I disagree and that's why I brought it up. Because when I look at our agenda, we don't have very many things that can just be an up and down vote and get off of our plate. So that's why I brought it up. So I call the question, let's vote. Or I have a different, I would like to amend my own motion if that's possible. Absolutely, can you change your motion? Yeah, I would like to change this motion that we may move to direct staff to bring forward the second reading on Metro districts at the first meeting that is held in a public venue, probably in our council chambers. It looks like from the emails that we got today from Dawn that we're looking at July, possibly to be moving back into our chambers once they've been remodeled. So I would like this to be on the first agenda of the regular meeting when we are back in the public domain. So that's my amended motion. Is that a second count? I've been a council member, Christianson seconded that. Okay. Any conversation on the amended motion beyond what may have already been said? Doesn't appear so, so let's take a vote. Okay, can we do a hand vote this time instead of a verbal so we can actually see, so John Pryor can see who votes for this. Let's go person by person, call the roll. Okay, we'll do a roll vote. Okay. All right, I guess I'll just go based on my screen. Council Member Martin. No. Council Member Hidalgo-Ferring. I will support the amended motion. Council Member Christianson. Yes. Council Member Peck. Support. Council Member Waters. No. And I vote no. The motion fails three to three. You had another motion, Council Member Peck. Oh yes, thanks, I do. So using the same criteria that we can now have people call in, I move to direct staff to bring forward the Longmont Development Code amendments, including the wildlife master plan at the next regular session. The wildlife master plan has been done for a while and from my input, they're just waiting for Council to give them to go ahead to implement that. Do I have a second? Council Member Martin. Yes, a statement. I am not seconding, so I'll wait to comment. We have a second discussion. Council Member Martin. Yeah, I don't see any problem with bringing this forward, but normally we have a little discussion with the team that's bringing it forward. And I don't know, you know, I know that the wildlife management team is having technical issues at Butt Rock right now and they're having issues at Union Reservoir and they're having issues at Creekside. And so the plan may be done, but they may or may not be ready. So I would entertain this motion happily next week or the following week, but I'd like to ask them first. Did I see Council Member Adagio-Ferri? No? Was it Council Member Christensen? I saw somebody retained. It was me, I actually was to second her motion. Okay, Council Member Waters. Thanks, Mayor Pro Tem. I would not, I wouldn't be disinclined to oppose this, except I wouldn't have to go through this without putting the SES next to it. There is this relationship. We had the report on the SES. It would be nice to know what the status report is on that. What parts of that have we concluded can roll up at this point in the wildlife management plan? I understand part, I don't know the thinking behind the motion, but based on what we've seen in the last 24 hours about what's going on in a repairing area and the level of public interest, which seriously disturbs me as I look at the photos of this, approving the plan wouldn't change that, but it might give more visibility and certainly some enforcement capability because I think appalling what we've seen. So if that's the motivator, I get that. I'm not clear on what these relationships are now between the SES and the wildlife management plan. And to me, it's gonna be a mistake if we're not all real clear on what those are and what the timelines are for the SES and the relationship to the wildlife. So, and I don't know that this is the best format for that kind of analysis and synthetic work that would happen. Well, I would definitely like to hear kind of a timeline or status update from staff that deals with those various code amendments. So we know where they are in the process without, I guess, kind of artificially pressuring them to bring something forward if it's not yet quite ready for public consumption. I don't know how you feel about that Council Member Peck or again, maybe something from Assistant City Manager Marsh. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and members of Council, Joni Marsh, Assistant City Manager. So we are prepared to bring the SES forward at this time that is done and completed. The riparian setback criteria that are the other code component are in final legal review right now. So those are nearing completion. If there's another component, I may not be aware of another component that Council Member Peck is referring to with regard to the wildlife management plan itself, but we are close and we should be able to get those scheduled if Council so chooses. Okay. What about Councilman Waters? Would you be adverse to bringing back the SES plan by itself? I wouldn't be. I'm not adverse to either the wildlife management plan, the code changes to go with it, but those things, the wildlife management plan and code and the SES and code seem to be go hand in glove. I mean, we've got to do that in a thoughtful way together. So, it reflects what are those expectations and gets translated into decision-making at the same time, it just seems to me. So, I don't know what the best sequence is, Council Member Peck, I just think we ought to have those together in some fashion. I don't know what's the leads or we have them on the same agenda. That's my concern. So, are you happy with your motion as is, Council Member Peck? No, not because of what Assistant City Attorney Johnny Marsh brought forward, but whether we put them together or not, I think that we, I'm gonna amend my motion to bring back the SES plan then. So, we get some of this done. We're not moving forward on anything and that bothers me a little bit. When I look at our agenda, it is basically about COVID most of the time, which I understand, but I'm very concerned that for three months now, we haven't really moved anything and some things are ready to be moved forward. So, I amend it to bring back the SES plan at our next regular meeting. I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right, we'll take a vote similar to the last one. I'll call a roll by the way our Council Members appear on my screen. Council Member Martin. Yes. Council Member Hidalgo-Ferring. Yes. Council Member Christensen. Yes. Council Member Peck. Yes. Council Member Waters. Yes. I vote yes as well. That passes six to zero with Mayor Bagley absent, but it looks like he'll be joining us momentarily. So, why don't we wait a few minutes for, I believe somebody else had an agenda revision or something to direct. Okay, there it was. See if he gets on with us. Mayor, can you hear us? He needs to unmute himself. Are we good? Right now? Yes, we can. All right, great. Hey guys, sorry about that. My computer decided to install 45 minutes of updates. So, I apologize. So, Erin, where are we? Council Member Barton's up next with an agenda revision or motion to direct. Great, why don't you go ahead then? Thank you, Mayor Bagley and Mayor Pro Tem. It's not, I hope it doesn't need to be a motion. I would like to request a report from the airport manager on two matters of airport finance. As soon as possible, and I did check in advance and I think that the staff is ready to do this or will be by the next regular meeting. One is I'd like a report of the past grants received by the airport and any remaining financial obligation they're from. And second, I would like an explanation in detail of the funds transfer from the city's general fund to the airport detailing what services that funds transfer represents. Does this need to be? Yeah, how does that translate into direction, Mayor Bagley? It's just a request. Is yours just requesting information, right? Well, I think I would be curious about some of the same kind of information. I think we're all allowed to like, technically we can use a couple hours a week to ask staff for an info. Harold, can you just get that information to her? Okay, I think that's all we need to do. Yeah, I'd like everyone to have it. Okay, Harold, can you get forward it all to us? Yeah, we'll pull that together and send it to all the council members as quick, well, we'll try to move quickly as possible on this week or two maybe, not three. We lost you. Are there any votes on agenda items in the future that I missed by any chance? Yes, there were two. What were those? Yes, Mayor Bagley. Council Member Peck made a motion to bring back the second reading of Metro districts at our first in-person meeting. The vote failed three to three. And then the second measure or the second motion was to bring back the SES tool as it is ready for council consideration to be adopted into the land development code that passed six to zero. The curiosity, the Metro district, how'd that fall out, just out of curiosity? Who wanted to bring it back? Council Member Peck, Council Member Edalgo Farron, Council Member Christensen voted four. All right, cool, just curious. Sounds like he has a fun first 15 minutes. All right, anybody else have any motions to bring back? All right, great. Then let's go ahead and move on. You've already included the minutes. So we already got our COVID-19 update? No, we haven't. All right, let's go on to that then, Harold. Did Dan Eamon get online? Yes, he did. Oh, he did, okay. There's Dan. Hey, Dan, do you wanna go over any of the, can you go over the county numbers and the hospitalizations based on what you're seeing and then I'll go from there. And I've got screenshots I can use if you want me to. I sure can, let me bring them up real fast here so I can go over them. I think in general what we're seeing is a couple of things. One is testing is increasing pretty significantly. Test kits are becoming pretty rapidly available. I think you probably all heard the governor say that tests are becoming more and more available to anybody that is symptomatic. So as a result of that, certainly positive cases are going up, but the hospitalization rates are going down. They're 30% below where they were a few weeks ago for COVID patients. The med surge beds are going up, which is a good thing. That means they're starting elective procedures again. So all of those things are good. The trends remain really good on the hospital side of things, which is what we really are looking for. The case numbers are good to watch, but really the increase is a factor of testing rather than anything else. So the hospitalizations are decreasing as we hoped they would. So I think that's all trending in a very positive way. And the testing is becoming more and more available in the county. So all of those things are positive. Harold, anything else you want me to touch on? Are there any questions about the testing and that arena before we move on? Not seeing any. Okay. You said I assume move on with the COVID-19 update. Correct. Keep going. Okay, sorry. Mayor council, the one thing I wanted to talk to you about start off with a little bit of an example of the amazing folks that we have here in the organization. So as you know, we've had people at home that it was more difficult for them to work from home. And Ann Maka, who works at the museum came up with an idea to bring staff together that couldn't necessarily do their job from home. And we repurposed them and they actually were making masks for the organization in the community. And the last count that I actually have as of around last Friday, they were close to a thousand masks that they had made. And so what we're gonna do between that and what we've had through donations once we make sure that we have provided everything that we need to our organization, we're then gonna look at how we can engage in certain neighborhoods in this process. And so when we talk about how do we creatively repurpose folks and bring them as part of the bigger initiative, this is a great example. And it was just outstanding work. They actually pulled it together in a day or two and then went to making masks. And so I believe it was around 10, let's just say a couple of weeks they hit that number. So those are the kind of things that we have going on across the organization that I just wanted you all to know about and how folks come together to deal with these situations. Right now you may have heard the governor's update and this is where a lot of the work is really starting for us. When you really look at what we're going, what we're dealing with right now, the reopening process is significantly more complicated than the closing process. And it's really because of all the nuances that we're seeing in terms of group size and what types of facilities can be open and what that looks like. And so we're really working through any number of issues, having to frequently reach out to Boulder County and then they'll reach out to the state to get clarity on some of those orders and what they mean and how does this actually apply to what we can open and when we can open. Another thing in the governor's guidance that we're starting to hear is there will be some guidance that will be released within the week regarding to restaurant openings. This is even gonna be more complicated in terms of how we look at those issues because then the governor will make the decision on May or approximately May 25th. The reason why it's becoming more complicated is I think as the governor has talked about this and as we've seen from letters that we've received, he's asked cities to really work with restaurants in terms of being creative to allow them to utilize sidewalks alleyways parking lot so they can actually increase capacity for their business so they can, from an operational standpoint, really have the magnitude of tables available where it makes sense for them to operate. In addition to that, we were also looking at some of the guidance related to liquor licensing and business extensions and how we need to move through that so there will be changes coming specifically because when they allow them to open, they're still going to allow the takeout component of alcohol cells to occur, which will create some other issues within the licensing framework in general. So we have Don and Joni and the judge and multiple people working on what we can do in terms of creating that process to help facilitate that reopening. There is a lot of work involved in this in bringing those and assisting those businesses once they're allowed to reopen. The other thing is as you all know, we have been incrementally reopening facilities. You saw that we did a soft opening of the tennis courts and then we announced it. We also did the same thing with skate parks and moving to announce it. The issue and what's driving those reopenings is basically the guidance that we receive from Boulder County and the state of Colorado on these issues. One of the things that you all know that you're probably still getting questions about is baseball field, softball fields and what that can look like. The issue with that is, and we've got this question into it because via the state orders, team sports are specifically prohibited, meaning they're not allowed to occur. We've posed some questions based on the group size and what that can look like and we're waiting on feedback in terms of how we can operationalize that in a way. The one thing that I think I'm fairly confident in saying is at least what we've heard to this point is even if the orders will allow us to do something, the group size will still be limited to 10 unless that's changed via a state order. We are also in the process of working in terms of what it's gonna look like in terms of the openings of our buildings. I mentioned this to you the last time. We were moving forward and moving toward a target date and then we have the employee advisory group which is a group that I meet with from across the organization and they brought some issues to my attention in that conversation and those were issues that we definitely needed to take into account in terms of the reopening. It was great feedback and that's actually why we utilize the employee advisory group is to get that feedback and make sure that we're accounting for everything that they're concerned with because as you look at reopening, you have to ensure and I've said this before the safety of the residents of our community and what they're expecting but we also have a lot of employees that wanna see the same thing in terms of what they're asked to do when they come to work. So we had to work through a number of issues which delayed us a little bit and then based on that feedback, what we're thinking right now and this is assuming that there's no significant change in orders is that on May 27th, we're gonna do what we call a soft opening and that's where we bring folks back into work and a lot of cases many of these individuals have been working from home and so we wanted people to get the chance to acclimate how do we wear a mask in the buildings? Where do we wear a mask and to ensure that our reopening plans are appropriate and then we're tentatively looking for a June 1st opening again and that's to the public. So we wanna give three days for staff to come in and work and then a public opening on June 1st but that's only for the Civic Center, the Development Service Center, Municipal Court and the Service Center. If you remember, those were the last four buildings that we actually have the ability to that we're still open before the final stay at home order. In addition, we're also looking at other components of operations and you'll see curbside service at the library in the near future and so it won't be that the library is open those are actually still we're being advised closed via the state order but we're trying to open up components that still meet the intent of the orders and continue to move forward. Finally, as you all know, Jim talked to you about the budget and so we're still working through a number of budget issues. Even you remember his estimate so we're trying to deal with budget issues related to this year. We're also moving into the budget for next year and we're gonna be watching numbers real time month to month to see what it looks like in terms of the impact but as we start thinking about what we're going to do as an organization, I think the thing we have to be really cognizant of is that this is probably going to be the tightest budget that the councils had to deal with and that we've had to deal with probably since the 08 recession and so it will impact the things that we do and how we do those over time and so I just wanted to keep talking about that as we're moving through it because that is going to be a significant issue for us to deal with as an organization, not only for this year's budget but for next year's budget. If you listen to any number of economists, there's not a lot of clarity in terms of the recession but I'm hearing that it is more than likely going to extend to the end of 2021. That's one thing I'm hearing. The other is mid 2021, no matter what that answer is we know that it's gonna potentially impact our 2021 budget. So we're gonna be looking at actuals and then making assumptions for what the recession will look like and then move into our budget process. Just to let you know, some of the direction that I've given to staff is we have our level one request and those are essentially must pay items that exist within our budget. Have limited to level two to a limited number, I think it's no more than four but they really need to be directly related to providing ongoing services in terms of what we're doing but it's again, just to reiterate with council, it's gonna be a significant challenge as we move into this budget here. And so when we're thinking about the things we're doing we just need to keep that in mind. Other than that, that is my COVID update. There's not a lot at this time but I think there will be more after the 25th when we start seeing the next round of orders being released. Are there any questions? That's better, Pat, your hand is up first. There, finally unmuted. I just want to voice my frustration with the baseball fields not being open. I understand the whole idea about the team sports and being able to social distance, et cetera. But it seems like volleyball as well as a team sport when you're playing competitive volleyball as well as tennis when you're doing doubles. So I am just concerned about the level of activities that we take away from kids who've been housed for three or four months. And this is a huge, huge activity. Actually, it's a pretty good revenue source as well for the city if you want to look at it that way. So... That is the very statement and question that I put in in a meeting that we had last Thursday that we're trying to track down. Even when, as far as saying, 10 people can gather, what's the difference? And so that's what we're trying to get clarity on. It's in this case, the order's very specific to sports and so that's what we're having to do. Hopefully we'll get an answer. We're working it because all of the issues can come. Okay, Reggie. Carol, at what point on, I'm not certain, well, I'm certain that I'm not real clear on the criteria, the threshold we've met with past that triggered the emergency declaration? With no doubt to me then, nor has it been since that we were managing a crisis or an emergency. But as we met, the question is, what's the threshold that we either meet or fall below that would cause us to say, we're no longer under an emergency declaration? We're still managing many crises, but we do that every day all the time, right? That's part of the job of managers. What's one of the criteria that we should be thinking about that you're gonna be using? Does that can't come back to us for a formal action? We say, as of tomorrow or as of some date, we're no longer operating under an emergency declaration? How do we get, how do we transition out of that? So generally, typically in any event, what you look at is when you are no longer operationally overwhelmed by the event itself. And what you use to trigger the disaster declaration is when the event exceeds the capacity of the organization to deal with the event and the ongoing operations that you have to deal with to keep the city running. And so that is the highest level of trigger that we have to deal with. The other thing that comes into play is really also tied into some of these other orders that are being issued now really more by the state level and what that means to us in terms of how we operate, what are the restrictions that we put, that are put on ourselves in those issues? And so that'll be another component that we look at in terms of making that decision. But it's really those two issues that are gonna drive that conversation. So what would be, translate those conditions into what we do or what you bring us? Or do you bring us anything? At what point? I would bring it to, I would personally bring it to council and say here's where we are and here's where we think we're going to be and we're at a point where we can effectively manage our ongoing operations, all of the items that we have to work on and this event itself. And in granted, not everything's gonna be there. I mean, it's similar to the flood. When we had the flood, not everyone was out of the woods on that. So that would be a recommendation you bring to us for action or consensus or? I typically bring it for a consensus to go, here's what I'm seeing. That's just the way I approach it. Generally. Thanks. But not everybody's gonna be out of the fire in some cases. I think two people have their hands up. Council Member Farron is right about that. Okay, so you've talked about some of the issues that the employee advisory group had brought up. What were some of the specifics that? I think generally there were questions in terms of, how are we handling, creating a safe working environment, whether it's plexiglass, when you would interact with the public, how are we gonna handle masking? It was also issues, how do you deal with coworkers who are failing to wear their mask? How do you deal with the public who's failing to wear their, that's not doing this? And then they brought up individual issues related to their workplace. Some of it was just needing to have more clarity. So every one of the directors have been meeting with all of their folks that are going to be part of the opening and talking them through. This is what it's gonna look like. This is how we're going to do it. So part of it was really just making sure everyone understood what the situation was gonna be like. For those of us that have been working, it's a much different perspective because we've been in it versus those who haven't been working. And so it was really closing a lot of those gaps and giving people the opportunity to really talk about what were their worst fears and their best hopes? Because the point that I made to my team and that we talked about is we can drive into a date. But if everyone's not really on board with that and there's still questions or concerns, then that's gonna create other issues for us. And so what we were trying to do is take a true collaborative approach to make sure people were comfortable with the plan. Now, not everybody's gonna be comfortable, but we were trying to deal with as many issues as we possibly could. Also then basing it on what the governor's doing in terms of what they're releasing and how they're releasing it. There's nuances in this. Things like rec centers and swimming pools. I mean, those are still closed via the orders. And so we have, obviously, we can't do that. But then even when they can open them, there are different restrictions in terms of the numbers that people can get in there. So typically in a gym component, the number's not 10, it's four. And it's personal training. And then we found out late last week that we thought, well, that could apply to swimming, to lap swimming. Well, we thought 10 could apply to lap swimming. And they actually said no. And then told us swimming pools are closed generally via these orders. So those are the nuances that we get into, but it's really just making sure everyone's comfortable. Okay. And so I guess that's another reason why it's really important that we have concrete guidelines that are consistent. Correct. Ord. And in line with the messaging we're hearing from our governor and our county. Yeah, and then one of the other things, and this was something that was brought up to me by a constituent. And I had seen, I think Denver is doing something about closing off certain sections of roads to allow for outside seating of restaurants. Has the city looked at some of those options? Is that something feasible to get businesses open a little sooner? Joni, Kimberly's on, but I know Joni, Kimberly, and Jessica, and Scott Cook, and our business group that we talked about that has presented to you, they are in the middle of that issue. Also working on the licensing issues that are going to be associated with that because it will create different venues. So yeah, we're working on that. We're hoping to hear the guidance so that we will be ready for options once we start getting clarity. Okay. And I do have other questions, but I think it's more in line with the ordinance that will be. Okay. That's a matter. I think Council Member Pack had a question. Council Member Pack, did your hand go? No, I don't think so. I think that's it. Anybody else? All right. Who else? All right. Let's move on then. First call public is having to be heard. Don, can we go ahead and do that? All right. For those of you who want to call in, go ahead and please dial 1-669-968-33 and heard the ID code. So let's go ahead and wait at 67. You're on there now, by the way. Mayor, just while we're waiting for people to dial in, are you prepared to time people tonight? Yep. Okay. I've read your lips. All right. Who's in the queue? How many we got? Mayor, it looks like we have one person that called in. There's another one here. Two, there's another one, yeah. All right. Walk ahead and call them out. We've got three people, four people. They're starting to pop in. Yeah. If you just give me a minute, we'll let them all queue up and then I'll start them this way. The screen is still showing on the live stream. So when that ends, then we can begin. And you will admit them, Susan? Yes. I can do that. Thank you. All right. It looks like the screen just came down from the live stream and I'll admit them all. Mayor, did you want to close the public invited to be heard so I can lock the meeting? Sorry, muted again. Yeah, let's go ahead and close it, lock it out. Okay. It looks like there's four people. All right, nope, six people. Six. All right, let's go for it. Let's lock it up. Okay, guess. We've got quite a few of you. I will begin by introducing you by calling out the last three digits of your phone number and I'll unmute you at that time and you can give us your name and address and you'll have three minutes. Guest that ends in five, three, six. Can you hear us? Yeah. Hello. Hi, good evening. Hi. Go ahead and state your name. Go ahead, thanks. I'm Gabriel Schmid and I live at 1060 Kane Drive. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Yes, I can hear you. Would you like to speak on public invited to be heard? Go ahead. Sorry, okay. I'm one of the many teens and others who are using the jumps at left hand Creek Park. I'm very grateful to hear today what they are holding off to the end of the year project to restore the Creek Park. We found out from some of the neighborhoods in this area that people have been using this since the late 90s. Those who use these arrive jumps for the last seven to more recent years. Just a second. Is that all? Nope. No, I was still going to go. I just, this is kind of cool. Keep going, sorry. All right. On a visit of the park, you would see different races and participants working together to bring this to a fun park where there's multiple jumps. In a short 200 meter span, we've built 10 jumps and that go from one to another. Easy to difficult. There are side paths for younger kids who do not can't ride those jumps. In four days, we've raised $500 on change.org to add to the simple track or bike jumps to on one of the existing parks in South Longmont. We're hoping that the city can open up a space where we can help alongside city park members to build public jumps. We know that this is important because of that when kids are able to give the opportunity to be able to make jumps, they give ownership and responsibility to these jumps and take care of it. And so we would like to put together something where we can raise money to rent equipment or stuff that is needed that the city needs since we're on a tight budget right now. Is that all? Yeah. All right, thank you very much. All right, thank you. All right, our next caller, your phone number ends in 663. I'm gonna unmute you if you can, please state your name and address. Clark Allen, Twin Peaks Circle, Longmont. Longmont continues to have the highest rate of COVID-19 cases in Boulder County. I personally never want to be one who infects someone else and causes their death. So if wearing a mask would help when I wear a mask, there are really four components to mitigating the spread of COVID-19. One, personal hygiene, washing your hands eight to 10 times a day. The second, wearing a mask when in public, even if you're practicing social distancing. You never know when you will encounter someone while biking, running, or walking when you cannot maintain six feet of distance. Most bicycle paths are not eight feet wide. Third, participate in practicing social distancing when in public. If you can't maintain six feet of distance when running, biking, or walking, you may have to wait to pass or get off your bike to let others pass safely with six feet of distance. Finally, stay with home if you have any symptoms associated with COVID-19. There are existing apps that will please you about your health and help guide you make the decision about going out. Along, alone, these practices will not stop the spread of COVID-19 themselves. Together, we are like a drug cocktail that has been used to effectively attack diseases. It works for SARS. Putting all of these together will rock down the virus. These steps have been effectively used at Brigham and Williams Hospital in Bonson, Massachusetts, a hospital of more than 70,000 people with minimum infection rates. The city council should consider passing a resolution adopting these practices as we move forward to open the city for citizens and for the citizens of Longmont and help to get Longmont out of the devious position of being number one in Boulder County for COVID-19 cases. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Well, thank you. Well, next. Our next caller, your number ends in 722. I'm gonna unmute you. Please state your name and your address, please. Can you hear us? Yes. My name is Lynette McClain and I live on Sandpoint Drive in Longmont. According to the field inspection by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Committee, the COGCC, dated April 22nd, 2020, there's a leak at the stamp well located very near Union Reservoir. City Deputy City Manager, City Deputy City Manager, Dale Radamaker, assured the city council in a recent council session that everything was fine with the stamp well and that there were no leaks. When he knew this was not true, this wellness had many problems with leaks in groundwater contamination in the past. COGCC records show that the well was stimulated in December and based on a rig scene at the site was also stimulated in March. The well has also been producing recently without doing the required mechanical integrity testing 30 days in advance of any activity. The well has been flaring late at night which aligns with the data from the air quality measures done by Dr. Helmick on March 30th, 2020. The workovers in December and March are not in accordance with the city's contract with the oil company who owns this well. The times call is also complicit in misrepresenting the activity at the stamp well. Please investigate this and stop this activity to keep our air and water safe. Also please sanction city staff like Mr. Radamaker who are not being transparent about this dangerous issue. You may refer to Karen Dyke's editorial which was submitted to the Times call but not printed by them but was in the long run observer for further information about the recent workover activity in this abandoned well site. I'm going to send Karen's editorial and the photo of the stamp well referenced in the editorial along with the field inspection report that I referenced to all of the city council members. My final ask is please work with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Committee to determine if oil and groundwater contamination that might flow into Union reservoir. Thanks. Thanks for that. All right, let's go on to the next one. The next caller, your phone number ends in 826. You have been unmuted. Can you hear us? Can you please state your name and address for the record? Hello, I'm Sean McKell, 1122 Benton Rock Drive. And just calling about the whole COVID situation. Just curious, generally how much people have gotten over all the different data and different perspectives on this whole thing because it seems like it's overblown to me in the end. Where there's a lot of people have gotten it but haven't had much symptoms. And we've, I can understand at the beginning since we didn't know what was going on to lock things down maybe, but after if you'd be truthful to the data that's out there amongst everywhere. For example, I saw one chart where the states that are locked down more have actually had worse situation with it compared with the stations that have locked down, have removed their lockdowns, have been locked down less.  The flu virus, it mutates and comes back, comes and goes and all that, for example. And I think if we look at all the data, they'll show that the COVID will have been about the same as the flu virus. Maybe a little bit worse, but not in a great amount. So I'm thinking we need to open things up more to let people, let it circulate amongst people that are reasonably healthy, both that are old and have problems. Sure, they've maybe helped them to stay safe, but we need to get everybody infected so that we can allow the older people to get out because there will be a few viruses under control more and fewer people getting it. I mean, people have already gotten it, so they won't be spreading anymore. And that'll allow the economy to go. Now that's the greatest amazing thing about this whole COVID is the economy, economic destruction has happened. So one might say, oh, you're selfish, you don't care about people that might die, well, how about being selfish and destroying people's economic lives? So that's my point. Thank you. All right, thank you. We have two more in the queue. The actual, I didn't hear this one. Well, do we miss one? Sorry, I was muted, Mayor. Caller 369, you're next. Please state your name and address. Can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you. My name is Gretchen Schmidt at 1060 Cane Drive, Southmore Park Neighborhood, South Longmont. And I was calling in today, burst with a different plan, but then I had a great conversation with Timber, the park superintendent who had planned to level the jumps that the kids have been riding on for the last 30 years over by Creekside, over by the creek and Creekside Park. And we had a great conversation talking about how the city has really been rocking their brains about how to help the situation and how to also meet the demands of restoring the creek bank. And I just really hope from this, there's a lot of enthusiasm and support among the youth in this south central area, I guess. I'm not sure if you would call us all the neighborhoods that border pike. There's kids from all those neighborhoods who use that jump. And we've learned in the last week that it's been happening for a lot longer than these kids have been doing it. But we talked about some of the expansive areas in some of our parks right around here, Canemoto Park, even Creekside Park, has large areas of grass. These kids have been getting miles and miles of enjoyment out of a 200 meter span where they built 10 jumps very effectively. And so Timber and I kind of spoke and brainstormed about what could that look like for the city to collaborate with liaisons of the community in this area. And the kids on change.org, they raised $500 just over the weekend. What would that look like to, and over 2000 signatures to help pay for the heavy equipment to come in and maybe a corner of Canemoto expansive grass area that's never used, we're always over at the park. There's areas that are not used and have the city do the part of doing some contouring. And the kids are experts with their shovels to do the crafting and actually making the jumps. So this has been such a great benefit during the quarantine. They've been on their bikes. They've been keeping the area free of trash. Yes, there is concern about the flood plain, but my question now, being grateful that everything was postponed till the end of the year so they can have this for the rest of the spring and over the summer and the fall. How, the possibility of, there's many supportive parents who I believe could create a coalition to collaborate with the applicable city, superintendent, managers, those who would be doing the work and to create a little track in one of our parks right here. We are all not really up for sending our kids down the path to the east where it goes under 287.  There's four jumps, they're all really spaced out. There is a book by Mr. Louve Last Child Left in the Woods and he talks about how it's actually been proven when we engage the youth in actually actual creation of parks and not just say, here's your park. It was created by the professionals, but when the youth are engaged that they actually have ownership and they take responsibility and they wanna take part in it. They wanna take a part of keeping it nice and being responsible and that's what these kids have shown over at each side. I'm gonna have a touch up. Well, it was three minutes, but thank you. All right, and then the last person in the queue. Caller, your number ends in 697, 697, you're unmuted. Can you hear us? Yes, yes. Go ahead and state your name. Thank you. Yeah, this is Kathy Hartigan. I live on Kettmere Drive in here in Longmont and they're watching the meeting today and the reason I'm calling is with regard to granting the city the authority or the broad brush authority to require PPE in an emergency situation. And as I'm listening to the meeting tonight, I'm thinking about the fact that I just read earlier today that Colorado is already running out of unemployment funds, which means we're gonna have to all federal funding. I'm hearing that there is significant work to do to help businesses be creative and figure out ways to protect their employees and their customers and what's that gonna look like. And I'm hearing and I'm reading that you guys are focusing energy on trying to decide about voting for this broad brush approach to allow city council to have an authority over mandating and even possibly arresting and filing citizens for not wearing masks. And my concern is, one, we already have state rules, recommendations. We also have both accounting rules and regulations. I'm just curious why it is that the council feels it's pertinent to spend time on something like passing that type of employment when you should be focusing on helping businesses get back open so that we can get people off of unemployment and remove the debt that the state government is gonna have to take on from the federal government if we can't get businesses back open. Thank you. All right, that will conclude first call. Public invited to be heard. Let's move on to everybody you're okay, if you want less than now. Actually, you guys have been here, I think you want less than now. You guys have been here about an hour. Is that right? Can we okay? Let's go ahead and just do it. Let's do the Consum Agenda and then we'll go on to ordinance sunscreen. All right, Don, you want to read that one resolution later? You betcha, man. Let's move on to the next one. Hold on, hold on, here, here, go. You lost a council member of Hatterback. He's getting water. Do you want to take a break? No, I'm just gonna get you to fill up my water. All right, stay hydrated. All right, cool, all right, let's go ahead, Don. Mayor, item eight A in the Consum Agenda is Resolution 2020-43, a resolution of the Lung Mock City Council approving the first restated and amended Intergovernmental Agreement between the city of Boulder County and the city of Boulder for cost sharing for the COVID-19 Recovery Center for the homeless. All right, do you have a motion, Councilor Martin? I move the Consum Agenda. Thank you. The Consum Agenda has been moved and seconded. Seeing no further debate or discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Resolution 2020-43 passes unanimously. Let's move on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter at this time. We can go ahead and throw up the batter and number again, please, Susan. We'd ask that members of the public would like to call in regarding ordinance 2020-23, a bill from the ordinance meant in section 10-08-180 of the Lung Mock City Code on Disaster and Emergency Orders that you call in and out. So we will go ahead and start. First of all, let's move on to that, which I just read. Do we have a motion? One second. I lost the screen. All right, Councilor Martin? Yes, I can't see the number, but I moved the motion just read. All right, moving on to second reading. It's been moved by Councilor Mellorarton and seconded by Joan. All right, let's go ahead and open for the public hearing. Is there anybody in the queue? Mayor, it hasn't been quite a minute that it's been on the screen yet. All right. We do have one new guest and we have the last guest that I put in the waiting room has not hung up, so I will check in with them as well. Put it alive, but not jumped on my screen, big. All right, gentlemen. All right, let's go ahead and put it back up. All right, let's go ahead and open this up for public hearing. Do you want to read them in, please? Okay, we've got two callers. One caller, you are returning. I, you spoke previously and I've brought you back into the meeting. Your phone number ends in eight to six. I'm going to unmute you. Did you want to speak at this public hearing? What's the next one? Caller, your phone number ends in zero, eight, two. I'm going to unmute you if you can state your name and address for the record. You're unmuted. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Okay. My name and address? Yes, please. Patrick Munson. I'm at 2201 Emery Street. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay, this is just comments for the city council. Yes, it is. Okay. Well, first of all, I don't understand why there's such a continuation of wearing the masks and the social distancing when there's hundreds of immunologists all over the internet saying this is suppressing the immune system. I've studied natural health for 25 years. I've raised three kids without doctors because their immune systems were able to develop naturally. Keeping masks on healthy people is very unhealthy. Dr. Fauci even says this, the World Health Organization is now saying it's unhealthy for healthy people to be wearing masks. Second point is the city of Longmont has no delegated authority in the constitution of Colorado to put any sort of limits on people.  You have Dunn's number. You have QCIP numbers. You don't have the authority to tell anybody they have to wear a mask or they have to do anything. The only authority you have is if somebody breaks a law that violates somebody else's rights. So this whole thing is ridiculous. I don't know if you're aware but the state of Wisconsin Supreme Court just ruled all this stuff unconstitutional. They're completely open now. And I believe Oregon did the same thing. It's gonna happen state after state after state. And I've already got several people in the county that are very eager to join a class action lawsuit to sue the state, the governor, whoever needs to be. And I'm telling you right now if you continue suppressing our rights the city of Longmont's gonna get sued. And if you violate the law which you've already done that you've violated the constitution. You have violated US code section 242 and title 18 which is violating protected rights under the color of law. That's a federal law that you have violated. So we have every reason and right to pursue suing the city of Longmont and federal court. I've looked up the legal standing, it's there. The legal precedence is there. And because if the city council members violate the law they lose their immunity from lawsuit. So you better do the right thing for the people because you can be open to lawsuit in your individual capacities. That's all I have to say and I'm not threatening anybody. I'm just being very serious and telling you the way things are. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, that will conclude our public hearing on this matter. You got a hand? Council Member Rivera-Fairing, let's look at you. Yes, it is. Hold on. You muted yourself. Yes, I did the little space bar but it's too long to hold. So a couple of things, one of the things in the ordinance on page 27 of the actual document, not the whole packet, compromised, is it comprised or compromised? I think that might be a typo. I saw the same thing, it's definitely a typo. What? It's definitely a typo. Okay, so that would need to be corrected. And then the other thing is where did this, I think we did talk about this before. I can't, I didn't have it written down. This verbiage, where did it come from? Was it cut from another document, existing document and placed into this particular emergency ordinance? Did you? He. Mayor and Council, Eugene May, City Attorney. I do believe we plagiarized this from some other emergency PPE ordinance within the state. Okay, and so specifically the purpose of this, so I mean in my, what I had intended was that because we have a portion of Longmont that is Weld County, rather than having a patchwork or different guidelines, depending on where you're at in Longmont, it was just, seems like it's in much better to have concrete set, guidelines set throughout the city of Longmont. We had already adopted the belief, the statement that we would support the governor's ordinances and guidelines, as well as the Boulder counties. And also too, I was made aware this evening or this afternoon at a school district union meeting, that the St. Frank Valley School District is also utilizing and supporting and going through Boulder County's guidelines. Even though we have a portion of the St. Frank Valley School District that is Weld County, we are under that same umbrella and under their guidelines. So for consistency's sake, what I had wanted to see was just what we, as Boulder County has recommended, we as the city would adopt and recommend that as well. So as far as the wording on this, rather than having it be, because it is kind of subjective, like who is determining imminent danger? Where is that coming from? Is it something that is implied? Is it set through Boulder County? Is it through the governor? Is it us as we de-necessary? So should we have a particular amendment or a stipulation on here is who is guiding, who is determining what is that imminent danger? Does that make sense? Yep. Okay. Excuse me, then if there is anyone going to go with Casper Martin and Jordan Hall? Okay, and then I have another question, but I'll do that later.  Okay, so that was one section of it. And then the other one was in regard to masks. You know, we've heard a lot of comments about the dangers, the risks of masks. I'd like to know what research supports or that notion that the master dangerous, that we shouldn't be wearing them, we are inhaling too much CO2. So where is the research that supports those claims? And what is the research telling us? Thank you. Oh, sorry. So in terms of the CO2 issue, so I've had some conversations with Boulder County Health on this issue today. They were getting some similar questions on this issue. And at this point, they're continuing to dig through the research in terms of the sources that they're looking at on the CO2 issue. There's different sources, but in terms of being associated with the Royal Academy for one, which I have up here and I will send you some of these documents. They're not necessarily seeing that. I think it also depends on the type of mask. So anticipating some of the questions, I also talked to a family member who works at Children's Hospital in Cincinnati and asked this question. And they're requiring people to wear masks coming into the facility. Typically, one of the articles that I read in terms of wearing masks for long periods of time, surgeons do it, doctors do it, different professions have to wear those and they haven't seen evidence in those professions in terms of that. Now, what they did say, the N95s that are more form-fitting on your face if you read the research, that may have different issues, but it's not the same type of mask in terms of the cloth mask or the surgical mask. And there's completely different issues, but even then, the medical staff wear those for extended periods of time. So at this point, I haven't been able to find anything on that issue. What I can tell you is that the World Health Organization and a document that they had, and this really gets to the heart of the issue, if you look at it, there's two things on the World Health Organization talking about, does it protect you? Well, that's a different question than versus does it protect someone else? And the guidance that the World Health Organization, the CDC and the Surgeon General have all said is, these masks are designed to protect someone else in terms of reducing the droplets. And specifically, the World Health Organization says, studies of influenza-like illnesses and human coronaviruses provide evidence that the use of medical mask, cloth mask and other studies can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from an infected person to someone else in potential contamination of the environment by these droplets. The Royal Society also looked at this, and they were looking for evidence supporting the potential effectiveness, and they analyzed several things. One, the incidence of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, the role of respiratory droplets in transmission, which can travel one to two meters, studies of the use of homemade surgical masks to reduce droplets that spread. And they said that their analysis suggests that their use could reduce onward transmission by asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic wearers. If widely used in situations where physical distancing is not possible or predictable. And I think that's a key point in this, because if you look at the Boulder County order on masking, the first thing that they say is physical distance, you know, six feet, six to 10 feet from each other. It then says if you can't achieve that physical distancing, then you wear the mask. And that's really the crux of the issue when you can't physically distance yourself from someone else you wear this, so that the droplets are actually more contained versus, you know, if you're not wearing it. And then in other documents that they really talk about, it's the pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transition transmission that they're seeing in the numbers that comes into play in some of these guidance documents where that is part of the recommendation. Probably gave you more information than you needed, but kind of what we're looking at. And there's other studies that I can send to council. Okay, and, you know, as far as, and I guess this would go geared more towards Eugene, but, you know, I look back when I hear the notion that it's unconstitutional. You know, I look back at the February 20th, 1905 Supreme Court case, Jacobson versus Massachusetts. And that the court, Supreme Court did reject his claim and it was around the smallpox vaccine claiming that it was a violation of liberty. And it was deemed so according to Justice John Marshall Harlan, he wrote about the police power of states to regulate the protection of public health. The good and welfare of the Commonwealth of which the legislature is primarily the judge is the basis of which the police power rests in mass in that case it was in Massachusetts. So Harlan said, upon the principle of self-defense of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself from an epidemic of disease, which threatens the safety of its measure of its members. And so this case is still being looked at at the scholarly level, but also too in the matter of public health protections, especially with the threat of pandemics. So again, I don't feel like we're kind of out of line as far as constitutional rights go with this if we're looking at the safety of public health. Councilman Harlan, was that what you said? Yes. So thank you. So there's a few points that I want to make from the speaker we just heard. I've been hearing from a lot of people who had essentially the same talking points and some other people who just had some genuine confusions. So first, we just want to say that intensified mask wearing is, in fact, a measure that is for reopening, not for flattening the curve. When you're flattening the curve, you don't need masks because you're staying at home. So people are just getting confused about why we're doing this and we're doing this so that we can safely reopen. The second thing is that we aren't really calling for any of this long-term continuous mask wearing or I have to put on a mask if I'm just gonna step into my front yard or walk my dog a block down the street.   And so we need to look at this in the kind of proportion that we have. Finally, the idea that we're the emergency order that we're talking about, that giving the city manager the power to step up the use of PPE required in the city. It does not automatically mean that if we pass this, he's going to say, everybody has to wear a mask now. What this is, is just extending the emergency capabilities that the city manager naturally has when we are in a state of emergency. So the reason that we're doing this is that so if we should have a sudden uptick in infections, the city manager could do something in 15 minutes, whereas if we had to start with a city council action, it would take three weeks. And we don't have three weeks if we're getting a sudden uptick in infections or all of a sudden the hospitals are overwhelmed. And this has happened in other places where they thought they had things under control, they reopened, and then all of a sudden there was a reversal. So all of this is doing, it's just filling a little gap in the emergency order that we already had and that the council already ratified to affirm that we need someone who can act quickly, able to act quickly and who by the way is always every single day in touch with Boulder County Health and the state health department. So it's not like there's this amateur out there calling the shots. I just wanna defend what we're doing here. And finally, I would like to say that the source of all the talking points about constitutionality and weakened immune systems and all of that stuff, I mean there is something that if you were kept in a bubble your entire life, you would have a weakened immune system but a little bit of mass wearing is not gonna have that effect if you have a normal immune system that is developed over your life. All of those talking points come from a website called Citizens for Free Speech and it is maintained by former neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blalock, who is a well-known doctor and a 20-year conspiracy theorist. I don't give a lot of credence to what he says and I think people should do their own research. So I am going to support this. It's just filling a little gap in our safety net right now during this time. That's perfect. If you're next, did you wanna go? I do, thank you, I didn't hear you. So I wanna thank both of the previous council women on their comments, I agree with them. The other thing that according to a lot of the emails that went out to all of council, they weren't, it was pretty much a blank slate that a lot of those emails went out, that the common theme in some of them was if you are a sick stay home. I wanna remind people that you can be infected before you know you are going to be ill and that is the problem with this is that you do not have the symptoms even though you're infected, which brings it on the two week or 14 day quarantine period.  We had to wear masks. Everything was shut down in the summer. All the swimming pools, people were kept in and told to be quiet during the middle of the day when it's hot. It was very scary and I remember my parents, they were constantly talking about what to do and this epidemic reminds me of that in that we did not know, our parents did not know the total effect of polio and we don't know that either, the unintended consequences of this virus. We are seeing some things come out as far as the immune system overreacting in some kids and they think that it might be related to coronavirus but nobody really knows at this point, we're still learning and I want to reiterate Councilwoman Martin's statement that we are saying we want to reopen this economy and in order to do it, we need to follow some of the statements that had made by Boulder County and the governor's protocols. I was reading, when I read the italicized part in this ordinance or this code, I'm sorry, it's not an ordinance, I was a little concerned that the word mask was never put in here and it sounds a bit overreaching because we use words that are honestly kind of scary, biological, chemical, radiant, physical, electrical, mechanical, but we never say anything about masks. I know this came up last week and you said that was covered in the PPE portion but in fact, if I think that if we're going to say something in here about all of these results, from where this can result from, we should also put in some wording about viruses or pandemics or something that actually relates to what we're doing today and why we are bringing this up. So those are my comments, I do support this. It does sound a bit overreaching and I can understand that but I also want the public to know that the reason for this from my perspective is that we cannot, when we have to act quickly, we cannot call a city council meeting on every single issue. We have got to give some power to the person who actually runs our city, who is our city manager. So for me, that this is huge and if we didn't have the ability to put power in the city manager's hands, who knows where we would have been during the flood. So I do support this and I thank the other councilors for their comments. I remember Christian said. Sorry. I want to also thank Councilman Hidalgo-Farring and Councilmember Martin for really intelligent points that actually, our job is to try to explain this to the public and also of course, for Councilwoman Peck's intelligent remarks. I want to thank Susie for reading out loud the discussion that the Supreme Court had. To me, there is really nothing more key to being a public official than to protect the health and safety of our later citizens or residents of the city. And this is a worldwide pandemic. This is clearly an emergency. And as Councilwoman Peck said, we have to be able to act quickly. And as a council, we are supposed to be doing policy. Well, our policy is to turn over the decisions on a day-to-day basis to the person in our city that City Council chose and City Council supports. And that would be the city manager who has a great deal of experience and skill and connections and is far more suited to making these day-to-day decisions than all the rest of us probably put together. And so people who think that somehow Mr. Dominguez is going to seize power and go haywire and that isn't going to happen. He isn't a politician and that's a good thing. We need to listen to doctors, scientists and people, healthcare workers, not politicians. My dad used to have a sign over his shop that said, your rights end when my nose begins. And I think that's good to us to remember. I do not have the right to run around and threaten you. I don't have the right to run around and infect you. So I am perfectly willing to be uncomfortable and it is uncomfortable and it is annoying. We all know that. But it's not as annoying as my neighbor Yvonne who's on the Longmont United Health. COVID ward periodically because she's a nurse and she has to wear huge amounts of protective equipment every time she's on this and she has to wear it for her whole shift, which is very long. So what we're being asked to do is just to protect each other and as a councilman Martin said a few weeks ago, much of the information that is coming from this website and thank you for telling us who's sponsoring this because it clearly comes from one website is misinformed and partly people do not understand that this is as councilman Martin said several weeks ago, they're asking a different question. This is not to keep us from getting it. Masking is to keep us from giving it because we don't have sufficient testing or haven't up until now, we have no idea who has it. And so all of us need to do this to protect each other. This is, people ask us why we need to do this when Boulder County already has this. Well, it's because the city of Longmont also is in Weld County. So we need to be able to control that part of our city that is in Weld County, which does not, it's not doing any of these protective measures or was not last time I checked. And that's the reason if this seems overreaching it's because we are trying to reach or branch bridge to counties. And that's because our city unfortunately does bridge to counties. So we had to do this in order to take care of that part of things. Okay, maybe that's all I need to say right now. I just, I really appreciate what Clark Allen had to say. That was very, it was very intelligent. These, each one of these, comparing it to a drug cocktail which is what people use for AIDS now. There was never any civil bullet for AIDS or for many diseases.  And together all those interventions help substantially. So washing your hands and distancing and staying home are obviously the most effective things but we're not gonna stay home forever. We can't. So when we're out in public we need to wear a mask if we can't stay six feet apart. We're already, and as as Councilman Martin said, this is how we open up. They said we're not imposing this to put more restrictions on people. We're doing this so that we can get back to operating our businesses on some kind of sensible level. I can go to the grocery store and almost everyone has a mask on and we give each other a lot of room. I can go down to the floor bin and buy my seeds for lettuce and beets and my starters and things so that I can eat later in the season. And everybody's got a mascot and everybody stays apart and that's how we can get slowly back into being able to get back to our society and rev up our economy again. I do think that it'll be really helpful if we can figure out ways to help our restaurant businesses because they are a crucial part of our economy and it's not just that we miss them but they are a huge part of our supply chain which we've only, some of us have only realized lately our whole food supply chain revolves around commercial supply chain. So commercial food supply chain. So that's why we're doing this now is to be able to actually participate in life again. Thank you. Thank you very vaguely. So I'll do the same thing others have done. Acknowledge all the comments of the council members who have spoke. Just so happens they're all women. None of the men have spoken so nice job, ladies.  And one of the things that we know that others don't is both the volume and the nature of the incoming email we get on issues like this and what folks might be interested in knowing is that all those who have opposed and it hasn't been balanced although we've heard a lot from residents who will appreciate us doing what we can to remind people of comments. I'm gonna make it a few minutes about the common good and what our obligations are, right? To protect one another, which really was what council member Christensen was just, very clearly stating. But the emails, I haven't tried. I've responded to one or two only because I could not sit on my hands and not respond to one or two. I'd like to respond to all of them but I would have made me nuts and I wouldn't have been coherent and I would have gotten more and more angry, I think, is that if I'd responded to them all. Because a lot of them were pretty offensive and almost all of them were intended to intimidate with lawsuits and we're gonna come after you individually. So I wanna say to my council members, council and colleagues, I'm proud to be part of a group that refuses to be intimidated by that kind of correspondence. So good on you, good on us, but that's not gonna be the basis for us making a decision, but first of all. Second of all, I think the fundamental issue here, not just for us, I think across the country, is the balance between our obligation and we have one to protect the rights of citizens, their constitutional rights, and as we pass laws, their legal rights, right, as residents of Longmont as citizens of the state of Colorado. But that gets balanced without an equally compelling obligation to protect, to recognize and protect the common good. And that's the tension, it seems to me. The incoming has been, do you have an obligation to protect my rights, my constitutional rights as a citizen? Now I wanna say I get it. Here's the other thing, I also have an obligation to protect the health and safety of your neighbor and my neighbor. So with that, you all have made the points that need to be made in terms of the reasons for this ordinance. I just wanna say personally, and this is ultimately the research, and I'm gonna come to that in just a minute, the research, the things we've already heard, and then my own, but I feel to be my obligations as a citizen are gonna translate into a decision for me to support this ordinance. But as a personal, just as an individual, I feel like I'm not gonna take great offense to anybody who steps on my constitutional rights, but I also understand or have a view of the common good that compels me to take decisions, to take actions that protect the health and safety of others and service to others. One of the things that one of the experiences that has come out of this for all of us, I think is a new understanding of what that means. The number of times we've heard, and I know it can get to be a mantra, we're in this together. The fact is we are in this together, whether you like it or not, because the common good is the health and safety of all of us. And when it comes to the time when we have a vaccination, a vaccine, we can do vaccinations. That'll be a real test of whether or not those with means are willing to use them to ensure that every human being on this planet has access real time to a vaccination, because none of us are safe until everybody has the vaccination. That was the story of polio, right? You wanted your kid next door vaccinated, not only your kid vaccinated, we all had that as we were going up, right? It had to be everybody in the neighborhood or everybody was still exposed, even if you'd been vaccinated. So personally, my decision's gonna reflect my belief that I have both obligations, protect rights and protect the common good. And if I'm gonna fail on one side of that right now, it's gonna be in the interest of the common good. Not in the interest of trampling on anybody's rights, but in the interest of the greatest good for the largest number, in this case, health and safety. So people have talked about the fact that Harold was very clear last week that he's paying close attention to what's gone across the country, where the issues are, what the reactions have been, what's the phasing of this, how strict it be, the places where masks should be worn. And it's now one-size-fits-all approach. And we've heard a lot of that. People have assumed a lot about what this would mean, much of which was inaccurate in terms of what I've heard from Harold, in terms of how situational the response is gonna be in Longmont in terms of the health and safety of folks, health and safety of folks. So the last thing, we kept getting a lot of input on, don't look at this epidemiologist, that virologist, this respiratory therapist, whatever. But so I did spend some time today going back to the WHO website, the Surgeon Senals website, the CDC website, any website. And I'm real clear on what the conclusion is from the majority of health experts around the world. And I think Harold was quoting some of it. But I'm gonna read it, right? This is today, this is current as of this afternoon. The CDC continues to study the spread and effects of the novel coronavirus across the United States. We know from recent studies the significant portion of individuals coronavirus lack symptoms, very symptomatic. And even those who have been, and this is what Council Member Peck was saying, even those who eventually develop symptoms can transmit the virus to others before showing any symptoms at all. Yeah, you're a walking infectious being without knowing it. That's why you wear the mask in deference to others. In the light of the new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, grocery stores, pharmacies, et cetera, especially in areas of significant community-based transmission. That's exactly what we've talked about. That's the Boulder County direction. That's what the city manager has talked about. So based on what I think is my understanding of the Constitution, based on what I think is my obligation as an elected official, based on what my responsibilities are as a citizen, and based on the science, I'm gonna support the ordinance. Mayor Patelmaria, sorry. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I believe many great points have been made by my fellow colleagues on Council. Just a couple that I think don't apply specifically to masking. First of all, I've heard the comments that if we were going to mask, we should have done it earlier. Well, we didn't have the ability to move in an agile and nimble manner, and that's part of the impetus for this ordinance is to have the ability in the coming weeks, but also in the future for any unforeseen epidemic or pandemic that comes our way, because one will eventually come along again for the city to be able to move in a quick manner, which could be more effective than the response that we were able to mount in the initial stages this time. The other thing I would like to say is that people talk about, at least in some of the correspondence that I, as well as probably all of you have seen on Council, about an unelected official wielding this power. Well, Harold doesn't come without accountability. He is accountable to the city council. And while I also believe he does a great job, he does answer to us as a body. And so we are accountable to our constituents as Harold is technically accountable to us. And I hope people realize that if we were displeased or disagreed with a move that Harold is making, there is recourse for it. Outside of that, I will be supporting this ordinance. Susie, do you have anything to say? I will be supporting this ordinance, but I do have a recommendation that we add, hold on, let me, I'm holding the space bar down. I had had some suggested, like just really focusing on, oh, as defined by Boulder County Public Health or just some kind of snip in there that would keep it specifically to, I guess, so it's not so interpretive and not so subjective, but just very concrete. Yeah, I think that Council Member Hidalgo-Faring has a good point, except that we are in an emergency situation. We are coming into the point of reopening where the risk of a reinfection of a spike kind of scenario comes into play. And we're not talking about an ordinance that's going to be in effect for years and years and years, and we're talking about getting the ability to act quickly. We could get new news coming out that's saying, yeah, you need to wear gloves if you're gonna be shopping because you're leaving behind viruses that last for three days.  And for that reason, I don't think getting the wording exactly right is something we should do because the emergency could come up in two weeks. And we'd like to make sure that recommending a change in the PPE protocol would be something that the city manager can do immediately. So I would vote for not mucking with it and just get it done. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. This is actually a question for Eugene. Eugene, the way this reads, it says injuries and illnesses may result from contact with biological, chemical, et cetera. Do you consider the word biological being related to any kind of a pandemic or should we put the word pandemic in this? I don't think that this is gonna be our first rodeo. I think we're gonna be doing this again down the road with other viruses. So should we, it could be passed with an amendment to put the word pandemic in it unless you think that biological covers that. Can I have your response? Mayor and council, I do think biological would cover a virus and this ordinance was drafted to be utilitarian and quick. So if council would like to clarify with an amendment, we're certainly happy to do that. Mass is the commonly accepted term yet Boulder County uses face coverings. So in this ordinance, which I will admit, we cut and paste, put it in, got it in the packet. There's respirators, respirators are kind of a technical OSHA-like term for things that you put on your face, but these are illustrative, not an exhaustive list. And so we're happy to make amendments if council would like to pass those via motion. Okay. I personally would like your word of either face coverings to go along with Boulder County in this wording when you say, but it's not limited to includes, but it's not limited to face masks, gloves, et cetera. So I'm gonna move ordinance zero 2020-23 of section 10-08-180 with the inclusion of the word face coverings. We had a motion, right? Or did we not? Did we? I did add them here. Yeah, I think there is a motion on the table. Right, so we'll go ahead and take that as an amendment. Thank you, yes. So there's second to the amendment. That is to welcome the second. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I was, I couldn't get unmuted. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Seconded. All right, let's go ahead and vote. There's no further cast member Martin. Just a clarification, can this, with an amendment, can this still be a second reading? It seems like sometimes we've gone back to first reading. We're voting, this is the second reading. We're voting on the amendment. Yeah, we're not going back to second reading. Okay. And the current second reading. All in favor of the amendment to include face covering? Say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Nay. Passes six to one. Very badly, say nay. All right. I don't see any other hands. I guess what I'd like to do is, I mean, on the one hand I think that everybody's, I think that everybody's reasons were sound. But what if the masks were not achieving the end game that everybody is saying? So a lot of the things that we, I mean a lot of the mail click, right, comes out and they basically say that cloth masks, they asked everyone, I asked the other one to wear cloth masks and help reduce the spread of COVID-19 by people who have the disease, but don't realize it. I mean, they agree. But I don't just look at this as, I don't just look at this and say, okay, well, what theoretically would happen, I looked at it as what's actually happening. So the mail click says all the things Harold and Harold said, cloth masks are cheap and simple to make. They can be made from common material. But what they also say is there's, they give instructions on how to wear them. First of all, cloth masks should include multiple layers of fabric, not multiple. How many of our masks are, I don't know, this one. It's a T-shirt, right?  Look how many people are wearing masks and not covering their nose. You have to use earlips to make sure it's snug. Most masks aren't snug. Don't touch your mask while you're wearing it. Show me one person wearing a mask that doesn't touch it. If you accidentally touch your mask, wash or sanitize your hands. Move the mask by untieing it or lifting off the earloops without touching the front of the mask of your face. Wash your hands immediately after removing your mask. So I understand literally what he's saying, but if it spreads on droplets, put on a mask and actually cough in your hand or on a mirror. So it's not necessarily protecting. Finally, this is reading them.  Put masks on anyone who has trouble breathing. Don't use face masks as a substitute for social distancing. So I mean, so I mean, again, they're clinic, on one hand people say, what is this? We need to wear clock masks. What I see is a whole society and community of people that don't know how to follow instructions and they don't social distance. They don't wash their hands. And the question is, is in fact, making people wear lab masks put this more danger. Very similar to eight weeks ago when I said, why are we doing this? So next, another thing is, Can't hear you. Oh, wait. There's a lot of confusion among people and misinformation surrounding face masks. This are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else. Now, when you see people and look at them. Can't hear it. Right now in the United States, basically they can't hear it. Fauci says it makes you feel better, but it doesn't do anything. So while we're about, I believe, so if you actually go to the 60 minutes interview that Dr. Fauci did, his quote was, wearing masks might help a little bit, but all you're doing is making people think that they're doing something. And so, I hesitate before we start telling people that they have to wear things or do things. And again, we're again, we're getting body taking action without any data.  And what was the other word that was used to give compliments to each other? Dr. Borg, what did you say? I think this was brilliant, brilliant, my ungrominated and unintelligent comments. All right, Council Member Rieda-Ferrin. So, Harold, this question is for you. Is the county adjusting to situations? So as new research comes up, as things evolve and change, is the county adjusting their ordinances which in turn affect how we pass ordinances? Yes, in terms of the order that they're issuing, they do evaluate the data. So right now the order is in effect until May 26th. They're in the process of evaluating some data to figure out what does that look like going forward in terms of the situation. And as I indicated, I know there was some comments about CO2 and other issues and they're actively doing research into that to understand what that world really looks like. They're actually doing that in conjunction with the other health departments in the metro region based on that information that they're getting in. So the answer is yes. So then if they determine that it's not effective and it's more harmful, what would be the implications for us as a city? Well, if Jeff and they felt that it wasn't there, they would remove the order. Or if the data can, or if the data led them to another conclusion. That was what he talked about with me today. And I think the data is going to go until November 4th that we'll see. Council member pushes. Sorry, the date of that interview, the 60 minutes interview was March 8th. And the CDC has since reversed its, and Dr. Fauci has since reversed what he said. And as I said before, as Councilman Martin said before, what he was being asked was if it prevented us from getting it, not passing it on. So it's taken out of context. I'll try again, that's not what it said. That's what happened. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Stubborn, I think is the word you were looking for, Mayor Bagley. But I would just like to remind everybody that we are not deciding what orders to change tonight. We're only deciding if something comes up, let's make sure that we can turn on a dime and change the orders. And in fact, it could mean, you know, if Boulder County is slow to do something that we know on the basis of evidence needs to be done in Longmont, which is different than the rest of Boulder County, we might be able to do that really fast. And that's all it is. I would probably bet, and I bet Hal would hold the stakes although he wouldn't take the bet, that he won't ever have to issue any proclamation under this order. But we want it to be in place just in case. And that's what this is. This is just in case and it's like going out without an umbrella in April, you know? You want that umbrella and you hope you don't have to use it both at the same time. So let's vote. In council, I won't call forward a point of order on the stubborn comment. I would just correct you to say brilliant and pragmatic. Okay, Dr. Waters. Thanks, Mayor Bagley.  You just know that with people. If they're not responding at some time, you can't make any of it. But if you want to unmute, would you want to take the whole back and forth that I have a question or two for you? Here, it sounded to me, so you could correct me if I misinterpreted, that at least part of your case against amending the ordinance and authorizing Harold to require mask wearing under certain conditions, is that people don't comply perfectly according to the Mayo clinic website with their guidance. Because if you don't do all these things the way they're recommending them, you'll be concluded we ought not to require it at all. Is that, did I hear that? Kind of, kind of, I guess what I'm saying is that don't tell me to wear a mask. The whole point is cover your mouth when you cough. It's also ignoring the fact that this isn't transmitted just by coughing and sneezing or breathing. It's also transmitted by touching a service and somebody else touches it, touches better than us. I'm not arguing with that, I get all that. Here's what I'm trying to reconcile in my mind is I listen to you. And I want to listen to you seriously because you've been consistent with your position on this. But if we apply the standard that I think, if the Mayo clinic represents a standard for compliance with our ordinance, right? Follow these eight or nine, whatever those steps were, to get it right. If we held every ordinance we passed to the same standard that if there's not perfect compliance in the part of residents, they'll pass the ordinance. We would pass no ordinances. We're never gonna have perfect compliance. I mean, we're gonna have approximations of perfect on everything. Our job is to do, we have a, our job is multifaceted, it seems to me. Whatever we do with an ordinance, there should be some degree of pedagogy, right? In the ordinance, there's a teaching opportunity and the ordinance itself has a chance to do some teaching. This one maybe doesn't do enough, I don't know. But if the ordinance doesn't, then our job, Council Member Christensen has commented on this several times, she did tonight. Part of our job as elected officials is help to help with that, right? In terms of helping people understand what we do and why we're doing it, what does compliance require? What are the degrees of freedom? What are the consequences if you don't? All that kind of stuff. Part of it's the city's job. What the city does with PSAs and all the communication teams outreach to the community is all an attempt to help people understand how to translate what we do into what they do and the reasons why. And it's never gonna be perfect. We're human beings, right?  But if that's, we're gonna apply that standard to this ordinance, either we have to apply it to all of them or that's an unreasonable standard, even though the guidance from the Mayo Clinic is guidance to be taken seriously. Go ahead. I was just gonna say that yes and no. I feel uncomfortable forcing healthy people to do things to protect other people or themselves in general. And so, for example, I don't drink, but that would be like saying, well, let's go ahead and take away Mayor Biden's car keys, just in case he's drunk, you know? In this particular case, I just think that there are other ways to spread or not to avoid spreading the disease, the event of coughing, sneezing, and you don't need to do it by telling healthy people to wear a mask. And I think that, I mean, is that simple? I mean, I understand that it's a state-to-world vote, but- Can I push you back just on the, I understand you don't drink, if you did, right? Or if someone you do, who does- I do. Like me. I don't hold myself to the same standard in terms of the vibing as you do. But if you had somebody, if you knew somebody who was drunk and didn't realize it, would you take their keys away from them? Yeah, but- Yes, you would. Now let me finish. Okay. People who think, people who are drunk and don't understand it, count on people like you to take their keys away. We got a whole lot of people walking around who think they're healthy and they're infected. What's your obligation, then? But you thought, okay, so they found them in New York that people- Why answer my question? What's your obligation? When people who are infected and don't know it false analogy. It's like, do you want to go to the bar and just taking everybody's keys? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Let's vote. I know I'm gonna lose. It's six to one. After the vote, I'm not gonna care. I run the law. Right? Let's just get on with it. And then we should start the day. So all in favor of the current ordinance, which gives Harold the ability to make us all dressed in moon suits and breathing apparatuses and masks and washes and whatever he'll want. So just kidding, just the PPE, et cetera. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Nay. The ordinance passes six to one. All right. Let's go ahead. We have no items removed. Let's go ahead and have a discussion about the ordinance for providing me this amount of bicycles and other vehicles on Main Street. Let's go ahead and take a five minute break since it's 9.20, all right? I love you all. Back soon. Paulie. Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. Phil Greenwall Transportation Planning Manager with the city. Just wanted to go forward really quickly and talk to you a little bit about new ordinance that you actually brought to staff back in December. The idea of bringing an ordinance to the city council or up to the city regarding dismount zones along Main Street. So wanted to go over those kind of quickly with you tonight. Obviously, we're gonna try to get this quickly going here. But just wanted to remind you that the idea is that we're gonna ask you at the end, whether you want to direct staff to leave the voluntary dismount zone which we have right now on Main Street. If you want us to keep that going in place with no new ordinance, that's an option. You could direct us to move forward with the ordinance that you have in your packet tonight. We have the draft ordinance in there right now. So we can go forward with that. Or you can direct staff to move forward on an ordinance with some changes that we're asking for actually. So Susan, if you don't mind, just go into the next slide. So what are the issues? I mean, I think that's really pretty basic. We're talking about bicycle riders on the Main Street sidewalks and that safety issue right there. We've got a couple of closed calls reported to the Longmont Downtown Development Authority, the LDDA. I've got Kimberly McKee, the executive director of LDDA on the line with us for any questions you might have. I should also mention that Ben Ortiz, our transportation planner, did a lot of work on this as well, but I guess I pulled the short straw on this one to do the presentation. So anyway, we just wanted to talk to you a little bit about this. We're seeing from our, when you talk about the community Rangers when they were in a force last year for about two and a half months, they observed the activity along Main Street and saw that there was about 82 bikes, bike riders that didn't dismount. There's other issues out there as well, as far as the ADA community that's having issues with whether it's a hearing issue or trying to navigate using a mobility device such as a wheelchair. That difficulty with having bicycle riders come up behind you when you can't hear them and they're trying to still call out, but you're trying to use a sidewalk has become an issue as well, as well as just when we're trying to talk about, you talked about it earlier in this meeting is the idea that we're gonna try to expand restaurants eventually into this area. There's already seating areas with Main Street. We're gonna try to do more of that, try to move some people back into the alleys as well. So we're talking about all these different issues. Adding bicyclists to the mix is really going to complicate that and really provide more of a safety issue. So right now we do have that voluntary dismount zone in effect or in place. It's not very effective, quite frankly. And so that's one of the reasons for, I think that you as a council move forward and ask for this ordinance. Next slide please. So we're talking about other options for bicycling and so we have had discussions with the bicycling community about this and what we're getting back from most folks is that people are on board. The bicycling community is on board with this. The tenants that occupy Main Street businesses and other establishments are for this as well. But the issue really becomes, what is your other option? And so we do have the alleyways in the back, the half block east and west of Main Street that provide that level of rideability. So we're talking about that. Coffman Street, we're actually going to be, investing $7 million in Coffman Street in the next two to three years as far as trying to build that as a more comfortable level of riding as well as doing some other improvements for transit. So Coffman Street becomes a very viable option. It is right now quite frankly, it's easily written. We don't have Kimbark on the list because we don't feel like that's as safe as Coffman, Terry and Emory streets which are more low traffic. So those are the other options that are available to the bicycling community. And so we wanted to put those out there. And again, the bicycle community is generally behind this but I'll go over in the next slide kind of when we have some contention with some things. So if Susan, if you could go to the next slide. So the council did request the dismount ordinance in December and with all the things going on we are now finally getting back to you and we appreciate your patience with this. But the questions for council and really the really the one question that we really want to change or ask you to change in the ordinance and have us move forward on this in first and second readings in July is expanding that zone up to Longspeak because right now, and as it was stated when you asked for it, it really was just going up to Sixth Avenue and that's the current, that's the current voluntary standard or voluntary dismount zone but we were asking that you allow us to move it up to Longspeak in the ordinance language. And so that's gonna be the first question that we propose for you and just ask for your permission on that. Also, the idea that we're recommending adding signage to the lineage zone I don't think that's gonna be important in the ordinance. And so since we put this together and as we've talked through it with different folks we're gonna put signage, if you wanna go forward with this ordinance, we'll just provide the signage as part of the ordinance and we'll put those at key locations as you enter into this dismount zone so that people understand where it starts and stops. So that's just part of how we would do any kind of thing like this but if you wanna add more to this that's certainly your prerogative as well. And then we talked about recommending including breezeways as far as the dismount zone and that's where we got the pushback from the bicycling community that you really utilize those breezeways to be able to cross over and be able to bicycle across the zones from the alleyways. So that's the one thing that we'll just kinda give you a heads up that that might come back when we're talking about the ordinance. If you wanted to move forward with including the breezeways in this ordinance that's something where we're gonna get pushback from the bicycling community and there will be some comments. So at this point, if you wanted to leave that out that's certainly something that we would do in the ordinance that you bring up. So those are really the things that we wanted to bring forward to you and again, try to quickly put together the conversation here and get your responses back. And if you have any, that would be great to hear at this point. I'll get called on you. I'll just remember Christian, Paul, yeah. I'm knocking out a little bit too. Okay, since I was the one who brought this forth, I believe. The real impetus was all the things that you mentioned, Phil. It's a hazard for disabled people, for children, for dogs, for elderly people, for people who can't hear, for people who are trying to maneuver wheelchairs. And also, as Phil pointed out, we are talking about trying to extend restaurants, perhaps a little more onto the sidewalk, which would be very helpful. And we can't do that if we've got people whizzing by on bikes, knocking over people who are going in and out of restaurants. The reason I brought this forth in the first place though, remember is because someone died. He was riding on the sidewalk, then he whipped out into traffic, and I'm not saying this is his fault, but I'm just saying this creates a situation where more of a hazard, it's just a dangerous situation. I would like to ask, Phil, why we're talking about extending it up to Long's Peak, which doesn't seem to be a very busy part of downtown. And I don't see a need personally to extend it to Long's Peak. And the other thing was, oh, breezeways. I didn't understand, Phil, whether you meant that the icicle in community does want to include being able to use breezeways or does not want to include breezeways. To me, breezeways aren't very wide either because they have landscaping. And so then you're talking about the same sort of a situation where it isn't really a very good situation for somebody to be whizzing through the breezeway when somebody's not expecting them to be somebody going 20 miles an hour through the breezeway. So could you clarify for me whether, what the bicycle in community, what they wanted on that or didn't want? Yes, Mayor and Council Member Christensen, I'll take your last question first and then I'll pass it on to Kimberly for the question about extending the zone up to Long's Peak. So the breezeways are a bit wider. There are some entrances that do impact the breezeways. So we are concerned about that. What the breezeways are kind of used for right now is really the ability for people to be able to access Main Street and be able to walk their bike, but able to get to Main Street through those breezeways on their bicycle and we ask that they slow down obviously and that they take it, be careful in those areas. But they are a little bit wider than our sidewalks along Main Street, quite frankly. And so what we're doing is we're just, of course, if you wanna include the breezeways, that's fine, but just to give you a sense of the comments that we're getting back from the bicycle in community, that there'll be some comments on that and some pushback. So we're trying to kind of balance that. But the idea is that we feel like the breezeways do provide that cross access for bicyclists and at least let them get to Main Street so that they can dismount and then get to the front of their business or be able to use the alleyway to get to the back of their business. So those are the things going on there and then I'll turn it over to Kimberly for the comment. One more question though about that. The breezeway is not very long. It's the length of the building. They could just as easily and get through there by walking their bike, which they can walk their bike up and down Main Street anyway. I mean, and they can walk through the breezeway. I don't know. Okay. Kimberly. All right. Customer Pat, can you hand them this up? I thought Kimberly was going to answer one of them. Sorry, if we go ahead and use the key. Thank you, Mayor Bagley, members of the council. You know, I do think it is important to extend it up to Long's Peak. We have heard from several property owners up there that they are also experiencing the same issue.  So it is actually, there's a lot of kids there and people continue to go up there. So it does seem like too, also for consistency to keep it throughout the BDA that that would be important. Okay. As to Long's Peak, correct? All right. You done, Paula? Thank you. All right. Customer Pat? Thank you, Mayor Bagley. My, I think you should extend it to Long's Peak. I think that's a good idea. The thing with the breezeways, I can see that as controversial, but the breezeway ends at the sidewalk and then goes onto the street. So people are walking at the end of the breezeway on the sidewalk. So there's no way to control that speed through that breezeway when it hips the sidewalk. Has this been a problem? Or has this been a concern, Kimberly? Have you had complaints about the breezeways? You know, not so much about the breezeways, you know, much more on the sidewalks. You know, breezeways, I think they could be added now or maybe added later. If the breezeways continue to evolve as gathering places, I think that it'll be harder to have cyclists on it. It's probably a little bit easier right now because there's not as many people hanging out there. However, as we look at, I think all of the real estate that we have downtown, any public spaces, breezeways, alleys, sidewalks are gonna be so crucial the rest of this year and probably into next year for additional outdoor seating for being able to make sure people have social distancing, that type of thing. So I really think now is the time to act on these bicycle things. So we don't have continued conflicts. So I think that breezeways, you know, I think Main Street's the most important, but I also think breezeways could evolve into being just as important as we look at alternate solutions. My concern is that we don't have competing visions and competing goals for our city. For example, we're trying to get people out of cars, make a more walkable, bikeable community. But if we keep limiting where the bikes can actually ride to get down to the businesses that we want to reopen and be sustainable, so it is a kind of a tightrope walk here with those breezeways. I don't wanna limit the access to downtown from people on bikes. I think that's a dangerous way to go, especially when we're looking through Dr. Cog at Vision Zero and other methods of transportation. So for right now, I don't think we should include those breezeways. I think we should wait, monitor, see how it goes. My only concern with them is that they go too fast when they hit the sidewalk at the end of the breezeways. And there could be somebody pushing a baby carriage or the couple I always see in their remote control wheelchairs, which I kind of want one. So I think right now from my perspective, we leave the breezeways out of it, watch, make certain, so we don't take away our ability to have people on bikes get downtown. Be very careful with that. Thank you. Thank you, Casper. Back Casper Martin. And then I will go with Casper and the waters after Casper and Martin. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Phil, what I'd like to understand is what the objection of the cycling community is to dismounting in the breezeway, because as somebody pointed out, it is like 10 steps to get through a breezeway. Why wouldn't you dismount in the alley and walk over to Maine? Mayor and council member Martin, excuse me. I think that the reason it goes back to council member Peck's point that just accessibility through, you know, we're kind of removing something or accessibility for bicyclists by providing this dismount zone, though you can still walk your bike obviously on the sidewalk. But that was part of the issue was people use those, they feel like they're really good ways to transect the corridor. And they, you know, the people that spoke to us obviously try to do it in a careful way, but that's not to say, you know, everybody's gonna do it that way, but they try to do it in a careful way and they want that access and be able to stay on their bike through that, as you transect Main Street there.  So that's part of it, but I think it just goes back to that idea that we're limiting accessibility for bicyclists by not allowing them on Main Street and they want to have as much accessibility as they possibly can get. So they're essentially defending a territory. I know you don't wanna say that, but that's what I wanna say. Okay, it's not like, if they had a reasoned argument that was involved, it's gonna cause some problem or another than I wanted to be able to hear it. But if it means I have to slow down 200 feet earlier, I kinda am with Kimberly. Okay, thanks. Thanks Mayor Bagley. So just on the breezeway question, I come down, I think we're Council Member Peck is to say, I don't certainly wanna restrict that now. Let's kinda learn our way forward on it because it's gonna be discouraging enough to bicyclists who we're trying to generate more, not less enthusiasm for bicycling. But I do, I guess it'd be helpful, Kimberly, to give you a vision. And it's hard, I understand, to get all the unknowns. I prefer to, the places that we're reading about that are, or maybe it's Council Member Hidalgo-Fairing, that are closing off streets. We saw Seattle has now permanently closed up 50 miles of streets or whatever. Some, then we're talking about doing the same thing, to encourage, to create more space for people to be out in distance, but also to encourage bicycling. And as I've thought about this, it's like, how cool would it be if you locked off traffic from first to Long's Peak on a Friday and Saturday night from four o'clock till 10 o'clock? But the primary way to get there is gonna be bicycling, right? So it's like, if you're not gonna change the trees, you're gonna have to have a lot of bicycle racks and where are those gonna be placed? Kind of what is that vision? Because it would be helpful if I had the Gestalt to know what, you know, where does the breezeway fit into the Gestalt and how much of an imposition is it on the bicyclist to have to dismount at the edge of the sidewalk to walk across the street into the next breezeway? Because I get those points that, you know, that's the way to get east to west in town if you're going downtown.  Help us with what you see as the big picture here. Sure, Mayor Begley, members of council, you know, certainly I would love nothing more than to have more people bike downtown than drive. And so this is certainly no way of us hoping that people don't cycle. I think the thing that we realized was, no matter what you're doing, everyone becomes a pedestrian at some time, whether you drive or bike or whatever. So making sure that pedestrian friendly happens first is a need for everybody. I would work with you to do everything and anything to close Main Street during these times to have it be out there. It's probably unlikely. So we're looking for other solutions than other real estate. But, you know, Phil and I have talked a lot. When we did the voluntary dismount zone, at that point we added 30 bike racks. I think since then we've added 35 more bike racks throughout the BDA. We've talked about on the avenues taking parking spaces and putting large bike racks there. So we would absolutely evolve any bike facilities as this continues to happen. One of the things that I'm always talking to Phil about, and I think when we were talking about the steam corridor, one of my visions for transportation is that there would be bike routes that all intersected through downtown. So every neighborhood led to downtown and that became the intersection to connect all the neighborhoods together. And I think having a very robust network of both pedestrian and cycling amenities is very important. You know, this summer we're social distancing and things like that. And again, I don't want to say that we're being very cautious of how we're going to have people come together. But in the past we've talked about how could we do bike and movies? How could we do different things like that to really encourage the cycling community? So I think our vision is how do we keep everyone safe? I mean, keeping people safe is all I talk about these days whether it's if they're going into businesses how are they getting here or those types of things. So I would love to see cycling take a front seat especially this summer, especially as we're trying to encourage people if they aren't comfortable going in places at least go out and get exercise. So cycling into downtown and walking around looking at the public art or window shopping or picking up food and picking it home is really important. So we will continue to work on that as alternate transportation and certainly look at all of that infrastructure and add to it as needed. Breezeways are 125 feet. I cycle to work almost every day in the summer. I will say I have walked my bike through breezeways and when no one else is in there I have cycled through breezeways, right? So I think that people will do it either way but as we encourage maybe cafe dining or more seating or whatever it could become a problem but we could grow into that and amend it and add those as needed. They still could be voluntary. Hopefully as people get used to dismounting they will just walk it anyway if they see a crowd in there. So we hope like that education would take forth but you know a lot of the times cyclists that we see are just booking it and they're not coming to downtown they're coming through downtown and every street has bike lanes. Terry has bike lanes. There's so many easier and quicker ways than dodging pedestrians to do that. Well I favor the dismount zone and I think I'm leaning towards going slow on the restrictions on the breezeways until we figure out what the outdoor dining is gonna be like and obviously Phil and his crew will do a whole lot of work with our bicycling community to understand what's at stake if we can't get it right. So, who else? I guess I'll go. I didn't quite catch that. Anyway, thank you, Mayor Bagley. So I agree with what Kimberly was talking about that I think a lot of the problematic bicyclists and skateboarders and longboarders and things are simply commuting through downtown. I see that more than folks that are riding to downtown as a destination. I just wanted to mention some of the things I saw in the 2012 survey that was provided in our packet that I really enjoyed reading as far as alternatives to or ways in which this would be effectively enforced and that would be possibly using the restorative justice technique as well as taking a while to use signage as well as a period of time for education before the mandatory dismount zone is fully realized in some sort of punitive way. Those two things really stood out to me and while it was interesting reading that survey saying that they expected a lot more traffic when the Roosevelt Apartments opened showing some of the dated information and I thought that was telling, if you will. I do hope that there's a time when I live close to downtown and rub bicycle down there more often than not and I would actually use the alleyway as much more than I would use the sidewalks in. I think that going to that issue as well, I could see how that'd be dangerous if not trying to obey the same, the similar rules of one way that the cars have to obey in the alleyways as well. Those are just a few of my observations from reading through the packet on these issues. As far as specifically the breezeway, I'd be inclined not necessarily to include that in the mandatory dismount zone at this time. I guess what I'd ask is, Robin, okay, so does somebody have a motion they'd like to make instead of just, we can say our opinions, but somebody make a motion. Aaron, do I make a motion? Tetsper Christensen, do you want to make a motion? Sure, I'll make a motion that we pass. I don't have the number before. We move the ordinance to first reading. Paul, you're muted. You're muted. You're muted. There's a motion on the table from Council Member Christensen to move this ordinance to first reading. Do I have a second? Second. All right, it's been seconded by Council Member Peck. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. All right, the motion carries unanimously. I think I remember my Kimberly, if there's anything you'd like to change in the ordinance between now and then, I'd like that feedback between now and first ordinance, if that's okay. All right, cool, thanks. All right, Council Member Christensen. Just to clarify, what we passed was to also extend it up to Long's Peak and leave out the breezeways. Yeah. Yeah, it's coming back the same ordinance that's in our packets, yes, up to Long's Peak, no breezeways. And then so if one changes that, someone will have to make a motion. Well, I also think that, you know, some of the breezeways, as Kimberly has said, if some of them are used for people to extend their businesses out, bicyclists are smart people.  So each breezeway will generate, depending upon how it's used, its own sort of behavior, hopefully. I mean, I'd much rather people just dismount voluntarily, but they have not done that. So that's why, once again, we have to pass an ordinance. Thank you. We'll be back in July with those ordinances. Great, cool. Thanks, Bill. All right, let's move on to Mayor and Council comments. Does anyone have anything else to say? Can we go home? All right, all right, we all wanna say stuff. Council Member Yackel-Ferring, then Dr. Waters, then Council Member Martin, then Council Member Christensen. Okay, so the first thing is, typically when school is in session, we hear from the Longmont Public Library about their summer reading program, but because they don't have a way to get, disseminate that information, I kinda wanted to, I wanna make this public that the summer reading program will be continuing this year from June 1st through July 31st. I think they typically have done in the past tickets to Lakeside, but we don't know if they're, it's not gonna be open. So they did through the Friends of Longmont Library receive donation to provide books to winners or people who turn in there, the kiddos who turn in their summer reading bingo. So I wanted to get that out there to be active drop-off. If you have books that you still need to turn in, you can drop those off as well. And then the other thing is, I found out from CDE that we, the district will receive, we have earmarked $50 million. For COVID relief funds. So that's exciting news, that's great news. I guess this would be a reason to push filling out your census, so we can have numbers. We were given that amount based on the numbers that we have defined in our district. Fill out that census, so we're eligible for more funding. That's all I have to say, good night. All right, trust member Waters. Two things, Mayor Backley. I wanted to just go back to, in Harold's report, he shared the result of the work of a group, Anne Maka had organized through the museum. And Anne is our education curator. I've had a chance to have my path cross her. So I want to say, nice going Anne and to those who organized around and with Anne. That's a great example of the staff rising to the occasion. So high five. The other observation would be that at some point since we postponed interviews from Saturday, we got to get on the calendar when we're gonna interview candidates for Boarding Commission positions or appointments. And prior to that time, I think we ought to have a session like this to talk about what we want to learn. What's the protocol gonna be? How will we learn in virtual five minute interviews? What we need to learn? What have we heard from staff about what their needs are in terms of boards and commissions so that we can have an efficient process that honors our time, the time of the applicants and what we're asking of them as volunteers on behalf of the city, one month. So I'll get my calendar out if we're ready to pick a date. That's already been put on the calendar, not coming again back. So we'll have the opportunity to do just that. That's where Martin, with your hand up, you're next. Yeah, I was next. I'm gonna be something of a curmudgeon. We've been talking a lot about the common good and that is really important to me. It's more important to me than my constitutional right not to wear a mask or a funny hat. But I think that the common good is tied together with things that are constitutional rights like respect for one another's property. The city has the property. We don't have homesteading here. We respect each other's property rights. We don't deface each other's property rights. Yet, we seem to have rewarded a group of children, families for defacing property rights. Sensitive riparian preserve. And I don't like that. I mean, it's great that we've come to a kind of a solution where, well, we're gonna let the kids use it during the summer because they don't have any place to ride. But then in the fall, we're going to restore it to what it's supposed to be. And this time, we're not gonna reclaim it. Everybody says, well, they've been doing that for years like that is some reason why it's okay.  But then this morning I noticed and it scared me and I called the police. And it's not a defense that, well, she didn't call a police last night or the night before. So I must have a right to sweep on this porch. No, you don't. And this community, a large number of members of this community have fought hard to protect our riparian areas. And I think that it's a duty of parents to let their children know that we don't have homesteading here, that we do have property rights, that the city has property rights and that destroying a nature preserve is vandalism. So I just want to get that side of the story out there. And sorry folks, but that's the way I feel about it. Councilor Peck. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. I think this issue deserves a larger conversation. You know, maybe 20 years ago or 30 years ago that was okay, but things have changed and I'm not going to demonize children for being creative. I did like the idea that the last caller made where the community gets together in conjunction with the city. I think that would be very creative. It would be enabling the residents to have a buy-in. What other way would be good to have children get involved with their city, other than to plan their own play area and what they need, and the parents help build it? I think this deserves a bigger discussion and I will, if nobody else does next week, I'm going to move that we put it on an agenda to discuss because it's interesting and I will never demonize children for being creative, even if it was 20 years ago, 30 years ago, life is point of order. Yeah. Councilor Martin. I don't like being accused of demonizing children. I am not talking about the children at all and I'm talking about their parents. Look, I'm going to open up a point of order because I don't think Council Member Peck was saying that. I think I didn't hear about it. I can understand where to take offense if she was, but I don't think she was. But what else, Council Member Peck? I just agree that we should discuss this, perhaps a bigger discussion at a different meeting and I'll make a motion next week if nobody else does to put it on an agenda to discuss. Okay. And then, Council, if you said anything at Council Member Prussia, go ahead. Yep, your turn, Paolo. Paolo, your turn. I want to thank Susie for the census. We've got to get people to fill out the census. It's only 65% or something and it's not good enough. It is your obligation to fill out the census and we much prefer to have people do this remotely on their computer or by mail, both of which are very easy to do as opposed to forcing somebody to come to your house and knock on the door and try to get you to answer questions that you could, it really takes five minutes. So just do it. I appreciate what Councilor Martin said and also Council Member Peck. I do think that this, according to some of the information we've gotten about the bike jumps, this whole thing is going to be demolished this Friday. So I would like us to put that off a little bit so that we could have a discussion. I think there's a huge amount of community interest in this. We got a petition with 2,000 names on it. So I do think that before we demolish something, we have a responsibility to have a discussion about it and let people know the difference between kids having fun, which we were all kids and we all loved our bikes and we all want our kids to have fun, but there's a difference between private property and the city's property, which we have liability for and we're also trying to develop this riparian area and we're also trying to restore the damage done by the flood. We have to be able to do those things. And but I want kids to be able to have a voice in what goes on and they're doing creative stuff. This happened in a council, I mean Mayor Bagley's neighborhood and the city worked with them to a happy situatio